People accused of sex crimes shouldn't be given anonymity

[GallicGarlic]

I am positively astonished that, as they face sex crime allegations, MPs say sex crime suspects deserve anonymity.

This will mean no e-fit pictures of suspects, no CCTV releases, no calls for other victims to come forward. AIBU to think this is jolly convenient for serial perpetrators? And to ask you to sign a petition?

On a tangent, but i think england and wales should introduce 'not proven'

Because Jessica you stated that if the man wasn't charged and the woman wasn't charged then ergo she WAS raped. That statement is wrong.

I'm sorry you were abused, slug. Thank you for posting the exact reason why people accused of crimes are not kept secret.

Secrecy hampers police investigations.

Imagine a child you know disclosed abuse - this change would mean you couldn't discuss it with anyone, you'd have to tell your child not to mention his name, you couldn't warn your friends, and you couldn't request any further information on this person. If another child disclosed about the same person, no-one could tell you about it.

thefecklessfairy you have said it all how ridiculous! How can you liken mass rape of children to one man being falsely accused. I guess it sums up strength of feeling but imagine this over reaction being levied on someone accused but subsequently found innocent of rape.

Strengthens the argument for anonymity. Be pitchforks next.

Pilchard get a grip. It's statments like this that means feminists won't be taken seriously. You are basically saying the innocence and protection of women is far more important than the protection for possibly innocent men. You obviously have no idea the effect a wrongful claim has on a person, and their families. It is just as horrific as a sexual assault allegation going unpunished. This is from someone who has been let down on the other side of justice by the way.

feckless, malicious reporting is a crime. If she hasn't been convicted, she is "innocent" of that crime and therefore must have been raped. Exactly the same as the man found not guilty was "innocent".

I was demonstrating the problem with "innocent til proven guilty" and you chose to disagree with it being applied to someone not convicted of malicious reporting, but happy to have it applied to someone not convicted of rape.

Because the proposal to change the law is being put forward just as many powerful men are about to be investigated.

The recent convictions, some of them, are thanks to the fact that other people came forward when men were arrested. Without that, given the time that had elapsed and the fact that the victims were not known to each other, enough evidence would not have been gathered to bring a charge.

But we want to bin that, right?

I suppose a lot of people do feel sorry for people like Stuart Hall because they are getting on a bit and haven't actively abused anyone for a few years.

Another thing. Nice bit more anedata to join the rest...!

The 'all accuseds lives are ruined' doesnt ring true with me. Someone who i was often alone with, who my children were alone with, was accused of a sex crime. The first i (and any mutual people) knew of it was TWO YEARS later, just after they were found not guilty and it was in the paper.

"Please get a grip" that's not very polite

I have a perfectly good grip on the situation thanks.

I see that anonymity is being recommended just in time for the probe into abuse by powerful men.

I see lots of people say that yes men need protecting from accusations of rape in a way that no-one does for any other crimes, and I know the reason people say that ie they think women and children lie. Because absolutely being accused of rape is no worse than being accused of terrorism or mugging old people or beating babies.

The people who say, this should be the case for all crimes, well yes I can understand their viewpoint.

The people who say, this should be the case for sex crimes only, their motivation eludes me. I can only imagine that they despise women and children quite frankly.

• whoopsbunny Sun 22-Mar-15 18:30:48

This goes for many things, people think once the police are involved, even calling 101 sometimes you trigger robotic police off, and at your say so, people are arrested, court, and jail.

I dont think anyone outside the system, understand how FRAGILE the system actually is, the reasons cases are dropped, how many cases dont even see the light of day.

To actually get convictions for most things, is rare - getting away with stuff, more common.

I see that anonymity is being recommended just in time for the probe into abuse by powerful men

Thats all I see too.

Jessica, your interpretation is incorrect. Innocent in law means 'not guilty'. That is all. In your putative situation, the only people who really know the truth are the two people involved.

The people who say, this should be the case for sex crimes only, their motivation eludes me. I can only imagine that they despise women and children quite frankly

I totally concur and it is sick and vile. Esp, right now, with all these crimes coming to light, thousands of historic crimes coming out as well as current ones.

In case people don't read the news, this is a link to the BBC site with info about the various investigations that are ongoing and that police are appealing for information about.

One of the most pertinent ones to this is here:

"Dolphin Square: Operation Midland
Established in November 2014, Operation Midland is examining claims that boys were abused by a group of powerful men from politics, the military and law enforcement agencies at locations across southern England and in London in the 1970s and 1980s. It is also examining claims that three boys were murdered. It has focused on the Dolphin Square estate in Pimlico, south-west London."

BBC

Although given that some children may have been murdered, does that mean people would find it acceptable for people suspected of that to be named, and just the ones suspected of abuse not? What if they are suspected of both abuse and murder, yes or no?

Well I'm sorry Pilchard, but you seem to be speak sensationally rather than factually. The difference between accused of rape and any other crime is the long term effects.If found guilty, an old woman mugger will be 'rehabilitated', years down the line may even get on with their life. Guilty or not, someone accused of sexual assault, if outed public, will never be seen as a decent member of society again.

You think that is all not factual?

Better call the people in charge of the various investigations then and tell them what evidence you have. Then they can stop bothering with looking into all this nonsense eh.

You see I read about all this in the news and my blood runs cold.

That reaction is apparently "sensationalist" and I need to "get a grip".

We are talking about the systematic abuse of children by people in positions of power. Some peripheral people have already been convicted.

It seems as with Rochdale and all the other recent systematic child abuse scandals, many people want to stick their fingers in their ears and say lalala nothing to see here

The last thing the legal system needs is more secrecy, more protection for the accused. Some powerful men who are now dead have gotten away with horrific crimes for years and years. Some powerful men now, just may find their crimes catch up with them. And those men are about to vote for anonymity. So we still won't know who are. Smells a bit doesn't it?

The last thing the legal system needs is more secrecy

Here bloody here, its secrecy that has been the best friend of abuse for so long. Time to leave no where to hide.

There are OBV soe huge huge names involved here, its OBV going to ROCK our gov and society like never ever before, TM and others have said so, and they are on the inside.

I wouldnt be surprised if they fear the gov imploding when .if it comes out.

You think I just roll my eyes when I read these stories? Of course not, I find all these historical sex attacks as vile as any normal human. However, that does not mean we need to go on a witch hunt. I have explained more than once, the effect on the accused is substantial. If not guilty then it still destroys their life. Their families get destroyed whatever the outcome. They wonder who the hell they have apparently known all these years, and the outer community assume they were protecting them. Imagine it's you, you think life is normal until a phone call or knock on the door. Your dad, uncle, brother, cousin has been arrested for sexual assault. You think 'no, they never could'. Then the stories start, people avoid you in the street. Your car gets damaged, you get scared to leave the house. More than one person gets affected by an accusation, it is best no names are let out until proven guilty.

You told me that what I posted had no basis in fact.

Like I say, if you know that to be the case then you need to be contacting the forces heading up these enquiries and save everyone a whole lot of stress and worry and the taxpayer a shit-ton of cash.

buy your count if its the death penitly at 3% false reports (actully innocent) so say 100 state sanctioned murders happen a year you would happily see 3 innoncent people die because hey its only a small % we should be fine cant make an egg without breaking a few eggs etc

Pilchard, I feel we cannot have a discussion here. You seem to ignore anything I say really. I said you sound more sensational than factual, that's true. However I think anyone can open a paper and have an opinion. Trying to get possible innocent people named and shamed because you are enraged by the news is a step too far for me. There's no denying something went very seriously wrong in this country for these people to get away with it until now, but this petition is far from the answer.

I don't support the death penalty

Being accused of something is not on a par to being put to death.

The system is currently balanced that the "few eggs" that are broken are large numbers of assaulted women and children. To pretend that the people at most risk of harm in this equation are falsely accused men is preposterous and offensive quite frankly.