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?

Oh and any evidence that was collated, what happened to it?

I try to avoid using anecdotes in situations such as this, as it's really not relevant, but I want to counteract some of the anecdotes being used in this thread.

Firstly, I have never known someone lose their job after being accused of a crime. Suspended on full pay yes, never sacked - unless found guilty.

Secondly, in my experience, when a man is accused of a sex crime, people tend to either not know anything about it until a court verdict (unless a high profile case) or people side with the accused on the basis that women lie and nobody likes to think that a "normal" person would do that, because of course all rapists and abusers are weirdo, bogeymen in dark alleys aren't they

I recall one case where the accused only line of defence was that he couldn't remember the details, no denial. The community mocked and bullied the accuser and not the accused, his fiancé went on to marry him, no questions asked.

I'm sure some lives are ruined by false allegations, but many more are ruined by a justice system which stacks everything against them.

FWIW, some people have been lobbying for this change in the law for years, is anyone really naive enough to think this isn't being proposed to protect powerful men in government. Come on!

Had the horror of a family member being abused at 14 and finding out (by accident) he's been arrested before for a least 3 other separate younger children, they never managed to put him away. Our court case failed to put him away too. He went on to abuse an 8 year old girl and finally got 5 years, served 2. thankfully now there is a conviction and he's on the register his next victim has a chance.

He's already broken probation and recalled back in prison, don't know how long for.

Its horrific that he was there offending over and over, the police knew it, but they just couldn't nail him for anything and he had the protection of anomity to continue his abuse.

The idea that pretend victims jump on accusing bandwagons is wrong. Well, for all I know there might be people trying to do this, but they won't get far. Certain details are kept back, so the police can tell with a fair amount of accuracy if the later victim is talking about the same perpetrator. This happened to me when I realised I'd probably been one of John Worboys's targets: the police officer asked exactly what happened & what was said at certain points. Those details hadn't been publicised at all.

It can go wrong, too - the team investigating the Yorkshire Ripper dismissed evidence that didn't match the details they knew about, so the picture they were building was incomplete.

But it's just not true that loads of women leap out of the woodwork going "Me, too!" and spouting what they read in the paper. (In any case, there's such a lot of shame attached to being sexually assaulted, I can't think many would volunteer for no reason.)

SecretOtherName - I know what you mean. The man I knew who was convicted of rape was also convicted of child abuse offences, but didn't go to prison for them. It took the police two years to get him in prison - they knew he was a predatory sex offender, they had seized his computer, he had written what he had done on it. He said he had just 'made it up' and none of it was admissable in court. In the meantime nothing had been reported in the press - he was walking the streets, free to spend time with women and children. It's sickening. It's made me realise how many of these people are out there, and it makes me very very careful with my own dc. BEcause the law is on the abuser's side already - he's innocent until proven guilty - and boy, is that weighted on his side. He doesn't need anonymity to add to his arsenal.

Keir Starmer found that false allegations are far rarer than previously thought - About 2-3%.

I've just finished reading (okay, skimming) the CPS research, and all it actually seems to show is that convictions for making a false allegation are very rare.

OK contortionist.

In KS research, there were 5651 convictions for rape, and 35 convictions for making false allegations during the 17month study. That equates to 0.61% if my google calculator is correct.

2-3% is therefore fucking generous.

However, KS said that some of the false allegations were not worthwhile public prosecution, due to them being for example, children, or severely mentally ill. Which is fair enough imo - we don't generally drag children on the mentally ill through the court process.

Some stats also take into account "mistaken identity" in the false allegation figures - again - not an appropriate case for a public prosecution.

HTH

Women, and children in particular are collateral damage to these people in power. May sound sensationalist but it's not. Look at the paedophile priests - for decades, they were known about, but just moved on to another area. Look at Jimmy Saville - how many people knew and actively covered it up?

It's unbelievable. And this - ooh - suddenly they're going to get anonymity too. So teachers, priest, youth work, sports coaches, music teachers, government ministers can all carry on working even if they've been accused of crimes against children? I really hope this is not the case.

Since so many on this thread have cite 'loss of job' as a reason to have anonymity, I can only imagine that they want all those accused to keep on working until actually convicted in a court of law?

Even where safeguarding is an issue they don't lose their jobs normally, they get suspended on full pay. If they're acquitted they go back to work.

Personally, I'd want to know if my child's piano teacher had been accused of a sex crime against children, or anyone. Surely any parent would?

I don't want them to have anonymity - the risk is too high.

but if there is not enough evidence etc should that be on record forever more as mentioned prevously there was 3 teachers in my local area who where all accussed very very publicly of molisting a 17 year girl in a sixth form school (2 male 1 female)

Basically these 3 teachers all give this girl really poor marks in there lessons as she did not do the work etc and she thought she could get better marks extenduating circumstances to achive a higher grade so she reported that she was molesited in the collage by these staff members

all 3 teachers were suspended on no pay (apprently this is actully the norm in these cases as i laugh that people think that accused people only ever get suspended on full pay (the lucky ones only get suspend rather then fired right out of hand to the shitty bringing profession into disrupt catch all term for easy firing)

there was tons of media intrest in this case huge amount of police resources pumped into it etc and the 2 weeks that she said when she was assulted by all 3 staff 1 was in hospital 1 was out of the country (so two were not even in college at the time) this went on for 6 months before she finally caved and told she had made it all up

So she was charged and found guilty and can you guess what her punshiment was for effectivly ending 3 peoples careers ? 120 hour of communtiy service.

They were all basically forced to resign from school after the incerdent and can you guess if they manged to get another job as a teacher ? .... the answer is no they didnt and you think that people that are accused of things should forever be banned from teachering because of only accusations.

worridmum - that is a horrible case, can you link to press reports?

But, you know, that doesn't negate the very serious sexual abuse that has taken place by those in positions of responsibility against vulnerable people and children. For your one case there - I will raise the hundreds and hundreds of women and children abused by Jimmy Saville, who never got justice, who reported it and weren't believed. That's just one man. All the children abused by the paedophile priests over decades (probably generations) and nothing happened - their lives were ruined. Abused children have their lives ruined.

and whoopsbunny proves my point if parents learn that teachers , trainers or anyone working with there kids have been accussed of something like this the people effected loss there jobs ether by parents campgains or simplely put out of buisness (piano teachers etc) by simply no parent wanting to hire is that fair?

You all should be ashamed of yourselves you hypocrites you have just shown that no matter what the person acussed is guilty if found innocent means not enough evidence and enough sex offender walk free and because of publisity the community punishs the accussed by shunning them in the local community to active campgains to drive them out of their homes (police do not do enough to provent this) and in some cases take justice into their own hands (rarely get punished as most witnisses wont come forward as they think they desrivered it)

And so comes back to how dangerous the we belive you campgain is (it was good for bringing support to victims but basically says our justice is useless and no matter what the man is a rapist

As innocent before proven guilty is bloody useless if its pussumed right of the bat that the man is guilty as even if found innocent it basically only means not enough evidence to convict and in that stupid system how possibly can the man clear his name?

so why even bother having a trial why not just throw him stright in jail yeah thats a good idea it will get us a 100% conviction rate for Rape by basically doing away with trials as its not possible ever for the accussed to be in fact innocent

Righto -so you think people working with children should carry on working with when one of them has made an allegation of sexual assault? Really?

Well, away you go then. I'm a bit more careful with my children. You obviously think children make these allegation up, just for giggles, or bad grades and shit, and have completely closed your mind to all the convicted sex offenders there are, who actively seek out ways to get access to vulnerable children.

Would you believe your own child if they told you they had been sexually assaulted?

why yes rightly so 3 teachers can no longer work with children and there careers they ave worked for go up in flame? and numberous others accused of such crimes and so you are basically tough luck lifes not fair deal with it

They have no come back they cannot sue the accussed because shes has no money or assests oh and they dont quaily for student loans etherso they cannot retrian (if they are teachers as they already have a degree) so what do you suggest they do with themselves now that they can no longer teach because of an acusation?

yes i would be what do you suggest about people that have been totally cleared? that there careers and lives are ruined like the case i mentioned? once i am home i will link the news story for you to read.

And so your saying its rightly so that i can go to any school right now and name a male teacher and say he raped me on such and such day and bang his career is over? is that right is that fair?

just to be clear - You'd let teachers continue working as teachers after an allegation of sexual assault by a pupil?

would you condemn someone for just an allegation you might as well just throw them in jail then

and yes i would if it is proven unsupstainiated i would as all they have done wrong is been accussed of something not proven just accussed otherwise its no smoke without fire bullshit

what would you suggest they do with there lives once they can no longer teach and can not go to university to retrain as trhey already have a now useless degree because of an accusation?

and would you actully employ someone honsetly with an allegation like that (back to no somke no fire rubbish)

(as it will forever show up on DBS check) so its not just schools its any job that requires a criminal record check oh i forgot about that that basically excludes them from basically any job these days