Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

People accused of sex crimes shouldn't be given anonymity

538 replies

GallicGarlic · 22/03/2015 12:17

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?

OP posts:
Original poster
GallicGarlic · 22/03/2015 13:08

Feckless, you're splitting hairs. If it wasn't obvious I meant "those accused of sex crime", then I apologise for typing too fast and not spelling things out.

The police will need to prove their need to name in the same way as they need to request other permissions

If you're assuming permissions will always be granted as needed, then why change the law? The police aren't allowed to release information without sufficient reason to pursue an enquiry as it stands, anyway.

OP posts:
mariamin · 22/03/2015 13:08

Which means Emperor, that you are saying the woman who has said she has been raped is lying.

HootyMcTooty · 22/03/2015 13:09

Surely retaining the accused's anonymity just feeds into the myth, which certain newspapers perpetuate, that most rape accusations are false, because most people accused of rape are not found guilty or punished.

Why should people accused of sex crimes be treated more favourably than murderers, thieves or any other criminal? The mind boggles.

TondelayoSchwarzkopf · 22/03/2015 13:09

Or maybe she was raped repeatedly and nobody believed her?

Just a thought.

Because when I look around at the world in which we live which do I think is the bigger problem? Young people being systematically raped and assaulted while society and the police do nothing... Or people being maliciously and falsely being accused of sex crimes while being completely innocent - you know like that sweetheart Rolf Harris.

Nomama · 22/03/2015 13:10

Long term anonymity would, but that is not what the committee have outlined.

And whoever it was who asked if people like me think what happened with Savile was right, DFOD! You know that is no what I (we) are saying.

Maybe shouting Savile should be added to Godwin's law these days!

PtolemysNeedle · 22/03/2015 13:10

Slipper, if enough people accuse the same person of the same crime, then it's likely that they've done it.

We shouldn't need to publicly name people for victims to come forward. There are other things the police could do to encourage victims to come forward without potentially damaging innocent people. The fact that women have in the past felt they have to keep their abuse a secret doesn't mean that innocent men should now pay the price. Even one innocent man being publicly disgraced is one too many, especially when it's a result of state chosen rules.

TheFecklessFairy · 22/03/2015 13:13

Even one innocent man being publicly disgraced is one too many, especially when it's a result of state chosen rules. said Ptolemy

This, this and this again ^^.

EmperorZing · 22/03/2015 13:13

maria, don't put words in my mouth. It wasn't a rape allegation, and yes, the accuser DID lie. As well as getting some of her friends to lie too. And admitted she had done so in court.

TheFecklessFairy · 22/03/2015 13:15

It's no good likening a rapist to Jimmy Saville. He would absolutely NOT have got away with what he did if nurses, ward orderlies, doctors and police had not covered up for him. Different scenario altogether.

Superexcited · 22/03/2015 13:15

I won't sign. If there is enough evidence to charge the person then his/her name can be made public once charged. It isn't right to name people and subject them to possible vigilantism when there might be not a scrap of evidence to bring charges.
Anonymity until the person is charged and then we should have reporting that respects innocent until proven guilty until the person is actually convicted.

TondelayoSchwarzkopf · 22/03/2015 13:16

I would have thought justice for rape victims and more convictions of rapists would be the priority.

ilovesooty · 22/03/2015 13:19

Well Rolf Harris was convicted wasn't he? So it was hardly a malicious complaint.
Try getting any job requiring safeguarding if you've been publicly accused.

PtolemysNeedle · 22/03/2015 13:20

Not at the expense of innocent people Tondelayo.

Nomama · 22/03/2015 13:21

But how do those two things make it right/necessary to name people prior to there being enough evidence to charge them?

And why shouldn't that apply to every other crime?

The desire to convict needs to be controlled, which is one reason why Justicia is blindfolded and carries scales.

SpinDoctorOfAethelred · 22/03/2015 13:22

Anonymity until convicted?

If we had that rule, John Worboys might still be raping women. Remember him?

PomBearsAhoy · 22/03/2015 13:22

This is being discussed with regards to sex crimes because, lets be honest here. You're probably not going to go down for rape, even if you are a rapist are you? So if all the men are getting off charges, or charges aren't even being brought... it must be because women are dirty liars who had a bad night out and changed their minds the next day. Right?

I really wish mud did stick, I wish people like Ched Evan and Mike Tyson weren't still be offered jobs (CONVICTED RAPISTS!). How many people had to sign the petition to get Ches Evan's offers rescinded? How many people on MN defended his right to a job as he'd "done his time"? A convicted rapist? People don't care about sexual assault. The woman was always asking for it. Women are always liars.

If you had been raped but hoped it was a one off then found out that your rapist has abused others, wouldn't you feel safer putting your hand up and saying yes, he did it to me too? We're taking this away from women. Say what you want about male rape cases, but it's because this is a crime committed almost entirely by men against women and children that is being discussed.

ragged · 22/03/2015 13:23

Talking about why crimes happened 30-40 yrs ago makes no sense to me in this principle. A million other things have already changed since then.

Is there another crime where it's routine not to name the adult victim(s)?
I don't like the anomaly, rape being treated so different from other violent crimes. It's a terrible mess.
If there must be an anomaly, I feel anonymity should also extend to suspects not yet charged, or maybe even those who have been charged but not convicted.

Else allow anonymity for all people who haven't been convicted. But that really wouldn't be a transparent justice system.

FreudiansSlipper · 22/03/2015 13:24

really you do not think people lived in fear of JS and CS

they abused the most vulnerable as many abusers to they choose their victims and threaten them the very nature of the crime more often than not leaves victims feeling scared and ashamed

they were able to carry on abusing the most vulnerable because of the fear that many abuse victims feel and really who would have believed them

I would rather the press was held to account on how they report such incidences far more press coverage is given in some areas of the press of women who have apparently lied about being raped than convictions of rape itself. The DM constantly runs these stories how often do they report a rapist being sentenced

TheFecklessFairy · 22/03/2015 13:24

I would have thought justice for rape victims and more convictions of rapists would be the priority.

And how does 'naming' them achieve that? If all women who were raped came forward then the police would already know about them, wouldn't they?

Nomama · 22/03/2015 13:25

And that post of vitriol is where I sign out... such empassioned verbiage can do more harm than good.

ilovesooty · 22/03/2015 13:28

Ched Evans has been convicted, quite rightly and should never be able to get a job in football again. He isn't relevant to this argument.

Sallyingforth · 22/03/2015 13:28

Rape is a nasty, vicious and unacceptable crime.
So are GBH and murder.
I see no reason to treat suspects differently. Whatever is considered correct for any one of them should be the same for the others.

PomBearsAhoy · 22/03/2015 13:30

He is relevant as people are convinced "that because mud sticks" a man's life would be ruined by a rape allegation. It clearly bullshit.

whoopsbunny · 22/03/2015 13:31

Signed. We have an open justice system, where those arrested/charged for crimes of all types are named, unless there is a legal reason as to why they are given anonymity.

Why should people accused of mugging old ladies, battering babies, terrorism offences and defrauding vulnerable people, or even murder be named also? They are also 'innocent until proven guilty' under our legal system.

Alisvolatpropiis · 22/03/2015 13:32

The issue isn't really anonymity, it's the way in which the media is allowed to behave. Trial by media is very damaging to the legal justice system. How on earth is a jury meant to be impartial when the "evidence" are spread out across the pages of the tabloids like gossip fodder.

One which sticks in my mind isn't a suspected a rapist but someone accused of murder. The landlord of poor Joanna Yates was treated appallingly by the media, seemingly on the basis he is and looked a bit of an eccentric. He was innocent.

I feel uncomfortable with the singling out of those accused of sex crimes as being the ones who should have total anonymity. And, if I don my tin foil hat, strongly suspect that it is related to who is likely to be questioned in the very near future. Men like Jimmy Saville and Rolf Harris are not innocent, that is clear. But if they didn't have friends in higher places than they themselves were doing the exact same thing then I will astounded. And that is what I think this is about, covering it up.

Swipe left for the next trending thread