To think some changes to the law on suspect's accused with sexual offences are needed.

[11122aa]

I am a sexual assault survivor.
After the cliff Richard verdict am I wrong to think that people should not be named when investigated for sexual offences. Or even when charged. Or even naming the accuser as does happen in some countries abroad if there is a not guilty verdict?

yanbu

YANBU

I'll have sympathy for men who are accused and acquitted (which, by the way, does not mean they're definitely innocent) when men get off their arses and do something, anything, to ensure that more sexual predators are convicted.

Yanbu

And I have to wonder what it is that compels women to worry so much about men, when men don't seem to give one shit about women.

People are named as suspects for all sorts of things though.

And in the specific case of historic sex abuse, one accusation can act as the catalyst for other people to think they will be believed and make their own reports. That's so incredibly important.

As an aside, deciding not to prosecute isn't the same as declaring there is no case to answer.

Indeed Sparrow.

I think sometimes it's necessary to encourage more victims to come forward.

An estimated 85,000 women are raped every year in the UK, and that's a very very conservative estimate given that thousands of women don't tell anyone about their rape. An absolutely tiny number of those rapists are brought to court and an even tinier number are convicted. The women who do go to court are asked about their sex life, their past partners, what they wore, they're wrong footed on the stand, they're torn to shreds by the defence. These are women who have already had to endure rape.

Forgive me if I'm not too bothered about the very very small number of men who are accused and acquitted. Given that convicted rapists like Ched Evans are given a huge amount of support by idiots, I'm not too worried about them.

I think the cliff Richard case was awful. Because the police tipped off the BBC that they were raising his home. That's inexcusable to me. And the fact that's it's taken 2 years is a disgrace.

However when it comes to naming people, I can see both sides. I can see the need to see if any others come forward.

However, mud sticks and I can see the case for naming people.

It's not out of concern for men at all. Women accused of sex related crime etc should also have their names kept private...if they are accused.

saying men don't give a shit about women is extremely sexist.
all men are not rapists

What I find inexcusable is women who have endured the worst violation and abuse being forced to answer intimate, intrusive and humiliating questions on the stand in front of the person how raped them.

Who raped them.

There have been many examples of more women coming forward when a suspect is arrested which can then make charging more likely and a conviction.

So samcro, where is the thread/campaign/outrage from men about the tiny rape conviction rate?

I don't know why you stated 'all men are not rapists' samcro - what's that got to do with what I said?

Why should sex related crimes be treated differently? I really don't understand - oh wait is it because most of them have women as victims? And I did say most, not all

YABU.

If a man is innocent then this information will be out there and people will see they are innocent. However, if a man (or woman) has been accused of a sexual assault I think it is right they are named as I believe that the amount of people falsely accused is very small compared to the cases where the accused has committed a crime.

It is so incredibly difficult to secure a charge for a sexual crime that anyone who is charged is likely to have a mountain of evidence against them. It does not happen that a person makes an accusation and then someone is charged without good reason.

There have been many examples of more women coming forward when a suspect is arrested which can then make charging more likely and a conviction

I thought it had been looked into and they found this ^^.

I think both sexes are badly served by the very low conviction rates for rape. It leads many people to think that all men who are found innocent can't be when it probably just a percentage of them in reality.

I suspect for men as a whole the low conviction rates for rape aren't a visible issue till if affects them in some way - most probably when a female they know is affected by them.

I have heard some high profile accounts from victims stating their court experiences were as traumatic as the rape itself - radio 4 Today had one of the Rochdale victims giving an interview saying that and it's a sentiment I've seen and heard before. So while I understand the police are sensitive to how they handle victims these days I can image it's easier to approach and face the court ordeal when other have also come forward which will only be know if there is publicity.

Abuse goes on and on as victims don't feel they'll be believed.

Cliff Richards case was handled appallingly but id rather a few innocent accused than a lot of victims without support or help.

YABU. People being investigated/accused of a crime is of public interest.

YABVU.

There is a very good reason why people accused of rape aren't given anonymity. It's so other victims have a chance to come forward which in turn helps to secure a conviction.

Remember John Worboys? If he was allowed to remain anonymous then there is a good chance he wouldn't have been convicted and would still be out there raping women.

The Worboys case was especially heinous Toads - the police knew he'd been accused of raping several prostitutes but it was only when he started raping women who weren't prostitutes that they took any notice.

Also, people accused of other crimes aren't given anonymity so why should rape and sex crimes be different?

Of course sex crimes are very serious and a very serious thing to be accused of but it's not the only serious crime out there is it?

People who have been wrongly accused of murder can also have their lives ruined but funnily enough we don't have people insisting that people accused of murder should be kept anonymous do we?

There is already an incorrect widespread belief that women frequently lie about rape. If you were to give suspects anonymity then it just enforces that belief that women frequently lie about being raped and the poor innocent men need protecting from us evil lying women. It makes rape into some special crime, a one which women lie about often so men need to be kept anonymous to protect them from that .

The only way it would work if if you kept people accused of all crimes anonymous. However you can't single one crime out as being special and decide to give anonymity to that crime and that crime only.

IMO the only reason why anyone would want people accused of sexual offences to be given anonymity is if they believe that false accusations are commonplace .