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?

And if the police ask a witness to identify someone, what's to stop that witness from telling everyone else who that someone is? Anonymity means not naming the person to anybody.

I think they have to keep on naming them. There are too many cases where corroboration has been such a major factor in conviction to risk losing those convictions.

However I'd like to see the conversation around it change. MNHQ and an awful lot of Mumsnetters are appalling in this regard. They take the attitude that an accusation is enough to assume guilt 100% rather than being more circumspect. It's this sort of attitude that causes problems with identification being allowed in the first place and I wish people would exercise more caution.

I do think the law will change very quickly through soon. Be an interesting debate because the media will be conflicted. Not naming might fit their agenda but equally naming gives them more stories to fill their pages. Public opinion I am sorry to say will be very much to not name to conviction.

Indeed Basil. There are a lot of crimes that are stigmatised yet funnily enough the only one that people insist suspects should be kept anonymous is the one where the majority of perpetrators are men and the majority of victims are women. I really don't think that's a coincidence.

Nope, not a coincidence at all. As another poster said, the focus is always on the effect it will have on men because they are the important ones.

MNHQ and an awful lot of Mumsnetters are appalling in this regard. They take the attitude that an accusation is enough to assume guilt 100% rather than being more circumspect.

This goes completely against the "I believe you" campaign

"MNHQ and an awful lot of Mumsnetters are appalling in this regard. They take the attitude that an accusation is enough to assume guilt 100% rather than being more circumspect."

No, they don't.

They take the attitude that if someone says they have been sexually assaulted, the right thing to do is believe them. Because the overwhelming odds, are that they are telling the truth.

This does not conflict with the need for a fair trial where the balance of proof lies with the prosecution which must prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt.

Believing victims doesn't automatically mean condemning people without a trial.

I know that the general opinion is that people accused of rape should be given anonymity but do people not understand what will happen if they get given anonymity? Or do they simply not care?

Rape is a tough crime to prove and prosecute. A lot of the time convictions only happen because more victims have come forward after the accused has been named. If more than one women who have no connection to each other have said that x has raped them then it makes a conviction more likely than it is if it's just one woman saying that he raped her.

Again, remember John Worboys? If he was allowed anonymity then there's a good chance he would still be out there raping women.

If you give them anonymity then there's a very good chance that the already very low rape conviction rate will fall even further.

If someone comes on MN and says they've been burgled, the general reaction is to believe them and suggest courses of action based on that. No one worries in those situations that there might be some innocent person accused of burglary. Equally when someone comes on and says they've been sexually assaulted the general response should be to believe them. Unfortunately what some posters like to do is to quiz them and imply they're mistaken, in a way they would never do for another crime.

The "I believe you" campaign does not have the universal support of all members. Certainly not my support.

I know a girl (who was once a friend) who falsely accused a fellow student of rape. She had her crazy reasons and admitted it in the end, firstly to her friends and then to the police.

Rochdale/ Oxford is a good example of women coming forward after publicity. They are still coming forward.

I don't think those accused of rape should be treated differently to those accused of any other crime, so
Continue to be named

So if someone says they've been burgled Apostrophes, do you also assume they're lying?

I don't assume they are lying but I do wonder about insurance fraud. It's not wise to blindly believe everything.

Who suggested you blindly believe everything?

I also worry that people's perceptions of false accusations will change for the worse if suspects get given anonymity and conviction rates.

Like I've already said, there is already a widespread belief that false rape accusations are common and how allowing suspects anonymity just enforces that belief as it singles it out as a special kind of crime and that women routinely lie about being raped.

However I have also come across some people who take the "false accusations are common" train of thought even further and insist that there is an epidemic of innocent men being jailed for a rape he didn't commit. The fact that only 6% of reported rapes end in a conviction doesn't even seem to sway them - nope they will still insist that there are lots who have been wrongly jailed.

So if conviction rates drop because you aren't allowed to name suspects any more then I fear those people will then turn around and say "see? I told you that innocent men were put in prison for a crime he didn't commit! The conviction rates now dropping proves that!"

I also worry that people's perceptions of false accusations will change for the worse if suspects get given anonymity and conviction rates

That was meant to be and conviction rates drop because of that. No idea how that got cut off there.

'However I have also come across some people who take the "false accusations are common" train of thought even further and insist that there is an epidemic of innocent men being jailed for a rape he didn't commit. The fact that only 6% of reported rapes end in a conviction doesn't even seem to sway them - nope they will still insist that there are lots who have been wrongly jailed.'

This is known as magical thinking a belief in something that affirms your world view in the face of all evidence to the contrary. There is no point in arguing with it, it has no basis in logic.

Not sure how it's done now, but when I lived in Scandinavia there was a general agreement among the press to stick to anonymity for all accused persons, regardless of crime, until charges have been proved. They could only be mentioned under circumlocution, such as "the 32-year old". Sexual crimes were not singled out. There was nothing to stop individuals from naming a charged person, but no newspaper would print it. Not sure what I think of it- but at least it was nothing specifically to do with whether one believed accusations of rape.

It did stop people from coming forward: otoh it also stopped people from surging round to the address obligingly given by the papers to throw firebombs at somebody who had mistakenly been named as guilty of some heinous crime.

otoh it also stopped people from surging round to the address obligingly given by the papers to throw firebombs at somebody who had mistakenly been named as guilty of some heinous crime.

That doesn't really happen though does it? Far worse that it stops other victims/ witnesses coming forward than prevents something which Hardly ever happens

Police forces rely on the press to get information about crimes out to the public so that the public can give information. How can you gather evidence if no one knows what you're looking for?

I think in the case of naming celebrities, it may serve a purpose in that other victims might be brave enough to come forward.

Not that that works with the 'innocent til proven guilty' thing. But I always suspect that's why some information is sometimes 'leaked'. CPS knew they needed a bit more concrete evidence on that one, and some other victims to come forward.

Apostrophes jsut because you know one woman who once lied about rape, what does that prove?

The figures are clear: fewer than 6% of rape allegations (and some estimates have it even lower, under 2%) are false. And of all those reports, they are only a tiny percentage of actual rapes. 85-90% go unreported. A quarter of women get raped or sexually assaulted at some point in their lives. Hardly any of them report it. Hardly any men ever get accused of rape, even if they have actually committed rape. Men are more likely to be raped by another man, than they are to be falsely accused of rape.

What do you think is a more pressing problem? The mountain or the anthill?

Oops, I meant the police as at that stage it would not have yet been with the CPS.

Rather in the same way that when someone is killed and they suspect a relative, they get that relative to do the press conference - to see if they can trip them up.

Not that that works with the 'innocent til proven guilty' thing.

Naming an accused in the press doesn't make them guilty. They are still innocent until proven otherwise.

It's interesting isn't it - mostly men are arrested for sex offences agsinst mostly females. Police forces , mostly men, release information they shouldn't ( in most cases) to journalists , mostly men and again we have to have this debate about lives being ruined , rampant false allegations, for the hoardes of false accusers ( mostly women) to be sent to prison and for those charged with sex crimes, mostly men, to be treated differently from all other persons charged. Cliff should stfu about changing the law and focus his ire on the SY Police ( that model force of policing) and what they did that caused his name to be in the public domain