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?

About 1% of rapes in the UK get a conviction. About 1000 a year. So tens of thousands of rapes a year without a conviction.

Then there are a tiny number of falsely accused men. Very few. 109 prosecutions for that in five years.

Naming helps the first issue; not naming helps the second. I'm with the tens of thousands of mostly women and children rather than the very few mostly men.

Ok Apostrophes. Thanks for the utterly fruitless discussion.

You're welcome. Next time try not to make things up or put words in people's mouths. Debate is much more smooth without that kind of nonsense.

I can honestly say hand on heart Apostrophes that I have no idea whatsoever what point you were trying to make.

No-one has mentioned the programme on Channel 4 last night. It illustrated only too well what the police are up against in proving a case of rape to the CPS. Basically they can prove sex took place (even rough sex) what it is difficult to prove is whether it was rape or consensual sex (we're not talking about an unprovoked attack here) but when things "get out of hand".

Dh was accused of rape (years before I knew him) by a girl he had stood up in favour of going to a football match with his mates. He said the police questioning was very tough, and he was locked in a cell.
The girl had, had sex with someone and Dh could prove he was at football as he had witnesses but he said it was a horrible experience.

In reality, nobody has the slightest idea how many rapes or false allegations there are. By the very nature of the crime it's almost impossible to prove either. All the 'research' in the world can be bandied about, but in reality they're nothing more than stabs in the dark.

And the attitudes of some people on this thread are exactly what is endangering identification. 'Chances are they did it, no smoke without fire' etc, etc, etc. Threads like these are fantastic ammunition for those who would like to scrap anonimity.

It's such a complex issues. Due to the Jo Cox shooting I don't fancy debating this further for a while.

*Scrap identification of accusers/anonimity of victims.

I'm torn on this issue. On the one hand I think it's encouraging other potential victims to come forward. I also know for a fact that most women reporting rape are telling the truth. I have also known several women who have made false allegations but these weren't publicised cases. Those experiences make me a little more cautious about automatic belief but automatic belief is certainly my instinct.

I also know a man associated with a high-profile case who's name was published nationally. He spent several months in prison on remand. A few in segregation for his own protection where he was essentially neglected and abused by prison staff. Even in seg he had to hear other inmates shouting all the time about what was going to happen when they got to him. Every day almost constant screams and taunts. When put on the wing he was attacked violently several times.

He was aquitted at trial. Came out to no job, no home, widespread hatred because 'no smoke without fire'. No-one will employ him. He can't use any social media because of abuse and threats. He's harassed by neighbours or strangers in the street when they figure out who he is.

His life absolutely has been destroyed. Some celebs may be able to carry on like before but that often doesn't apply to 'normal' people.

If I didn't know him I'd be more than happy for the accused to be publicised but having seen the devastation that can occur I'm a bit more conflicted.

mylovegoesdown, how does that differ from having been accused of murder, or granny-mugging, or torturing and robbing people in their homes etc.?

And how many men does this happen to, versus how many women are raped and will never, ever get justice?

I know which problem I think is bigger.

I thin a part of the problem is that when people (not necessarily those here, but the wider public) say the accused shouldn't be named before charging, what they actually mean is that they shouldn't be named if they are famous and in a privileged position

Because the very same people I see on our FB a page (am a journalist) calling for anonymity for people like Cliff, are exactly the same people getting the pitchforks out when they see a whiff of a local person accused of any type of sex crime.

FWIW I've been in this job for more than a decade and have only named a rape suspect before charge once because police put out a very specific appeal as he was on the run and they wanted to capture him. In the vast majority of cases, suspects are not routinely named before a first court appearance. In fact, getting anything at all out of our police force is like getting blood out of a stone. They only very, very rarely tell us in advance when someone is going to appear in court. The first we know of it is when we rock up in court one morning to find a triple rapist in the dock.

I think being able to name suspects in sex crimes is important investigative tool and I don't think that parliament should be laying down laws to prevent it given the number of MPs, former MPs and people in power themselves accused of such crimes.

Given that rape cases are a case of one person's word against another's I think that it is important that that the accused name is released so that other victims can be persuaded to come forward. This way it is lots of peoples' words against another's

Some celebs may be able to carry on like before but that often doesn't apply to 'normal' people.

So all of those people who say they know men whose lives weren't ruined because of an accusation are all lying then? The two men who I know who were accused of rape but whose lives continued as normal with no impact on them whatsoever are just a figment of my imagination?

What about my coworker who sexually assaulted me? He kept his job, wasn't given any warnings or a disciplinary. The only "punishment" he got was a stern word and being kept away from me for a while. Though sometimes I do wonder whether us being separated was to protect me or him

Currently only around 6% of reported rapes end in a conviction. Do people honestly believe that the other 94% now have their lives ruined, regardless of whether they were falsely accused or not?

Considering that even convicted rapist don't necessarily have their lives ruined when they are jailed - you will still see people defending them and questioning whether they were really guilty - there is simply no way that I buy that men who are accused have their lives ruined in the epidemic numbers that people claim they do.

I'm still standing by what I said before - the only reason that you would be making a big song and dance about rape suspects being given anonymity is if you believe that false accusations are commonplace and that poor innocent men need protecting from us evil lying women.

I always bring this up in threads like this (and have already done so on this thread) but rape isn't the only serious crime out there and it is certainly not the only stigmatised crime.

Do you think people accused of murder, stealing from grannies, torturing animals, etc should be given anonymity? People have been falsely accused of those things before and IME people don't take kindly to people who are accused of them, falsely accused or not.

Yet funnily enough it's the crime where the majority of perpetrators are men and the majority of victims are women that people get their knickers in a twist about how unfair suspects are allowed to be named, people have been wrongly accused, the suspects should remain anonymous, etc. Why is this?

So all of those people who say they know men whose lives weren't ruined because of an accusation are all lying then?

Not at all, but some false allegations do have catastrophic consequences (and not just for the accused, often for their family as well) - the people saying that aren't lying either!

On that last point, nobody has ever being able to answer it. People usually just go on to accuse me of being a man hating feminazi who is clearly making a fuss about nothing and oh but those poor men, won't somebody think of the men!

The key word there is some andro. I'm willing to bet that men who do really have their lives ruined because of a false accusation are in a tiny tiny minority.

I can assure you that far more women have their lives ruined because of rape and seeing their attacker walk free. But people don't tend to care about them because well, they're women and not really important. Certainly not as important as the tiny percentage of men who have their lives ruined because of a false accusation even if there are far more of them

ToadsJustFellFromTheSky - there is a lot of injustice in the so called justice system! I have often struggled to find a balance within my own views, not least because I've seen the failings of the system affect people I know on both sides of the issue.

Rape unquestionably devastates lives, the victim is the obvious one affected but often the effects on their immediate family are often dreadful. The nature of the crime makes proving it beyond reasonable doubt very difficult, how you tackle that without reducing the standard of the courts is an ongoing issue. Without witnesses, corroborating video or enough overt violence to give forensic support (the absence of all being very common in rape cases) it is always going to be one of the most difficult crimes to prosecute.

With all that said, I still find it difficult to accept naming suspects certainly prior to charge if not conviction. Every time I look at my friend who was falsely accused, see the physical scars from being attacked and witness the psychological damage done I question the system (his accuser admitted to the malicious allegation and was convicted). His life was utterly ruined, hers not so much.

I take your point about other offences not attracting the same commentary about anonymity, but rightly or wrongly there is the impression of a worse stigma being attached to rape - both for the victim who is effectively put on trial for the actions of another and the falsely accused/acquitted who may never escape the cloud of suspicion.

Fully agree with pps who have stated that it can be a catalyst for other victims to come forward and it's a tiny tiny minoroty that are actually charged and taken to court let alone acquitted so excuse me, but I'm not going to get upset because of that.

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

This ^

John Warboys raped over 100 women. He was arrested on charges against 14. Over 70 women came forward after his arrest and some during his trial.

70+ - think about that.

Rapists often repeat the crime so naming them does give the opportunity to gather more evidence from other victims.

I think of people innocent until proven guilty. There is a proportion of people innocent in jails and there will be a proportion free that are guilty.

When someone says they have been raped, I believe that they think they've been raped and when someone says they have been burgled I think they think they have been a victim of crime. Believing that you have been a victim of crime or believing that you are innocent is different to actually being innocent.

In times of great stress, the mind plays tricks: some guilty men I believe truly think they are innocent and some women truly believe they have been raped.

As one who made a false report of burglary, later found to be unfounded, I don't take much on face value. (We truly believed we had been burgled...)

Yanbu

There should be automatic injunctions against media reporting of defendants identities prior to conviction of any crime. The right to be considered innocent until proven guilty by a jury of your peers is under attack. People have lost their jobs, their friends, been violently attacked, even murdered despite been found innocent in court.

Mners drawing gender lines here are very wrong. I work with men who work incredibly hard to support victims of sexual violence. Men and women are both victims, perpetrators and apologists for sexual crimes.

There are complex reasons why rape is a hard crime to prosecute, saying it's simply because people don't give shit about women is political hogwash.

A women could easily be the victim of a false accusation as well, think of that before you dismiss this.

sashh Personally I think the John Warboys case is a bad example of why suspects should be named. Did the victims even know his name? Publicising the circumstances of those attacks should had been enough for victims to come forward.

'With all that said, I still find it difficult to accept naming suspects certainly prior to charge if not conviction. Every time I look at my friend who was falsely accused, see the physical scars from being attacked and witness the psychological damage done I question the system (his accuser admitted to the malicious allegation and was convicted). His life was utterly ruined, hers not so much.'

The issue that caused this whole sorry scenario was male violence. Male violence means that women are raped in their thousands and so we have laws and procedures to deal with rape that resulted in your friend being named. Once your friend was named, he became subject to the exact same issue - male violence. Male violence was what resulted in him being beaten up and needing protection.

Reducing protection for women because by introducing anonymity in rape cases because some men are violent makes no sense - why should women suffer because men rape women and beat up suspected rapists?

'Men and women are both victims, perpetrators and apologists for sexual crimes.'

Do you honestly believe women and men commit equal numbers of sexual crimes rale?