To think Cliff Richard and co should stop their awful campaign?

[PinkyOfPie]

news.sky.com/story/sir-cliff-urged-to-drop-campaign-for-anonymity-for-sex-offence-suspects-10620627

In a nutshell Cliff Richard and other well known men have launched a campaign to grant anonymity to accused sexual offenders.

AIBU to think they should FOTTFSOF? Aside from it being a well known fact the other victims come forward when they see their abuser/rapist has been charged, there is absolutely zero evidence to suggest a 'false' accusation of a sex crime impacts a person more than a false accusation of any other crime. Its a horrible rape myth that damages victims.

Also the official stats false accusations for rape and sexual assault (of which around 35 people are convicted a year in the U.K.) are no higher than false accusations any other crime.

So why in gods name would those accused of sexual crimes ever get special treatment?

I completely agree with you, op.

YANBU but I suspect we'll be in the minority.

If anonymity for suspects had been in place before John Worboys was convicted then he would likely still be out there raping women in his taxi.

www.cps.gov.uk/publications/research/perverting_course_of_justice_march_2013.pdf

Source of the 35 a year. In the same period 5651 men were convicted of rape (we know this will be higher as it's notoriously low convictions rates). But going off the stats, for every 161 men convicted of rape, only 1 person tried to lie about someone raping them.

Yes agreed, I cannot find any justification for granting anonymity. For what? so that they can carry on without the public being careful?

AVirgin I'm hoping the consensus on MN would agree with me but there's always the odd MRA and apologist who slips through!

I agree with you

PinkyOfPie that is very powerful.
so they are most likely guilty as charged

I completely disagree. I think accused people should have anonymity until (it at all), they are charged.

Cliff Richard et al have had their reputations destroyed, and there is no going back. It is not good enough to just say that other victims may come forward.

I hope they are successful.

Well its for anonymity until tjey are procen guilty which i think is fair enough. Peoples lives have been ruined for falsely being accused of rape. How is that fair? So someone's name is printed as soon as they are charged but not necessarily guilty. By all means name them if they are found guilty but not before.

I agree.

(tin hat as thread will go anyway) I think he was the fall boy in the ring to get this legislation through.

And I am certainly no apologist. Don't know what MRA is, but assume it's slagging off someone who dares to disagree with you.

agree with word too

Word do you think this for all criminals or just those accused of sexual offences?

You think "it's not good enough" that people see their abuser in the news and that gives them the bravery to come forward (like with Max Clifford and Rolf Harris victims) strengthening the prosecution case meaning it's more likely a rapist will be jailed for their crimes? You can't see how removing that would be problematic?

MRA is Men's Rights Activist (usually knocks about to trample over anything women's rights related)

What about other crimes like murder or gbh? Should people accused of those crimes have anonymity, or is it just rape/sexual offences that require special treatment?

Peoples lives have been ruined for falsely being accused of rape

People's lives have been ruined after being falsely accused of all kinds of serious crimes - murder, child abuse, etc but people don't jump up and down and whine about how unfair it is that they aren't given anonymity.

Whisky can I ask you too do you think this should be for all crimes or just rape?

But they would be named if they were proven to be guilty so therefor more people would come forward if thats the case? Its not like the guilty will never be named..

Thinking about it now, probably all crimes. Im not sure why it isnt the case. It definitely should be. Innocent until PROVEN guilty

Quite AVirgin poor Christopher Jeffries was falsely accused and strung out by the press for Jo Yates' murder but don't see him or anyone else launching a campaign for the anonymity of those accused of murder

Cliff Richard was NOT found innocent. It didn't go to trial because of insufficient evidence - that is NOT the same as being innocent. Only 50% of rape cases that go to trial result in a conviction and the CPS will not send it to court if they don't think there is a reasonable chance of a conviction. I suspect the majority of rapists go un-convicted because it never went to court in the first place.
I totally agree with pinky

I'm surprised to hear it described as a rape myth that alleging sex crimes doesn't impact a persons life any more than another crime. I'm generally in favour of naming the accused, but we should give serious thought to this campaign.

If your husband or brother was falsely accused of rape (statistically , it's unlikely, I know) would you really consider that no more troubling than an accusation of fraud or property crime?

Yanbu

Sir Cliff can fuck off.

Just that.

Ok velocity but he wasnt proven guilty either so why should he have his name plastered over the papers and helicopters and drones flying over his house?