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?

Cricket

My dh worked in quite prestigious schools and one of them even temporarily suspended him whilst he was being questioned. This was 16 years ago and he's never worked in a school again as a teacher.
He has all the clearance required but the treatment he received from employers was terrible.

The argument of it not being as bad as the poor victim is of course true.
I would never say different and even understand the intrusive questions about our sex life and the whole horror of what we went through was nothing in comparison. Even though answering honestly at the time seemed to be pointing the finger at dh even more.
But I believe that both dh and myself were victims too, ito waking up one morning to a knock on the door that would completely change our lives.
He lost 2 stone in a few weeks, he wasn't big to begin with, he vomited when they first came in and said why they were there.

The difference is that now 16 or so years later, we have moved on and the poor victim will probably have the memory every day.
However, that's not to say that innocent lives should be changed forever and the whole community know about it.

My memory of being raped is also quite fuzzy and blurred at times.

I have told people about what happened on here a couple of times but I'm fully aware that my story hasn't always been consistent and people would no doubt spot inconsistencies and changes if they read all my accounts under the different NN's I've posted under.

According to people on here that must mean I'm a liar .

Of course it has nothing to do with the fact it was a traumatic experience for me. Nothing at all to do with the fact I'm a human and not a robot with a computer chip for a brain who can always recall details of events 100%.

What about anonymity until charged?
A compromise between the two views.
I don't know what to think really but people are in the eyes of the law innocent until proven guilty and it is extremely unfair to say otherwise.
Although the events like last week don't improve the situation.

you do know if you are accused of rape and or charged or went to court but found not guilty you can no longer work with children vunreable people etc and your reputation is ruined just bloody look on this board about not guilty does not mean innocent etc just another rapist got off etc

I have an idea.

Why don't we just forbid women from reporting rape at all?

You know just in case he's found not guilty and might have his reputation ruined...

Even if he did in fact rape her....

It just proved to me that the police are trying to overcompensate for not catching Savile when he was alive and their ethics are very skewed
CR's case is different because he is a 'celebrity'. The police wanted to be seen to be doing something.

The man who sexually assaulted me at work last year denies it and tells people who ask that I'm a liar who made it up.

Who do you think people believe?

Me or him?

Have a guess now...

We have no idea what the true rate of false accusations is. We know that the number where the woman is PROVED to be lying is low, but there is an unknown number where it is false, it just can't be proved.

If person A accuses B of rape, and it is then found out that A never even met B and was elsewhere at the time of the alleged rape, then the case is a provable false accusation. That MAY (depending on what happens as a result) make it into false accusation statistics.

If however, person A accuses B of rape, but actually the sex was consensual (though maybe regretted), B may be found not guilty of the rape, but its impossible to prove that A made a false allegation, unless she outright admits it. So it wouldn't make it in to false accusation statistics.

Given the vast majority of rape cases turn on the issue of consent, where false accusations can rarely be proved, it is impossible to know what the true rate of them is.

Coupled with that, some women (or men of course) may make an allegation of rape that they feel is completely founded, but that isn't actually rape. ie where someone feels 'I don't know if this was rape, but I feel it was wrong' following crappy sexual behaviour from someone, or equally, where someone simply regrets the sex the next day and over time they start to wonder if they truly consented after all, because they wouldn't have done so when sober.

None of those would make it into the 'false allegation' statistics.

The ones that do are in the tiny minority, so they actually mean very little.

Sex offences are also treated differently in that the complainant gets anonymity, whereas with a violent offence, they will usually not.

I really think the time has come to change the law on this, and give sex suspects the right to anonymity.

Because people will not employ people if they have been accused of rape or child abuse (if the company knows about it via google search in papers / news etc)

The man who sexually assaulted me kept his job and suffered no repercussions at work.

He's wasn't suspended, wasn't given a warning or a disciplinary. I was told he was given a stern word but I don't even think that's true either.

In fact it was me who was put under pressure to leave.

But yes, people always take the woman's side don't they?

I haven't RTFT but I feel it should be anonymity until charged. If I was Cliff Id be fucking fuming. He finds out about if on BBC news when there's a helicopter over his house. The allegations were 30 years old wtf did they expect to find. His accuser has his name hidden. The cps don't even say he's innocent just there's not enough evidence. Either test the evidence in court or stfu with not enough evidence.

I'm not saying all rape victims are lying but occasionally they do or that rape isn't rape unless you've been dragged off the street at knifepoint. Just that if you're wrongly accused of theft or assault or any other crime no one really says no smoke without fire or looks at you askew for the rest of your life.

Blueskyrain I think you have to be very careful with some of those things you describe as not rape.

If reporting rape was such an easy thing for women to do that many just make it up,mushy are the reporting stats so low?

Someone I know was falsely accused of rape by an acquaintance with a grudge against his wife. The treatment he received was awful. The police arrested him at 10pm at night (there was no need for a night arrest, they took several days to arrest him after the so called offence was brought to their attention). They would not allow him to call anyone to come over and babysit his dc, instead they had brought social services to take them into care . How is that right, his wife could easily have come home from work. He was treated as guilty from the start, the officers told him he was going away for a long time, and refused to listen to him. His name was dragged through the mud without ANY evidence.

The case never even came to trial but the authorities dragged it out for 6 months. Eventually they told him he had a right to sue her, but he won't. He doesn't have the money for legal representation.

The current system is flawed.

no thats not what i am saying virgin I am saying that there needs to be things in place that after the trial if foudn not guilty of a new idenity being provided so while the invesigation is on going allow for the accused life to contine on after being found not guilty because with social media being accused of a serious crime sticks with you forever

And employers now google search people (if they are not stupid that is) and the chances of a company employing someone whoes name comes up with a rape case are near nil of being employed were as before social media and the internet the accused could move areas to start their life again without it tarnishing there life forever.

I agree that things that could be seen as off putting rape victims is bad but cannot it be done with balences to protect the people found not guilty (aka a free deed poll name change hidden from public records so new name cannot be traced by the public to someone accused of rape / child abuse / serosus crime etc so they can re build there lives while not granting anominty to the defendant?)

That is was i would campagn for but hey apprently i am rape apoglist for trying to defend the notion of the law innocent til proven guilty

I fully agree with Cliff Richard and I hope he is successful in this.

If not, then if the accused are denied anonymity, I think the accusers should also be named. This would surely help to stop this awful situation where weirdos/attention seekers etc have got nothing to lose by making up these awful accusations.

Reporting rape is so much fun.

You know with the being stripped naked in front of strangers, photographed, examined, having internal exams...then of course you'll have people calling you a liar and doubting your word. Your sexual history is held under scrutiny because you know, if you've consented to sex with one man then obviously you consent all the bloody time to every other man...

You have to stand up in court and tell strangers what happened and what he did do you whilst you were vulnerable...

Then of course if he's acquitted at any point people will then call you a liar and screech that you should be sent to jail.

It's all just so easy for a woman to cry rape isn't it?

I have no idea why more women don't do it...

Blueskyrain I think you have to be very careful with some of those things you describe as not rape.

No I don't.

Having sex when a bit drunk is NOT RAPE
Having sex with someone that you regret the next day is NOT RAPE
Crappy sexual behaviour which is not rape is by its definition NOT RAPE.

There is a view of MN sometimes that sex which isn't enthusiastically entered into by all parties, on the pure basis of desire, is rape. That's rubbish. Having a partner be naggy for sex, which you then agree to is not rape. It might be crappy sexual behaviour, which needs addressing, but reluctant consent is still consent, and its not rape!

btw I AM NOT SAYING IF FOUND NOT GUILTY THEY ARE LYING I am just trying to preseve the innocent until proven guilty and if that means people that are found not guilty be given new untraceable name changes so they can be "innocent" to the rest of the world until such a time the shitty nonsense of no smoke without fire etc has died a death so be it.

As with what i suggest mean victims can come forward to give evidence if they recognise name etc but if found NOT GUILTY they can contine with their lives as if they are INNOCENT which is what they are in the eyes of the law which should be the only thing that matters to the public

That is was i would campagn for but hey apprently i am rape apoglist for trying to defend the notion of the law innocent til proven guilty

It feels like it on here sometimes :-(

A Virgin, it's so depressing isn't it? Let's make it harder and harder for the 80,000 women a year who experience sexual violence to consider reporting just in case an error gets made.

No wonder the police in my area are seeing a sharp increase in sexual violence.

Blueskyrain, I feel responding to you is utterly pointless, but sexual coercion IS rape.

The problem with the 'new identities' solution is that it wouldn't work for anyone high profile, and the argument that they need to be named to see if others come forward, is most potent for those that are high profile.

Chances are that Fred down the road might not attract a lot of press attention until the trial, at which point its rather too late to bolster the case with new witnesses. The press attention will be on the trial, and could still wreck his life, but his naming would have served little purpose.

What do you mean by 'sexual coercion', and do you have any authoritative links (ie to reported criminal cases) that support your definition of rape?

Forcing someone to have sex is rape, but I get the feeling that 'coercion' goes far, far wider than the law, in your eyes. Simply nagging for sex, trying to persuade etc is NOT coercion, and I'm baffled as to how you think it is.

And here is someone else who knows someone who was falsely accused

fox how do you know for sure the accusations made against him were false? Or are you just assuming that because there wasn't enough evidence and it didn't go to trial then it obviously must mean the accusations were false?

Was his accuser charged with making a false accusation? If not then how can you possibly say that the accusations were false?

Why was he innocent until proven guilty but she isn't. She's just automatically guilty.

You see this is what I don't get.

People always go on and on about how women can accuse a man of rape and people will automatically believe her and shun him. Even if he is acquitted later down the line. People will still apparently believe her and shun him.

But that's not true is it? If anything it's the other way round. People believe him and accuse her of being a liar. Look at how many people have posted here about the women who they "know for sure" made it all up and that they "know for sure" the man didn't do anything.

There is no proof at all that she made it up. They just "know" she did because he wasn't found guilty or because he was a nice guy or because he was my friend/brother/husband and he would never do anything like that...

And of course innocent until proven guilty only works one way apparently...

*Red if there wasn't any evidence that he raped her then why did the CPS decide to take it to court? They only take cases to court if there is a lot of evidence against the accused.

And why are you so sure that the accusation was false? Because he was found not guilty? That doesn't mean the accusations were false. It just means they were unable to convince the jury beyond reasonable doubt that he did do it.

Changing her story doesn't mean she was lying either. It just means that she is human and doesn't have a picture perfect memory which means that she may have recalled events differently/incorrectly as time went on.

I'm not saying the man did it btw. I'm just baffled as to why he's innocent until proven guilty but she isn't. She's just automatically guilty of making the whole thing up by default.

Why does innocent until proven guilty only work one way?*

It got to court purely because of circumstantial evidence.

Her story completely changed in as such as even locations changed. She in fact was trying to jump off a bridge, had called him and said if he didn't come then she would jump. He went, it was in broad day light on a main road with cars passing. Police were called but didn't get there until after he had talked her down. 2 weeks later he was arrested for raping her in broad day light on that fairly busy bridge that day. One of her stories put them in a completely different location on the same day at the same time (which obviously having had the police attend they knew was a lie). Another story was that they were taking drugs together in the hours leading up to the rape - when infact he actually left work in the middle of the day when he got her call and was back at work within the hour and has never touched drugs in his life. Massive lies. He was very lucky his employer stood by him too, but for a while his life was horrendous for that time.

She was found guilty of a false rape allegation - yet her face wasn't in the paper like his was.

but if it went to trial and found not guilty his name would still pop up in a google search so in effect it shoudl still be given as atleast an option as it would help with the aftermath and still be innocent until proven guilty which is import

She was found guilty of a false rape allegation - yet her face wasn't in the paper like his was.

So she was found guilty but the press didn't pick up on it?

Somehow I find that very hard to believe.

The media loves falsely accused of rape stories and will jump on them at any chance they get.