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?

OP "I also can't think of one celebrity who's been acquitted of rape that has had his life or at least career, ruined."

I think John Leslie could possibly fall into that category. Some would no doubt say his sex life and sex tape with Abi Titmuss might have something to do with it, but she's gone on to have a fairly successful acting career and now lives in Hollywood.

I think you hit on a valid point in that for some accused and acquitted life does return to normal but there will always be the people who subscribe to "no smoke without fire" and I have seen it time and again on MN on this very topic (Bill Roache, Michael LeVell being two) where MNetters were posting very definite "no smoke without fire" postings to the point where a lot of stated we hoped never to be on trial with a jury of MNetters. There will always be whispers but perhaps no more than this.

But then there are others for whom their lives are totally ruined, not just theirs, but their wives, partners and children too. We've heard about some on this thread. And I think we do have to think about those people as well, which is why I think it should be anonymity until at least charged.

Shatners less than 2% of reported rapes are classed as false. And yet 85,000 rapes go unreported every year. the British Crime Survey results showed that 28% of women said it was because they didn't think they''d be believed. You can see why everywhere, from the CE case & other high profile cases, to posts on MN.

Anonymity would hinder rape investigations, surely anyone can see that. So do we really want to consider the less than 2 % of people who may be affected by an alleged false allegation over the thousands of women each year who don't get justice and have to live with the after affects of rape for the rest of of our lives? And probably make the conviction rate even lower.

Again, SAVILE. Anyone who agrees with anonymity, I've asked before but been blanked, how can you agree with it based on that bastard alone? Anyone??

Mycat I don't deny for one minute that it is appalling that successful prosecutions are so low, that so few rapists are brought to book. One wrong does not make a right, though, and I'm sorry, but having seen a family completely and utterly devastated through a false allegation - damage was already done by the time it was conclusively proved beyond all doubt that it never took place - I am totally torn.

If we're talking Savile, I'm sorry, but I think that is a totally different kettle of fish because HUNDREDS of people KNEW and said NOTHING. Had one or two high placed BBC or Stoke Mandeville people spoken out, there is no question he would have been brought to trial. As soon as he was charged, the floodgates would have opened.

I am happy to accept anonymity until charged. But the naming in the way Cliff Richard, Jimmy Tarbuck, Paul Gambaccini etc took place was totally wrong.

The problem with anonymity until charged is that the police/CPS - if they're doing a thorough/proper investigation - can only get a charge if the evidence is there. Especially with historic cases where there is no forensic evidence, you would want other victims to know so they can come forward - the statements of several women, who are not known to each other all giving similar evidence is massively important evidence. If only one woman comes forward and no-one else knows their rapist has been accused because they've got anonymity, how are they going to get charged? No charge, no other victims can come forward.

Stuart Hall is a classic example that I gave yesterday but those in the anonymity camp conveniently ignored it.

Youve made it clear you think more of what less than 2% of men and their families may through if they're falsely accused compared to over 90% of women who will never get justice and have to live with the effects of sexual abuse and rape, so we will have to agree to disagree. Having seen for myself the sympathy that many men get when they're not charged, with their victim being the one accuse of lying I also see that even in those situations the victim is the one whose life is ruined - we may get anonymity but it doesn't stop people whispering 'she must have lied or the CPS would have charged him'

But just so long as 90% rapists are protected, never mind the victims.

Saville is a red herring. He was never arrested, charged or tried while alive and none of that was because of any notion of anonymity, there were countless people who knew he was as dodgy as fuck. Saville's "immunity" was because of a combination of his own personality, an outrageous culture of celebrity worship and a corrupt self serving organisation. What happened to Cliff Richard is wrong. It doesn't matter if he's rich, well connected and of celebrity interest he is still entitled to the same process of law as everyone else.

I think John Leslie could possibly fall into that category. Some would no doubt say his sex life and sex tape with Abi Titmuss might have something to do with it, but she's gone on to have a fairly successful acting career and now lives in Hollywood

I really don't think John Leslie is a good example of a man who's been wronged. The number of women who've come forward (although no convictions have been brought yet) and his own admittance about the way he treats women is quite alarming.

And why wouldn't Abi Titmuss go on to have a successful career?! She's never been accused of a sex crime. How bizarre to compare them just because they dated

itsmine

How is it not the same?

If we had anonymity until charged, we would never have known that Savile was the worst seriel sex offender we've ever seen.

Same with Stuart Hall that initially said (of the 1 woman who accused him) her allegations were callous, cruel, pernicious and spurious. If we had anonymity then, those other women wouldn't have come forward and strengthened the case against him - which in the end he pled guilty to.

These are just examples of men in the public eye. Men NOT in the public eye are just as capapble of being serial offenders. Most rapists don't rape in isolation. Which is why anonymity is the worst thing for rape victims, regardless of who your rapist is.

Shatner i didn't know Jimmy Tarbuck was accused, off to Google!

Jesus, Savile was NOT a red herring, or not a 'good example'.

Yes many people knew what he was doing and he was protected. Women tried to report him to Surrey police before died but for some strange reason it never got anywhere (I wonder why).Anonymity would have made it even harder to get someone like him charged, let alone convicted. And there are plenty of other Savile's around.

The issues surrounding rapists who have wealth and social power are another thing that needs to be tackled, but don't mix those issues up with anonymity and say oh well. there are other reasons rapists like Savile didn't get caught so you can't use him as an example to not have anonymity. You bloody well can.

These are just examples of men in the public eye. Men NOT in the public eye are just as capapble of being serial offenders. Most rapists don't rape in isolation. Which is why anonymity is the worst thing for rape victims, regardless of who your rapist is.

I think that's the Crux of my issue is that the nature of accused celebrities isn't that of the everyday person. As Janice pointed out, very few get reported and in all my years of work I've never seen anyone 'normal' (non celeb) be named before charge. Ever. I understand why it happens with celebs as they're more well known and press will pick it up. While I think a formal charge should be the rule of thumb for naming suspects, there is definitely an argument that in exceptional cases (e.g. Where they think suspect may be a serial rapist) that in order to gather evidence for a charge they name them beforehand
to help other women come forward. I do realise this contradicts somewhat what I said earlier about not naming before charge, and for the most part (e.g. For a 'one off' allegation) I stick to that belief, however putting it in concrete law would potentially stop serial rapists being brought to justice. I think it should be down to police/CPS discretion in exceptional cases.

Hope this makes sense, i was up far too early for coherent arguing

I wouldn't trust the police or the CPS to make the decision as to what was an exceptional case. I've seen too many cases in my line of work that are NFA'd because the investigation hasn't been handled properly.

Again, I think the overwhelming majority of rapists don't just rape once, so you can bet that if someone's raped once, they'll rape again so in that case the police would be naming nearly everyone who was reported.

What's gutting about reading some of these responses is that it's clear people care more about the 2% of people that MAY have been falsely accused than the 90% of rape victims that never get justice. You're saying that we need to protect the feelings of a handful of falsely accused and in doing so enabling thousands more rapists to gt away with it. Truly depressing.

itsmine

people where Savile worked may have known he was a serial offender.

the rest of us didn't and would never have known if we had anonymity for men accused of rape.

itsmine

what better evidence to gather are the statements from other victims who, on their own, would be too scared to come forward for fear of not being believed? Statements from women not known to each other but who could give very similar accounts of what happened to them by the same man?

The sort of evidence you wouldn't get it if we introduced anonymity for men. Because nobody would know their rapist had been accused by someone else.

I haven't actually seen any links on this thread to stories about 'normal' people named before charge itsmine but happy to be proved wrong

That link you posted doesn't say that he was named before charge. He was charged, falsely we now know, but he wouldn't be affected by a law change. He needs support in the way any victim of a crime does and I'm pleased the woman was jailed for perverting the course of justice. However that one example is not enough to protect tens of thousands of actual rapists, and I never think it will be.

Pinky You said you couldn't think of one celeb whose career/life had been ruined. I suggested he MIGHT be one. The initial charge was dropped by the prosecution following additional information from the woman involved. His career went down the toilet.

That's not to say he treats women well, but his career tanked immediately he was linked to the Ulrika Jonsson rape, even though he was never charged with it. He also admits he was not brought up to respect women properly.

I merely mentioned Abi because if Leslie's career tanking at the time was due to the sex tape business, it didn't harm Abi's - which would tend to give credence to the rape allegations being the cause of his career tanking.

I didn't say I liked the man!

"So do we really want to consider the less than 2 % of people who may be affected by an alleged false allegation over the thousands of women each year who don't get justice and have to live with the after affects of rape for the rest of of our lives? And probably make the conviction rate even lower. "

It's not even 2% of people. It's 2% of men accused of rape. Most men aren't accused of rape, even most rapists aren't accused of rape. It's a tiny tiny handful of men. Tiny.

Versus thousands of women raped a year.

Those of you demanding anonymity for the former, cannot pretend that you care about the latter. Please stop saying you do, because the very act of demanding anonymity, makes it so much more likely that rapist walk free. And you think that "what happened to Cliff Richard is wrong" outweighs all the wrong suffered by thousands of women every year.

There's a real cognitive dissonance going on here. I've no doubt that some of you genuinely believe you care about rape victims and you don't care more about men falsely accused of rape, but what you are calling for, inevitably results in more rape victims being shafted by society and our justice system.

You cannot square that circle. It's simply not possible. Hence the cognitive dissonance.

Ask It's not just that small amount of men, though. It's their families as well who also go through it. I don't disagree that it will be a smaller number of people than those who are raped or assaulted. But if you or a family member or close friend who has gone through the stigma of being accused of something you haven't done and your life is put on hold for upto 18 months, you can't work, some family and friends desert you, it is very difficult not to feel badly treated and that it couldn't be handled better. We're basically saying those people, their partners, children, relatives had to just accept they are collateral damage for the sake of genuine victims. That doesn't quite sit right with me. There has to be a better way. There may not be a perfect way, justice isn't always perfect, but at the moment, I still think anonymity until charged is a better way - but combined with better treatment for victims, certain court tactics disallowed, very harsh prison sentences for convictions and better support networks for victims.

Shatners, how you've described what happens to men and their families 'falsey accused' (and do you mean the 2% that are classed as false, or others who weren't charged/acquitted? cos they aren't the same as a false allegation) is exactly what women go through when they report and nothing happens to their rapist. I know from my own experience.

AskBasil has it right. You can't ask for anonymity and care about the injustices that thousands of women who are raped live with.

Itsmine, I read your link. I'm reminded of Frances Andrade who killed herself after giiving evidence because her cross examination was so brutal (she never heard her rapist was found guilty), and Tracey SHelvey who through herself off of th top of a carpark after the jury in her case found the defendant not guilty. And Eleanor deFreitas who killed herself before she was put on trial for making an alleged false rape allegation (I say alleged because she was never found guilty, and as people keep saying on here, innocent until proven guilty). And I think of th thousands of women who have their lives ruined, who can't hold down a job, a relationship, who just exist because they can't get over the abuse they suffered and nearly always their rapist is walking free. There are thousands and thousands of women living like this compared to less than 2% of so called false allegations.

I say so-called because I am aware of women that have been convicted of a 'so called' rape allegation and sent to prison, where I don't believe the allegation was false. Here's some examples:

www.theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/19/bitter-aftermath-failed-rape-prosecutions

www.womenagainstrape.net/content/rhiannon-brooker-%E2%80%93-victim-not-only-rape-miscarriag