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?

Comments from police officer (I got jury time wrong it was 35 minutes not 37) available on their website

“I am aware that there was a petition set up protesting Wilson’s innocence and that, whilst everyone has the right to protest, it should be noted that public perception may change following the facts of the case being confirmed. Wilson’s behaviour was wholly inappropriate, getting changed numerous times, and was a deliberate act committed in the presence of a mother attending to her two young children. There were a number of inconsistencies in his evidence which is an indication of his guilt.

“In order to prove an offence of indecent exposure it must be shown that the defendant deliberately exposed themselves to a person with the intent to cause them alarm and distress. The evidence was so strong that it took a jury only 35 minutes to convict him of this offence. Wilson exposed himself twice to his victim and I can only hope that he learns from this and rehabilitates himself.”

I'm sure the teacher's supporters would come on here saying he was falsely accused too

None of the 'normal' examples given here (except those of the handful of celebrities) have had their lives ruined by their names being printed in the media before charge. Not one.

As has been pointed out on this thread many times, local gossip, people posting on FB etc is not the same as the press printing the names of the accused before charge. Laws aimed at gagging the press (like those that Richard and his cronies are calling for) will NOT protect ordinary folk who are falsely accused. it will only protect those who may be named by the media before charge - an elite few like Richard, Le Velle, Hall etc.

And FWIW, I am very familiar with a couple of the high profile cases mentioned because they happened on my patch and even though some of those in the public eye may claim their lives have been ruined, they are still household names, still employed, still rich. Their alleged victims, who are now assumed to be lairs, have no such luxuries. One in particular who went through hell in court is now in just about the worst state a human being can be without actually being dead. Her life really has been destroyed. Which makes it a bit rich when people talk about the lives of falsely accused celebs being ruined. Her cleared attacker ( and I was in court for the full trial, heard and saw all that the jury did, so I feel I am allowed to have an opinion on his guilt, or not) walked free and cheered on the bloody court steps. Given he knew he was destroying the life of this girl, I thought his behaviour was absolutely reprehensible. He's an innocent man though, so that's alright, eh?

Yep.

Unless you were there LuluJakey, how do you know your friend's ex was lying?

Was she convicted of perverting the course of justice?

But Janice, someone's got to be collateral damage and it's better that it be rape victims than men.

I'm slightly confused by your post Lulu. First you say

I have a friend who was falsely accused by an ex- partner.

Then you go on to say

It was one person's word against another in the end. No other evidence found. Eventually the police (or CPA, not sure who) decided not to prosecute but did not say he was not guilty, just had not enough evidence to procede.

I can never know really if he did or didn't do it.

So which is it?

He was either falsely accused or you don't know for sure if he raped her however it can't be both.

I'm also unsure how anonymity would have helped. You talked about word spreading and people gossiping however unfortunately you can't stop people doing that. An anonymity law only means he wouldn't be able to have his name/picture printed in news sources. It wouldn't stop people gossiping.

Perhaps women should just be forbidden from reporting rape at all just in case the CPS decide not to take the case further and some people will then end up having doubts about the man in question?

AskBasil she doesn't know.

She even said herself that she didn't know whether he raped her or not. She just said she has doubts sometimes.

That's why I'm that she said he was "falsely accused" at the start of her post.

Very odd.

Perhaps women should just be forbidden from reporting rape at all just in case the CPS decide not to take the case further and some people will then end up having doubts about the man in question?

Seems like the best way to protect the menz! Fuck women, some women who are raped aren't even bothered you know so not sure why other wimmin are kicking up such a stink

Janice has it in one - CR's campaign will serve to protect priveleged high profile men who'll have careers regardless of a verdict, and will ultimately disadvantage the less priveleged women who are raped by a 'nobody' in a taxi or who are forcibly coerced into sex by their vile partner 3 days after giving birth despite the fact that they're severely damaged down below (taken from many examples in the #whyididntreport thread). It send a message loud and clear that women just aren't that important

Well said Janicebattersby.

ODFOD with your passive aggressive non-posts it's very boring now.

Have noticed none of the apologists people in disagreement have anything to say about the flashing teacher, which I posted to demonstrate that the world view clearly isn't necessarily "he's a rapist let's demonise him!".

Just about every rapist is a "nice guy".

The man who raped me is a "nice guy".

The other man who sexually assaulted me is also a "nice guy".

I actually just found out today that the man who raped me has recently had a baby with his wife. A little girl.

I don't know what to make of that tbh .

But she was clearly being sarcastic 🙄

Actually itsmine it was more about the fact that people jump through hoops to think how men could be affected rather than women and the cherry on the cake is when someone comes along admitting they were raped and that they don't mind in the least. No acknowledgment of the fact that their rapists are rapists, what mattered is how the female acted. The message of some running through this thread is 'women don't matter as much as men'.

And if you think rational debate consists of constant PA digs I suggest you don't berate others for their debating skills

I never said you were a twat. I said you were being a twat.

See the difference?

So othing to say on flashing teacher and the support they have itsmine? You'd rather pick apart semantics? There have been some apologist comments on here (which I've reported but sadly they've stayed), didni say that I meant you?

Okay so you do see the difference then.

I'm glad we agree about something.

Enjoy the rest of your evening

*did i

Of course not

However I just assumed you were being sarcastic what with all your eye rolling and as you were being sarcastic it meant you obviously understood me and agreed with me