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?

sorry but I think there's a line here that was crossed with Cliff Richard. The police case against him was made public before he was even charged!? I think there is an in between scenario here whereby the accused should expect anonymity until the CPS has decided there is a case against them to be made.

But they would be named if they were proven to be guilty so therefor more people would come forward if thats the case?

If Rolf Harris only had one person take the stand to testify against him he's far more likely too have got away with it than if all the many other women who came forward also took the stand. There'd have been much less chance of a guilty verdict, so he'd have got away with it and no one would have known to Come forward. The point of victims coming forward, other than justice for them, is also to strengthen their case and ensure a sex offender is where they should be - behind bars

I'd want to know

Exactly Whisky.

Too many people think 'no smoke without fire' for there to be 'no risk' to reputations.

I disagree with the OP too - despite your name calling to try and put people off.
I think this should be true for all crimes - until there is the evidence to charge someone, then the person under investigation should not be publically named.
Our justice system is based on the premise you are innocent until proven guilty.

I would be happy with anonymity until proven guilty in all cases, but sexual abuse cases seem to have a particularly nasty lasting effect on those falsely accused.

Unfortunately part of the problem is that the police (aided by the BBC) jumped on the bandwagon and instead of relying on detective work, just fished for info by parading Richard's house search on tv. I think this was absolutely disgraceful.

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?

If my husband or brother were charged with rape or any other crime I would never think they should have anonymity. Like a PP said "not guilty" doesn't mean "innocent" anyway.

I get there was a lot of crossing of lines with Cliff Richard too (and believe the BBC came under fire for their reporting) however it's immensely arrogant and damaging for him to think his experience is common and that it gives him the right to throw victims under the bus

Hope you're wealthy Pinkie or have a good lawyer. You do seem to be inferring guilt.

Our justice system is based on the premise you are innocent until proven guilty.

You are presumed innocent until proven guilty. And who did I name call at

Sorry I don't k ownwhat you mean 5O?

*dont know what

That's not what I asked pinky. You used the term rape myth. I'm no expert and am looking for insight.

Is there research to suggest that people falsely and publicly accused of rape suffer no more trauma or personal impact than people falsely and publicly accused of property crime?

I'm aware false allegations are very rare. I'm talking about their impact where they do exist.

Actually, I maybe agree with BackforGood. Cliff Richard was named at the very beginning of investigations. Maybe in an ideal world naming would be after the court case had taken place, but at least wait until a charge has been made.

The idea or me being an MRA is absolutely laughable - so no offence taken!!

Word that was my point in my OP, there is no evidence to suggest being accused of a sex crime is worse than being accused of any other crime, it's just an assumption.

The BBC (rightly) came under fire for their coverage of Cliff Richard (who was never charged) but I do believe his experience was a one off and he should be taking complaint with police and BBC for breaching protocol rather than forcing a law through which will see even more people get away with sex crimes

"There'd have been much less chance of a guilty verdict"

So in order to be believed there has to be more than 1 case? Its the failing of the justice system if that's the case and a slap in the face to the victim.

I think there also seems to be a lot of misconceptions around this.

People seem to be under the impression that a woman can just walk into a police station and accuse any man of raping her and he will then have his name and face in print just based off her word alone. It simply doesn't work that way.

The majority of men accused of rape already are kept anonymous. I guarantee you that rape trials are a daily occurrence in courts all over the country but the majority of them won't be reported on because rape is just too common and mundane to report every single one of them.

Generally rape suspects are only named if there is a) quite a lot of evidence that a rape occurred and b) if the police believe he may have more victims and naming him will help them to come forward which in turn helps secure a conviction.

So on the rare occasions when a man is falsely accused he is still very highly unlikely to be "named and shamed" because you first need quite a lot of evidence that he did in fact rape someone before he would be named. And of course if he didn't do it then there wouldn't be any evidence would there?

You used the term rape myth. I'm no expert and am looking for insight.

I meant It's a rape myth that so many people's lives are ruined by false accusations when in reality the number is tiny

Is there research to suggest that people falsely and publicly accused of rape suffer no more trauma or personal impact than people falsely and publicly accused of property crime?

No, but as there is no research at all we can't just assume

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.

Seriously of course they do.

Imagine if your husband, dad, son or brother was falsely accused of child abuse for example.

It's very probable that their safety would be in danger from vigilantes.

And of course you'll get the 'No smoke without fire' mentality from people who will view them with suspicion for evermore.

I'm completely torn on this tbh because I understand the point that many victims come forward, when they read about their abusers being accused and that's fantastic.

But I also understand the point that lives have been completely ruined by false accusations.

I think it's always something I'll be on the fence about.

So in order to be believed there has to be more than 1 case?

It absolutely strengthens the case against a sex offender. It often means the difference between a conviction and no conviction. As someone pointed out earlier Job Worboys could well still be raping people in his taxi had more victims not come forward

YANBU.

I think, the way media is now, that no person should be reported on until they are charged

For all crimes

They do not need to be found guilty, but officially charged.

I just think right now the way the media is there are so many lives trashed because someone is being questioned in connection with a murder/abduction/rape.

I know obviously more then come forward, but something right now imo needs to be done to protect the innocent than currently is being done. The media are allowed to tear them apart. Social media is even worse.

Not only do they need to FOTTFSOF, when they get there, they need to FOSM.

YY AVirgin i work in the media and unless a rape case has a particularly interesting or different element, wether it is reported on often depends on if the crime reporter is at court on the day. Not all cases end up in the paper

Similarly no one should be named who hasn't been charged. For the CPS to charge they have to have a belief that the case could end in a conviction - ergo a reasonable belief that the accused did commit rape. Not all reported crimes end up with people being charged (and certainly not in the case of rape for various reasons). As you say not every man accused has his face slapped on the front page of the local rag simply because a woman 'said so'

Cliff Richard won't be able to force any law through! He is merely using his experience to try and inform the law makers of the flip side of naming and shaming supposed sexual abusers before any charge / trial.

I think that most men (and women on behalf of the men in their life) would rather be falsely accused of fraud / theft, even murder, than rape.

But then saying that, agreeing with what AVirgin wrote, some crimes stay way under radar.

I know of someone involved in a crime that imo should be public yet isn't, and is seemingly brushing it off as he's got away with it. :-(