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?

No no avirgin an eye roll is generally used for when someone is talking bollocks, not sarcasm as such.

Oops.

How about the police officer at the start who spoke about victims with apparent disgust.

Or bluesky who said that sometimes women regret sex and so claim rape.

Or the many people who happen to know someone who got falsely accused - despite not one person confirming that the woman was prosecuted for it (although a friend of a friend told them the accuser admitted it which is as good as banged to Rights 🙄) they just believed it must be a false accusation because the bloke said so.

Or the person who described their definite rape as 'technically rape' because they weren't bothered about it and it hasn't affected them.

Or the person who suggested to a rape victim on this thread that a false accusation like e worse than her experience.

Perpetuating rape myths, assuming women are liars with no proof and minimising rape and women's experiences is all apologist behaviour.

I shall wait patiently for the frothing over the flashing teacher

I think I have to leave now because this is really bringing up memories that although have never truly left me are making me really upset.

I was disbelieved and called a false accuser, a liar, a whore, someone who was 'mental', the impact that had will last until the day I die.

In the meantime, both my rapists have been met with sympathy from their friends and family. I understand why many women in the same situation can't carry on. For me that's not an option, but living with it, that's much harder.

I'm glad some people get it, and truly gutted that other people dont understand how devastating it can be to have that happen to you, not get justice, and have people think you're a liar. And people want to make that even worse by introducing anonymity. It makes me cry for all of us.

I think they accused of all crimes should remain anonymous until charged and then name only released if there's reason to believe there are further victims (like rape cases), otherwise anonymous until convicted. All victims of all crimes should remain anonymous unless they wish to speak out.

I was falsely accused of child abuse. I was very lucky in that the only people who knew about the accusation were the accusers, the social workers and the police (who quickly dismissed the case I must add as it was clear the accusations were nuts!). If people had known about it that would have fucked things up majorly. Nothing happened to the false accusers either, maybe that was right because people shouldn't be scared to report concerns but they definitely did it for malicious reasons.

I believe you mycat

I said he was falsely accused because everything I know about him tells me he didn't do it. The only evidence he did is that she said so. The police found nothing on their ICT equipment that suggested anything had happened- she had said they would find emails and texts. He was devastated. I believe him but I can't 100% know and that is my point. Once an accusation has been made and is public (his was not in the media but was on facebook eyc in gossip. He isn't famous) and was known about and he was suspended from work as a safeguarding issue because he worked with older teenagers.
He has no record at all. He cooperated with everything, had no solicitor because he said he had nothing to hide. But it was known, his employer was informed, he was suspended, the staff and students all knew why- it was local gossip. The partner has form for drama but there is a chance she told the truth- I will never 100% know, although I do believe him.
If he is telling the truth she put him through a terrible experience for whatever reason and it has left him a different, less-confident, depressed person who has lost his career and is viewed with some suspicion by his community where he has lived all his life. It was awful for his parents and his sister too. People stopped talking to them all. That just feels wrong to me that she could say anything and it became public knowledge and he was judged by her lies.A label of being a sex offender is horrific- and if untrue, I can't think of a more damaging label for men, especially anyone who works with children or vulnerable young adults., or actually any man.
However, I also agree that there are cases where it has encouraged others to come forward and a stronger prosecution has been the product with a greater weight of evidence resulting in a conviction.
So, I don't know what the answer is. Should it be public or not?

I said he was falsely accused because everything I know about him tells me he didn't do it.

But you still don't know the accusations were false.

Why not just say that he was accused of rape? Why the need to specify "falsely" accused?

The only evidence he did is that she said so.

And the only evidence that you have that he was falsely accused is that he said so.

Why does his word hold more water than her word?

I understand he wasn't convicted but neither was she. So there was no proof he raped her but there also was no proof that she made it up.

Why is it okay to label her a false accuser with no solid proof but labeling him a rapist with no solid proof would be wrong? Why can't you just say that you have no idea what happened because you weren't there and are not making any judgement either way?

his was not in the media but was on facebook eyc in gossip

If he wasn't named in the media and he was only named via gossip in the community then how exactly would an anonymity law have protected him?

I think there is some confusion here tbh. People always seem to be under the impression that if people accused of rape were allowed anonymity until charged/convicted then it would suddenly mean that word spreading and gossiping would stop. It doesn't work that way.

Anonymity for rape suspects only means that he won't be allowed to be named in the media. That's it. It doesn't cover people gossiping and spreading his name around. You can't stop people gossiping and judging.

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong but the same also goes for women who report rape.

She is allowed to remain anonymous in the sense that her name can't be revealed in media outlets. However it doesn't stop people who know her gossiping and spreading her name around. It doesn't stop people walking into a rape trial and finding out her name that way nor does it stop those people then leaving court and telling other people who she is.

So even the accuser is only anonymous to a certain extent.

You're right Virgin it's doesn't take a great deal of work to find out a victim's name, or what they look like. Especially with the internet when it's impossibly to conceal everything. I believe one could just find Ched Evans or Adam Johnson's victims with a quick Google but have never tested it nor would I.

It's funny that innocent until proven guilty only ever seems to work one way.

So a man accused of rape is innocent until proven guilty but if he is acquitted at any stage then suddenly the accuser is automatically guilty of making the whole thing up.

Funny how innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to women you think/suspect of wasting police time and perverting the course of justice.

Of course Virgin, a man's word is sacred and a woman's is there to be distrusted and challenged by seems!

It's absolutely extraordinary.

"I said he was falsely accused because everything I know about him tells me he didn't do it. The only evidence he did is that she said so"

So witness evidence then.

Everything you know about him eh. The thing about rapists is that they are extremely careful to ensure that none of us know they are rapists until they actually rape us. And even then, some of them even lie to themselves about it and genuinely don't believe that what they have done is rape.

You've said you don't know if he raped her or not. But still you default to calling her a liar. Why do you call it lies, if you don't know whether they are lies or not? I'm puzzled about this.

I'm no fan of Cliff Richard (not his fault of course), but I was surprised that the BBC were filming and live streaming a raid on his house.
I did think it was an odd thing to do, considering that he had not been charged with any offences.

I think there are a lot of misconceptions around this tbh.

A few people at the start of the thread said the OP was BU because if their son/nephew/brother was falsely accused of rape then they wouldn't want their picture and name splashed over the local rag for all to see. I've also heard people say similar things elsewhere when this discussion comes up but it makes no sense.

That hypothetical scenario is based around a misconception that all a woman has to do is walk into a police station and accuse any man of rape and that's it; his face will be splashed all over the news just off the back of that one woman's word alone. Sorry but it simply doesn't work like that. The newspapers would be packed full every day of stories, names and faces of rape allegations if every man accused of rape was named and there wouldn't be any room for any other news.

The only time a man accused of rape will have his name and picture splashed over the local rag is if there is a substantial amount of evidence a rape took place along with a strong belief that he has had more victims in the past and getting them to come forward will help strengthen the case and get him convicted.

So if someone genuinely was being falsely accused then why would his name be in the newspapers?

If he didn't rape her then there is going to be no evidence that he did and with no previous allegations against him on record then why would the police release his name to the media?

So let's just say a woman (we'll call her Sally) goes to the police wanting to report a man (we'll call him Dave) for raping her.

We'll say Dave and Sally have been friends for a while but Sally is now claiming that Dave raped her after she invited him over to her house to watch some films.

Dave is arrested and questioned at the station and he denies raping her. Dave says the sex was consensual. This is also the only accusation anyone has made against Dave

Sally is examined and they are able to prove that sex took place however they are unable to proven that the sex wasn't consensual and with no more evidence no charges are brought and that is the end of that.

Do people honestly believe that Dave will have his name and face splashed on the local rag just because one woman accused him of rape? Despite there being no evidence that a rape took place? Because if that's what you believe then quite frankly you're deluded.

A rape is reported in the UK every 35 minutes and of course the media doesn't report every single one of them. There just simply isn't enough time in the day/week/month/year to report every rape allegation and name every man accused of it.

It's also worth noting that out of those rapes which are reported every day nearly all of them will be as mundane and uneventful as the one I presented above.

Why on earth would the media even want to cover something as mundane as "woman claims she was raped by a friend after she invited him over to her house" every single time it happened? That sounds horrible written down but the fact is that rape is just too much of a mundane every day occurrence to report on it every time it happens.

no one answered my question would any of you hire someone that has a rape accusition or child abuse accusition on there file? (be it a not guilty verdicit or case not taken to court).

Because i can tell you many many big and small (and smart companies wont) hire someone with that sort of record as they do not want to take the risk, be it ether through a DBS check (i think thats what it is called now) or simply googling their name unless they change it via deed poll but even that is still traceable so you cannot erase the stigma, where as if found not guilty in my opinion should be the end none of this bullshit sprouted so often on here about not guilty = not innocent becuase if as a society we cannot accept the Court of Law why even bother having a trial in the first place, as we might as well just lock up EVERY person accused of rape because they are condemed ether way.

Honsertly how many of you would hire someone if they have gotten a not guilty verdict in court for rape? (I highly doubt any of you would).

Sorry minor rant incoming about a confrence i atteneded recently

And before people start saying conviction rates should be higher, please offer reasonable suggestions on how we can achive this when most inncedents boil down to he said she said arguements. The only suggestion i have heard is make it that the man has to prove consent occured and in the instance when it boils down to he said she said to automatically take the side of the woman as we need to increase conviction rates and they keep saying its worth a few innocent people to go prison by this outcome if it bring conviction rates in line with other crimes. Often using the much hated expression cannot make an omlett withot breaking a few eggs (yes really a law confrence i attended put that arguement forward as acceptable)

Once there is enough 'evidence' an accusation will be prosecuted. That is the point where there us no anonymity.

Personally, I think it is very hard for a woman to understand what it must feel like for a man who is innocent to go through a public prosecution? I say this because I dated someone for a while who had this happen to him. He never laid a finger on me and from the outset he told me because he thought I would find out eventually from someone else. Did it affect our relationship? Completely - once someone tells you they have been prosecuted, even if they have been found innocent, it is difficult to get past.

It isn't a question of doing down woman or making women who have been raped feel bad, it is just about making sure that everyone is treated fairly.

Thw problem is that even mundane cases are reported. If people want to find out names they can because of this. Friends, family and employers can find out.

So what do you suggest worridmum? Do you think that we should just forbid women from reporting rape at all just in case she is unable to prove it happened and he is found not guilty or it doesn't reach court at all?

Because it's either that or we change our legal system so we no longer have open courts.

Thw problem is that even mundane cases are reported

Reported by whom? The media?

I suppose it's true that a mundane case might be reported in the media however it will only be reported if there is already substantial evidence that a rape occurred along with a strong belief that he may have had more victims and getting them to come forward will help get a conviction.

However you then go on to say this If people want to find out names they can because of this. Friends, family and employers can find out so I suspect that you're mixing up two different types of reporting here - the reporting of the case in media outlets and simply the "reporting" that goes on among people known to the accused/accuser; in other words gossip and spreading his (and her) name round in the community.

The latter has always happened and will always happen. There is no law that can stop people talking among themselves and "reporting" and judging.

Was that woman prosecuted for making a false accusation 80schild? Because if not then how can you say for sure that the accusation was a false? Or are we just assuming that no conviction automatically = false accusation?

Isn't it funny that despite the stats clearly stating that false rape accusations are rare and no higher than false accusations of other crime there have been countless posters on this thread claiming to know someone who was without a doubt falsely accused?

Not to mention all the other people who haven't posted on this thread but have posted elsewhere about knowing someone who was falsely accused.

It really is odd isn't it? 🤔

I think I have to leave now because this is really bringing up memories that although have never truly left me are making me really upset.

I think I'm going to have to do the same cat.

FWIW the man who I reported for sexually assaulting me last year was never charged as it was my word against his and of course he denied it.

I wonder what he told people about what happened? I wonder what he told his friends and family when he was arrested but then charges not being brought?

More to the point, what do other people here think he tells people about me and what his friends and family say/think?

I bet that if you asked this mans wife or his child or his brother about what happened they would say he was falsely accused and that I lied about being sexually assaulted by him. Because to them he is a great guy who would never do such a thing.

I bet if him or his wife ever tell people about me they will call me a liar and as there were no charges brought let alone a conviction then those other people will of course believe his version of events.

I didn't really like this man very much prior to him sexually assaulting me either and I never made an effort to hide my dislike for him. So to an outsider it probably would look like I was just trying to hurt him.

But that's not true. He was the one who hurt me.

Oh and his life has continued as normal.

He kept his job and people still stuck by him. He is still well liked by many.

I can honestly say that my accusation against him reporting him for sexually assaulting me has had no negative impact on him at all.

I was raped. I also know someone who was falsely accused of rape in a case which went all the way to court before he was found not guilty.

I do think that there's a particular stigma attached to sexual crimes. I'm not sure that I agree with Cliff Richard's campaign, but I really do sympathise.