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?

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.

A not guilty verdict does not mean the accusations were false.

If the case got as far as court then there would have had to have already been quite a lot of evidence against him.

I am not saying he did it btw.

However a not guilty verdict does not = false accusation and it's dangerous to use them interchangeably.

Everybody is innocent until proven guilty and that includes women who you suspect have wasted police time and perverted the course of justice by making false rape claims.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-east-wales-37704127

This case is worrying particularly as the offender was a police officer.

Re: victim anonymity "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."

This is absolutely correct. The victim's name will be raised with witnesses in the course of the police investigation. The defendant's team will be told her name from the outset, and can share it verbally with whoever they like. Her name will be used in open court etc.

The only protection afforded to victims is that no one can 'publish' their name or anything that identifies them. The media are good at complying with this. People on social media are not, but it is rare that people are prosecuted for posting on FB / twitter. Only the most egregious cases (Ched Evans victim is am example) seem to result in police action.

And I agree with everything above - the media DO NOT routinely publish details of accused rapists. There are simply too many of them for that. Most cases that go to court or even get comvicted don't result in media coverage. The damage (to both victims and defendants) occurs due to local gossip, and nothing is going to stop that.

When I say the damage to victims occurs due to gossip, I obviously mean in addition to being raped btw.

People don't get that it's not just the defendant who might be ostracised as a result of a police investigation. Victims get ostracised, harassed, abused etc. by people convinced they are lying.... but no one's getting worked up about that and proposing law changes for them. Funny, huh?

I also totally agree with avirgin re: all the people who 'know someone who was falsely accused.

I'm sorry, but the majority will be mistaken. 94% of rapists are not rapists in the eyes of the law, and that statistic includes those who were not charged / the victim withdrew their statement / not convicted. Doesn't mean they were falsely accused.

If a case has been taken as far as court, there will have been a fair amount of evidence. And the police and CPS will have believed the victim. The odds of it being false are tiny.

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).

To answer your earlier question, if someone was not charged with a crime googling them would find nothing (unless I want to hire Cliff Richard which I doubt I could ever afford). An enhanced DBS may bring an arrest up but I'd be willing to accept that no charges brought was enough for me depending on the job.

If someone was on trial for rape but was found not guilty, no I wouldn't hire them. On the basis that they may not be innocent, as as much as you say it's "bullshit" that not guilty = not innocent, it really really isn't. So no I would not hire someone who's been on trial for rape, or burglary or shoplifting or indecent image charges. Hiring someone that untrustworthy is not a gamble I'd be willing to take. To say accused should get anonymity for this reason is ludicrous - what about retired people who'll never work again, is it ok to name them but not people of employment age? If you believe this is an injustice for men do you think it should apply to all crimes or just sex crimes? And if you think this is reason enough to put anonymity rules in place it just shows you care more about men getting jobs than you do about women getting justice

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?

Personally I think it's hard for a man to understand what it feels like for a woman to be raped and then press charges. not sure what you're suggesting - that women should report rape?

Completely - once someone tells you they have been prosecuted, even if they have been found innocent, it is difficult to get past.

No one is found innocent unless his accuser was prosecuted for oerverting the course of justice?

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

I agree with this approach, a man should have to prove his innocence rather than thenwoman prove her guilt. You can se this as "taking the side of the woman" but as the law stands now it take the side of the man and is doing nothing but damage - conviction rates are low and men keep raping in their droves. If this what it takes to change that then I fornone am up for giving it a go

FGS were this far in will people stop claiming not guilty = false accusation. Jesus it's not hard!

The people who think it's"so unfair" that men who have been accused but not found guilty of heinous crimes may come a cropper on a DBS check... Do you remember why CRB and DBS checks were tightened up? Ian Huntley? You would never say that he should have had every right to be employed by a school because he was not proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. Of course that is easy to say with hindsight but that's why DBS checks are there, to protect the vulnerable and mitigate risk. It is more important to protect the vulnerable than someone's right to work with the vulnerable if they may or may not have committed a crime.

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?

So? The fact is that false rape allegations are very low anyway, so what makes you think that women dont care about innocent men having to go through a court process? Or are you another one perpetuating the myth that men are being falsely accused of rape all over the place? Because its not true.

Not RTFT but Kitty needs to STFU.

worridmum here's what the Headteacher who hired Ian Huntley said to the inquiry. Do you honestly think allegations that don't lead to conviction should not be traceable by employers, after reading this? (Obviously this was 10-15 years ago now so thankfully things are a bit tighter, but still not perfect)

In a letter to the inquiry, Mr Gilbert said it was his understanding that he might not have been able to discuss the allegations with Huntley, let alone withdraw the job offer, if he had known about the killer's past.

Mr Gilbert's letter stated that he was filled with "bewilderment" that any information about Huntley's past could only have been used to "monitor him more closely".

The headteacher believed that to have talked to Huntley about the sexual allegations or to have withdrawn the job offer would have breached his civil liberties under the Police Act 1997.

Mr Gilbert said that vetting procedures appeared to place a greater value on Huntley's civil liberties than those of the children he came into contact with.

"I am incredulous that the current framework could result in a man with Mr Huntley's background not even being able to be challenged by a potential employer," he wrote.

"Such was the seriousness of his background that I believe any headteacher would have withdrawn the offer of employment given the relevant information, regardless of the legal position. I am concerned more with situations which may not be so black and white as that of Mr Huntley

from The Guardian

AVirginLitTheCandle However a not guilty verdict does not = false accusation and it's dangerous to use them interchangeably

That's why I didn't use them interchangeably. I said it was a false accusation and went on to say that he was found not guilty. Texts the accuser sent after sex didn't match up to her later accusations.

Since being raped myself, I've met a lot of other women who've been raped, and have helped and mentored a number of them. This included a couple of women whose cases went to court, but where there was a not guilty verdict. I still believe their accusations.

The accused being found not guilty doesn't necessarily mean that the accuser was lying. But neither does it necessarily mean that the accused is innocent.

I strongly believe that in this one particular case, the accused had a genuine grievance, but had not been raped, for all kinds of reasons around the evidence and motives involved.

I believe even more strongly that these cases are hugely complicated, and that anyone who thinks it's 'obvious' that all accused men should or shouldn't have anonymity hasn't properly understood what's at stake.

Texts the accuser sent after sex didn't match up to her later accusations.

Then perhaps the accusations were false then. Or alternatively maybe they weren't false but her version of events didn't match texts sent because she is a human being and not a computer chip who is perfect memory and can recall every single detail that happened.

The chances of a false accusation reaching court are tiny.

itsmine I get the feeling that you're once again being goady and deliberately missing my point because you want an argument. It's really not difficult to understand what I'm saying.

I believe this is the first time I accused you of being goady mine. Other posters have called you goady but this is the first time for me.

how does selective public naming support the 'we must name to get more complainants!!' work?

Seriously this really isn't difficult. A child could no doubt understand what my point was.

Why not try reading my posts again and thinking about what I'm actually saying rather than what you think I'm saying?

AVirgin

or alternatively maybe they weren't false but her version of events didn't match texts sent because she is a human being and not a computer chip who is perfect memory and can recall every single detail that happened

Didn't match the accusation in the sense of very strongly implying that the sex was consensual, and it was his lack of calling afterwards that was pissing her off.

The chances of a false accusation reaching court are tiny. Yes. There are probably very, very few each year. But that doesn't make them impossible. I also know two lottery winners, one man who found out his wife was having an affair because a friend spotted them in a hotel in a different country, and a woman who is part of the 0.5% who survive a particular cancer diagnosis for 10 years. Very unusual things happen.

As a survivor of rape I understand how details get confused, and being wrong on the details or reacting in a non-standard way doesn't mean an accuser is lying. But I try not to let my natural sympathy for anyone who claims to have been raped get in the way of the fact that there are some (thankfully rare) false accusations.

I'd suggest you also make some effort to lay aside your own prejudices and accept that sometimes you don't know better (from 2 sentences you think you know the entire case better than I do), and that statistically rare cases exist. Denial does nothing to help victims.

Just wondering (and sorry if this has been covered) : 94% of rapists are not rapists in the eyes of the law - how do you know then that they are infact rapists ? I am happy with the law as it is, but I'm not sure that encouraging people to think that being found not guilty in a court of law doesn't mean you're not guilty is a great thing. Logically "not guilty of rape" means just that. If this is pervasive then it would encourage people to pursue false allegation claims if they are determined to prove they are innocent (even when they aren't) ?

There certainly needs to be a change in the way rape allegations are dealt with. Not all false ones are deliberate lies. Sometimes there is mistaken identity. There are also cases (although this is more of an issue with children, i think) where a parent or teacher suspects abuse of a young child and the child innocently gives an answer which the parent or teacher reads abuse into the answer. I actually knew someone who as a child was asked by her teacher (she was 5 at the time)"Does your daddy touch your bum?" My friend, being only a 5 year old and not understanding why she was being asked said "yes." It turned out later that my friend had meant that once she had eczema on her private area and her mum was out so her dad put cream on her down there. The truth only came out after the case came to attention of police and SS and my poor friend had to be examined by a police doctor. They found she was a virgin so fortunately the case was dropped. But I can imagine a case like that not ending so well. I recall a TV documentary on the Cleveland case in the 80s. All these kids (I think the number was in the 100s) in Middlesborough were wrongly diagnosed with sexual abuse due to an unreliable medical test thought up by a paediatrician.