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?

Going back to the accused though, I do think the way Cliff Richards was treated by the police was wrong. And let us not forget that one of his accusers was clinically diagnosed as a pathological liar who had himself been convicted of rape. I sympathise with cases where a person has made an allegation for non malicious reasons eg. like with my friend I mentioned above and the Lord Atkins case, where the accuser genuinely thought the man who had abused him was Atkins- but I find it hard to sympathise with this man who accused Cliff. As soon as it was determined he was an unreliable witness, that should have been the end of it, IMAO

elizabeth

I think the point regarding false accusation is that you said a woman made a false accusation, it ended up going to court and he was found not guilty

So one assumes from your comment that the woman was charged with making a false accusation and ended up in the dock herself with the man testifying against her

I said the evidence the police had was her word against his. They could find no other evidence that anything had happened than her saying it had.
So I have his word and hers. That is all there is. Like anyone does, you then make a decision. Do I still want to be friends with him? He has been accused of rape. I would not choose to be friends with a rapist. I don't know if he is guilty but the suspicion has been raised by the accusation. If he is innocent why should his life be affected by this. So I used my judgement which aws I don't believe he did it as I have no reason to from my knowledge of him and the police did not procede. The woman has a history of drama and attention seeking - exaggeration of things to gain sympathy. I have decided to believe him. Some people haven't. The vulnerable teenagers he worked with found out when he was suspended without prejuduce and he was abused in the street by them.
If he is innocent that is entirely unfair. It wasn't n the media but his work were informed, social services and there was a safeguarding meeting, he was suspended incase it was found proven. His colleagues knew. Mud sticks.

It sounds like all agencies involved did the right thing in the case of a rape isle that Lulu. If he worked with teenagers it's absolutely right he should be suspended during an investigation. Employers don't have crystal balls after all.

Anyone who says mud sticks please please please look at the flashing teacher link I posted (still waiting on the horror from people labour this but it seems lacking funnily enough)

itsmine the police press release mentions full details of the incident including the erection (I mentioned on this thread also). It's clear that He absolutely did it on purpose.

And I think it is perfectly comparable. He may not have committed rape but I hope that you think flashing an erection at a woman and two children in a mixed but non-communal (cubicles only) changing room is a serious offence?

It's comparable because people on this thread insist even the mutter of an accusation leads to lifelong ostracisation in the local community despite no charges being brought. My point of posting this is to show that in some cases, even with a guilty verdict for a serious sex crime, people will bend over backwards to excuse the man's behaviour and completely demonise the victim.

In case you haven't read the misogynistic, minimising and victim blaming comments on the petition, here are a few I pulled from it about the victim - a woman who was subjected to this in front of her children and had the bravery to report probably read this about herself, so too right it is comparable to other victims being demonised:

Surely the woman must have been already looking at the cubicle door as if the door had opened twice in 'quick succession' she would not have reacted quickly enough to witness it.

This women is a vile, pathetic women who has created lies to ruin someone's life and career.
Ally is a married man, with a beautiful wife. - if you were to put his wife next to this stupid, accusing women, you'd soon realise there isn't a chance in hell, that he would flash at her, ruin his own life and put his career at risk.

All I can say is that, maybe this women has some very warped insecurities that need addressing.

.
The vile lady who has put him, his pregnant wife and his family through hell and back clearly doesn't see the seriousness of her accusations!

If the 'lady' in question was so concerned about ally's supposed actions I'm sure she wouldn't hang around for minutes doing her hair, that in itself says a lot!!

I'm signing because one woman feeling offended shouldn't equal the loss of a career.

.Surely she could have just looked away

And I've already pointed out the apologist comments on this thread, they are there, don't feel like I need to do it again

Can I also point out that, although it doesn't state in the article (but I k ow this pool), the mixed changing area leads to the family pool only. There are single sex changing areas in that facility. Despite having no child or other person with him, the teacher chose to go into the family changing area. Why would you do that as a man on his own when there's single sex?

Answer: because you're a sex offender who wants a woman and her kids to look at your hard-on

Because there has to be quite a lot of evidence that a rape did indeed take place first mine. The man in question may (or may not) then be named if the police/CPS have reason to believe there are more victims and having them come forward will increase the chances of a conviction.

So if there is no evidence that Dave raped Sally then the police will have no reason to believe he might have raped others because there is no evidence that a rape actually took place is there?

That is odd Pinky.

I'm a woman with no children and it wouldn't occur to me to use the mixed sex family changing facilities at the leisure centre. As a woman who is on her own at the swimming pool I use the female changing facilities.

Why wouldn't a man on his own do the same and use the male changing facilities?

Because clearly men weren't the pervert's target audience!

Don't worry AVirgin I'm sure someone will trot along soon to excuse this man's behaviour and think of a million reasons why it could have been as mistake, rather than the completely obvious - he's just a pervert and this poor woman was subjected to a horrible ordeal

I agree itsmine and I do wonder if they thought it was a bit R-rated for a local rag that usually reports on fetes and fun runs!

I don't think it's excuses the actions of 1,300 people who thought a guilty verdict for a sex offender teacher wasn't enough to make him 'guilty'

You are not wrong, OP.

Bloody hell. What is going to happen in the world next. Seriously it's all going backwards.

I think you are innocent until proven guilty. I don't think it should be all over the media before conviction.

Are most cases over the media? Other than the raid most coverage of clif's case was little gossip

Most cases go nowhere near the media, even after charge.

WTF is wrong with you ladies saying he should stop campaigning?
Of course people should be allowed anonymity - what ever happened to innocent until proven guilty.
It's not the publics job to judge, it's the judge and jury's job.
Poor Cliff has had a horrendous time of it all because some vile little monsters saw an opportunity to make some money!

That you Kitty?

Cliff's issue should be with the way the media reported what happened, not the law itself.

That's fine PolarBear as long as you think anonymity should be given to people accused of all crimes and not just sex crimes.

You can't single one crime out as being special and say the accused is more deserving to be innocent until proven guilty than any other crime.

Judging by the press coverage it seems unlikely his campaign wont acheive its aims ( which is irronic because the press supporting him are not exactly ones with an unblemeshed record regarding fair coverage))

And let us not forget that one of his accusers was clinically diagnosed as a pathological liar who had himself been convicted of rape.

Yep. Personally I would like to see a judge getting to rubber stamp releasing names to the press in order to stop cases like this where there is clear doubt or evidence of malicious intent.

South Yorkshire's finest also screwed over a friend of mine. His daughter was one of the victims of Pakistani grooming gangs. They did sod all about the abusers, but the abusers wanted her to be in care as it was easier to exploit her. Social services wouldn't put her in care as her family were no danger. The groomers instructed her to make allegations against her stepdad regarding sexual abuse which she did but then withdrew as soon as she had achieved the aim of going into care. The SD was a teacher and he was also suspended and has since left the profession because of the fallout and the results of the 'no smoke without fire' brigade. Everyone involved knew it was bullshit the grooming gang were feeding her from the get go, but his name and the allegations still went out there.

Having said that, a lot of the convictions secured against those gangs in South Yorkshire have been as a result of grooming gangs being named and people coming forward. So I don't want naming to stop. I did wonder about a judge rubber stamping name releases to avoid any glaring problems. But it's occurred to me as I write that that could have been used by the authorities involved in things like the Rotherham cover up to cover things up, and Savile would certainly have had a good chance of influencing a judge to hide his name.

It's a tough one. But perhaps a judge's decision on naming in a similar way to minors being named or not being decided on a case by case basis might be useful.

I see Cliff was on The One Show last night, promoting his tour, and he took the opportunity to start banging on about the anonymity thing again. Heard him on Radio 2 just now as well, though only caught a snippet where he and Chris Evans were laughing together about something unfunny. Since when did Cliff become best friends with the BBC again?

And The One Show hardly seems an appropriate place to promote his beliefs about how the law deals with people accused of sex offences. It's not like an in-depth talk show where somebody might challenge you or ask further questions.

The whole segment mad for very uncomfortable viewing, and at one point he even implied that the accusations were false and that he felt sorry for the people who'd accused him (I think he even said he'd prayed for them ). I thought the case was dismissed due to insufficient evidence, in which case surely he shouldn't be saying things like that about the people who accused him? Grr, Cliff Richard's campaign makes me really cross. Really hope nobody takes any notice of him.