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?

popfizz Well said

Pinky, I agree with you completely. I'm too tired to be as coherent as you. I think convictions are few enough as it is, I don't see why sex crimes should afford special protection, it's hard to stand up alone especially we see victims treated the way we have this week.
If every crime afforded anonymity, how would any appeal for witnesses be made? How would the police gather evidence?

I feel really stupid but what did the OP mean by AIBU and by FOTTFSOF ?

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.

Obviously not I wasn't insinuating Cliff Richard had any legal power! But he's throwing his weight behind a campaign that perpetuates rape myth, and that is always dangerous, and judging by the lynch mob out to get Ched Evan's victim people would only be too happy for accused rapists to get special treatment and demonise victims

But they would be named if they were proven to be guilty so therefor more people would come forward if thats the case? Its not like the guilty will never be named..

I think you've missed the point here slightly Whisky.

Of course he will be named if found guilty but the point is he can only be found guilty if it is 100% certain he did do it.

To use John Worboys as an example again; women reported him for rape. He later had his name and picture released to the press after it became clear there was a good chance he had done it and that he probably had more victims.

After he was named 85 (I think?) women came forward because they recognised him as the man who had raped them too. Because more women had come forward and as a result then testified against him in court it meant he was convicted.

The point is is that if he had been granted anonymity he likely wouldn't have been convicted because it would have simply been a case of one persons word against another. However because he was named beforehand it meant it was a case of multiple peoples word against his.

Does that make it a bit clearer?

Kahli
AIBU = am I being unreasonable
FOTTFSOF = fuck off to the far side off fuck

But they would be named if they were proven to be guilty so therefor more people would come forward if thats the case? Its not like the guilty will never be named.

That doesn't work unless they are found guilty. There have been a number of cases where people have been found guilty precisely because more victims came forward when it was known they had been arrested. Stuart Hall and John Worboys are classic cases of people who would almost certainly not have come to justice if their names had not been made pubic.

Oh right, that must make it true then user1475440127

I think the current system of naming the alleged rapist can work if we change the way the media currently reports these cases. The names of alleged rapists should be public so others can come forward if they too have been attacked.

Granting anonymity for alleged rapists is a huge step backwards. Instead in cases where it is clear the victim is making things up, the victim should be hauled through the courts and sent to jail. In the Ched Evans case the female who called rape should not be named. As the court case showed, it was a very close case and she was right to go to the police to report what she experienced.

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

But if it was a false accusation then it is very highly unlikely that he would be named.

Like I said, men aren't named and shamed just because a woman accuses him of rape. There has to be quite a lot of evidence that a rape occurred before he is named.

Want sorry to be pedantic but feel I have to point out that the woman in the Ched Evans case did not "call rape", she reported a missing handbag and the police and CPS decided to prosecute for rape. She has never alleged rape.

Victims or alleged victims should never ever be named. Even if a defendant is found not guilty, as this does not mean they are innocent or that the accuser is lying. Women (and men) who pervert the course of justice by making up rape claims should be named (and they are).

Not a fan of Cliff but I agree with him on this. I know people who have been raped, I know people who have raped and I know people who have made false accusations - I understand that naming people can bring forward other victims but if my son was falsely accused, how would I feel if his name was splashed all over the local rag? how would he feel and would he ever recover from it in the very small community we live in? Mud sticks sadly, especially in a small town.

The problem is, the current system, especially the highlighted ched Evans case, has pushed imo more assaults into the dark.

There is no way I could ever report my sexual assault. I'd had a drink. People had seen us kiss prior. However I categorically said no on more than one occasion and woke to him assaulting me. There is no way i would be believed in a court, and my past would be torn to shreds it seems. So all I have done is keep any evidence I have in case I ever see his name in any further cases.

And what about Jay Chesire who killed himself at the age of 17 after being falsely accused of rape? Does that make it any clearer?

Semi would you just have anonymity for those accused of sex crimes?

Also did the people you know who made false accusations get charged?

I think anonymity until charged should be the standard for any crime.

Let's not forget that not only was Cliff never charged, he was never even arrested. I can understand why he's campaigning for change.

As a rape victim, I'd have felt a lot more comfortable and confident in coming forward knowing my attackers identity would have been kept secret until charges were made.

Whisky did his accuser get convicted for the false accusation?

Plenty of rape victims kill themselves too. Far too many, 1 in 10 women in the U.K. have experienced sexual violence or rape, it is nothing short of an epidemic and I find it insane that people want to make it even harder to convict rapists

And what about Jay Chesire who killed himself at the age of 17 after being falsely accused of rape? Does that make it any clearer?

And his mother later went on to kill herself (a year later) as she couldn't face her life without him. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3714547/Heartbroken-mother-55-teenager-hanged-false-rape-allegations-kills-anniversary-death-couldn-t-future-without-him.html

Was probably going to agree with you op and then read users awful and nasty post so no I have changed my mind and prefer anonymity for all crimes until proven guilty actually.

That's really hard for me to post as I was raped at 16 by a boy I thought was a nice guy. He was later sacked as a police officer for raping a fellow officer on duty.

Still rather a guilty bastard free than an innocent person jailed or life ruined.

I know people who have made false accusations

How do you know the accusations were false.

I understand that naming people can bring forward other victims but if my son was falsely accused, how would I feel if his name was splashed all over the local rag?

If he really was falsely accused then why would his face be splashed over the local rag?

Again (and I'm going to get sick of saying this) the majority of men accused of rape don't have their name splashed over the local rag. The majority of men accused of rape are NOT named.

Rape suspects are only named if there is quite a lot of evidence that he raped her and if the police believe he has more victims.

So if the accusations made against your son were false then he wouldn't have his mug splashed over the local news because if he didn't do it there won't be any evidence he did will there?

PopFizz I have no doubt my abuser had other victims. Men like that don't just do it once. If I saw he'd been charged I'd go down to the station that day to give my story.

Actually being the one to come forward first though is a whole other ball game. And until we are in a place where women are not held back from reporting sex crimes against them, I don't think accused should be granted anonymity

Semi would you just have anonymity for those accused of sex crimes? - I think it should depend on the circumstances of each case.

Also did the people you know who made false accusations get charged? - Nope, they had a stern talking to from the police when it was made clear they were lying. (Two different people on two different occasions).

Pinky- i dont know but he should have lost his INNOCENT life and i see from another poster his mothers innocent life too. So what if the accuser did go to prison or not? 2 people are dead.

How do you know the accusations were false. - The two girls later admitted it.