Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think Cliff Richard and co should stop their awful campaign?

555 replies

PinkyOfPie · 17/10/2016 22:54

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?

To think Cliff Richard and co should stop their awful campaign?
OP posts:
Whisky2014 · 17/10/2016 23:46

Thanks for the info Semi.

Anyhoo i didnt answer... YABU

Original poster
PinkyOfPie · 17/10/2016 23:46

Just read Jay Cheshire story. Absolutely nothing to suggest the accusations were false. Withdrawn (which plenty of victims do) does not = made up.

That's it to say what happened is sad of course, but to me that is not enough to change a whole law which supports victims of sexual violence

OP posts:
Original poster
PinkyOfPie · 17/10/2016 23:46

*That's not

OP posts:
PopFizz · 17/10/2016 23:47

pinky I would too. I look him up periodically to see. But I wouldn't go first. Not in my case. Not after seeing everything in the press. I couldn't put my family through it all, the complete trashing of my life by a barrister determined to get their clients innocence.

Happyhippy45 · 17/10/2016 23:48

People accused of crimes have a family. If they are accused they should remain anonymous. If they are charged then possibly it should be made public. If they are convicted then it absolutely should be made public.
There is too much trial before jury courtesy of the tabloids.

Whisky2014 · 17/10/2016 23:48

And to me, it is.

AVirginLitTheCandle · 17/10/2016 23:48

But we don't know that the accusations made against Jay were false do we?

All we know is that he was accused of rape but the girl later withdrew her complaint. We also know that he had a history of depression prior to being accused of rape.

That's all we know.

We don't know whether the accusations made against him were false. We don't even know whether it was the accusations that lead to his suicide as he had a prior history of depression. We don't know why the girl withdrew her complaint.

Quite frankly I think it's disgusting that people are now accusing her of being a liar and demanding that she be sent to prison when there is no proof she actually made anything up.

RoseGoldHippie · 17/10/2016 23:49

I actually agree with this - too many people have their names dragged through the mud when they are innocent.

My main point would be the landlord accused of killing Joanna Yeates a few years back. His pictures were all over the news and because he 'looked a bit dodgey' he was obviously guilty! He wasn't and yet his reputation has been completely ruined forever.

Trial by media is not fair and you will find it very difficult to find a purely impartial jury after your name has been dragged through the gutter, guilty or not.

Original poster
PinkyOfPie · 17/10/2016 23:49

I think it should depend on the circumstances of each case

Could you give an example? Can't you see how some being named and some not would be hugely unfair and problematic?

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).

Did they tell you this themselves? Perverting the course of justice is a very serious crime and I'm amazed a charge wasn't brought!

OP posts:
Whisky2014 · 17/10/2016 23:49

so named when charged thats what i agree with.

Whisky2014 · 17/10/2016 23:50

Pinky you are so patronising!

Original poster
PinkyOfPie · 17/10/2016 23:51

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.

He did not get 'falsely accused'. In any way shape of form. His accuser wasn't charged with falsely accusing him. Therefore in the eyes of the law he did not die because he was falsely accused. Therefore using this person as an example of why the law should change is pointless.

OP posts:
WorraLiberty · 17/10/2016 23:52

OP I'm confused now.

You said earlier in the thread 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.

Then later you said 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

So do you think anonymity should be given to those who are actually charged, or just simply accused?

AVirginLitTheCandle · 17/10/2016 23:53

And no I'm not saying that Jay raped her.

That is not the same thing as saying we don't know the accusations were false.

I'm saying we don't have a clue what happened between Jay and this girl because we weren't bloody there and we only have one side of the story.

Accusing the girl of being a liar when she might (key word there is might) have been raped by him is just downright vile.

SemiNormal · 17/10/2016 23:53

We don't know whether the accusations made against him were false. We don't even know whether it was the accusations that lead to his suicide as he had a prior history of depression. We don't know why the girl withdrew her complaint.

At a jury inquest, the delay in informing the young man of the decision to drop the case was called a "contributing factor" in his death. www.cotwa.info/2015/10/a-national-disgrace-another-young-man.html

Original poster
PinkyOfPie · 17/10/2016 23:53

People accused of crimes have a family. If they are accused they should remain anonymous. If they are charged then possibly it should be made public.

so named when charged thats what i agree with.

That's how the law stands now.

OP posts:
Original poster
PinkyOfPie · 17/10/2016 23:55

Worra I don't see the contradiction in my posts at all?

So do you think anonymity should be given to those who are actually charged, or just simply accused?

As the law stands only charged can be named. I want it to stay that way with no anonymity to anyone

OP posts:
iminshock · 17/10/2016 23:56

I'm with sir Cliff all the way.

JellyBelli · 17/10/2016 23:57

Rape victims are supposed to be granted anonymity but someone outed Ched Evans' victim.
There are 3 separate issues; the justice system naming people, the behaviour of the tabloids, and the behaviour of people on social media. You cant mix them all up like its the same thing.
The tabloids are disgusting. I dont have a problem with stopping them using drones and other invasive behaviours.
But I dont support the campaign.

WorraLiberty · 17/10/2016 23:57

Because you said, "I don't think accused should be granted anonymity"

Accused and charged are two completely different things Confused

SemiNormal · 17/10/2016 23:57

Did they tell you this themselves? Perverting the course of justice is a very serious crime and I'm amazed a charge wasn't brought! - I know the girls in question, and the people they accused, like I said I'm from a small community. The one occasion was a girl, late teens hanging around in a football changing room and pissing everyone off and not leaving so they could change so they locked her in the changing rooms for 5 minutes to get their own back. She then phoned the police and accused them of raping her. Their behaviour certainly was not acceptable but does not warrant them being accused of rape.

The second incident, another girl in her late teens, accused a man of tying her naked to a tree in the woods and raping her. The mans wife ended up leaving him before it all coming out that actually the girl had just spotted a policeman approaching her and decided she would make up a story because she was bored.

PopFizz · 17/10/2016 23:58

pinky I think it's not so much the law, as the media that needs to change.

Cliff richard was never charged. Yet the whole world knew he was being questioned.

Joanna Yates landlord was never charged. Yet the papers named him and convinced themselvees he was guilty.

It's not surprising that someone on the wrong end of this kind of name and shame wants a change so it doesn't happen again.

The law needs tightening. The media need regulating.

AVirginLitTheCandle · 17/10/2016 23:59

What if John Worboys was allowed to remain anonymous and as a result he wasn't convicted?

What if he was still out there raping women today?

What if it was you or your daughter or your sister or your mum who he then went on to rape because he wasn't convicted?

Do you still think anonymity is a good idea?

PopFizz · 18/10/2016 00:00

And I need to go to bed, so need to bow out sadly

RoseGoldHippie · 18/10/2016 00:00

PopFiz - totally agree the lack of control in media in this country is an absolute disgrace!

Swipe left for the next trending thread