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:
Original poster
PinkyOfPie · 18/10/2016 00:22

Pluto what vigilante justice do you mean? Wanting to know when people in the local area are charged with rape? Do you hold the same view for other crimes?

OP posts:
ZuleikaDobson · 18/10/2016 00:24

Pluto30, I don't think anyone on this thread has denied for one moment that false rape allegations happen. However, the numbers involved are tiny - a study of allegations of rape plus other sexual offences between January 2011 and May 2012 showed that there were 121 purportedly false accusations of which 35 led to prosecutions. During that period there were 5651 rape prosecutions. The reports don't say which of the false accusations related solely to rape but even if the majority of them were, that is still a minute proportion of the total number of prosecutions. It is an even tinier proportion of the number of rape offences, given how few actually do get prosecuted.

Pluto30 · 18/10/2016 00:25

Yes. I think a level of anonymity should apply while evidence is being collected and before the person goes to trial. I agree with this in virtually all criminal cases.

I think a sex offender's registry is a fantastic thing, but that only includes people CONVICTED of sex crimes. It doesn't include people who are accused, but found guilty, or accused but who don't go to trial for lack of evidence.

Original poster
PinkyOfPie · 18/10/2016 00:25

If he was falsely accused, he has every right to be pissed about it.

If he wasn't falsely accused, there's no way of you knowing because he was never found guilty. That's just the reality of it.

Christ I hope you aren't a police officer with that attitude, men can be pissed off but fuck the women who could have been raped, we'll never really know.

OP posts:
ZuleikaDobson · 18/10/2016 00:25

If this is vigilante justice, where does that put Sarah's Law?

scallopsrgreat · 18/10/2016 00:27

Vigilante justice Confused. For wanting suspects of rape/sexual abuse to be treated as any other suspect?

Jeez.

It's true. When a victim reports rape, she is the one on trial. From the police to the public.

Pluto30 · 18/10/2016 00:29

No, you won't know. If someone is found not guilty, does that mean you/the public should be entitled to carry on treating them as though they were found guilty?

Suspects of rape/sexual abuse are treated as any other suspects, but just like any other suspects, they have the right to a fair trial and the right to be found guilty or not guilty depending on the evidence. The public do not then have the right to go on a witch hunt.

AVirginLitTheCandle · 18/10/2016 00:29

I don't get why innocent until proven guilty only works one way.

So a woman accused a man of rape and he is innocent until proven guilty.

That's fine but what then happens if there isn't enough evidence to charge him or if it gets to court but he is found not guilty or the woman withdraws her complaint?

Tbh it doesn't really matter what happens but something happens which means he isn't convicted.

Suddenly it's then "OMG, she lied!" "she made the whole thing up!" "the poor man was falsely accused!" "throw the bitch in jail!" etc.

For some reason innocent until proven guilty never applies to her. She is just automatically guilty of making the whole thing up by default.

Why was/is Jay Cheshire innocent until proven guilty but the girl involved isn't innocent until proven guilty? She's just assumed to have made the whole thing up even though there is no proof she did.

Vile.

Original poster
PinkyOfPie · 18/10/2016 00:32

Depressing isn't it scallops when people (and police who are meant to have an "I believe you" policy) by default take the word of a man accused of a crime above the experience and fear of a potential rape victims rave enough to come forward. The onus is on her from the beginning to prove she's not a liar, not for him to prove he didn't do it. Why does the 1 in 10 victims stat really not surprise me?

OP posts:
AVirginLitTheCandle · 18/10/2016 00:33

Can you imagine if that poor girl really was raped by him? Yet here people are calling her nasty names and accusing her of being a liar and calling for her to be sent to jail, etc.

Just horrible Sad

AVirginLitTheCandle · 18/10/2016 00:34

I'm not saying he did rape her btw.

I just think it's odd that he's innocent until proven guilty but she isn't...she's just automatically guilty.

Pluto30 · 18/10/2016 00:35

That's fine but what then happens if there isn't enough evidence to charge him or if it gets to court but he is found not guilty or the woman withdraws her complaint?

Uh, the same thing that happens in literally any other case where this happens? The police prosecutor etc. have the right to go ahead with a charge even if the woman withdraws the complaint (they have the same right in any criminal case), btw.

People who assume someone lied just because the case went to court and a not guilty verdict was returned, or there was insufficient evidence so it was thrown out etc. are ridiculous and have no understanding of the court process. But, there is a process and if it's adhered to, the media and public have no right to don their armour and grab their pitchforks and go to town on the accused.

Original poster
PinkyOfPie · 18/10/2016 00:36

Suspects of rape/sexual abuse are treated as any other suspects, but just like any other suspects, they have the right to a fair trial and the right to be found guilty or not guilty depending on the evidence. The public do not then have the right to go on a witch hunt.

No one is disputing that people should have a fair trial.

And I for one certainly don't believe in vigilante justice (was frothing about it on another thread a couple of days ago).

But that's got sod all to do with anonymity for people charged with sex crimes.

Clayton McDonald seems to be doing very well anyway!or the bloke who plays Ken Barlow. No vigilante justice to be seen

OP posts:
Pluto30 · 18/10/2016 00:37

Anonymity, if it's to be applied, should be applied in all criminal cases. I will agree with you on that. Sex crimes shouldn't be treated any differently.

Original poster
PinkyOfPie · 18/10/2016 00:38

People who assume someone lied just because the case went to court and a not guilty verdict was returned, or there was insufficient evidence so it was thrown out etc. are ridiculous and have no understanding of the court process

It's equally ridiculous to say that a not guilty verdict means the accused was innocent, but people assume it all the time

OP posts:
AVirginLitTheCandle · 18/10/2016 00:39

I was talking about peoples perceptions Pluto.

People do assume that if he isn't convicted (for whatever reason) then it was obviously a false accusation.

Nanny0gg · 18/10/2016 00:40

But that's got sod all to do with anonymity for people charged with sex crimes.

But from what I read, it's not anonymity once charged it's anonymity once accused.

Where does it say different?

Original poster
PinkyOfPie · 18/10/2016 00:40

Anonymity, if it's to be applied, should be applied in all criminal cases. I will agree with you on that. Sex crimes shouldn't be treated any differently.

Not sure if that was aimed at me but I don't think any crime should have the accused remain anonymous (except as is the case now with children).

I do think that all victims of any crime should remain anonymous (it only really applies now to victims of sex crimes) but that's another thread for another day!

OP posts:
GardenGeek · 18/10/2016 00:43

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

AVirginLitTheCandle · 18/10/2016 00:44

Look at what's happening with Ched Evans right now.

Twitter, Facebook, the comments section on news sites and youtube, etc are all awash with people screaming "send her to jail!", "lying bitch!", etc.

The same thing happened when Jack Tweedy was found not guilty. I saw people saying that he should sue the accuser for slander/libel. Obviously the implication being that not guilty = false accusation.

In fact look at any time a celebrity has been acquitted for rape/sexual offences. The general belief seems to be that he was a poor man who was falsely accused and that his accuser/s should be locked away.

Craig Charles...does anyone even remember his rape charge? He is another one who is thought of as a poor innocent man who was falsely accused by a lying woman.

Nanny0gg · 18/10/2016 00:44

You really think that an accusation is enough for people to be named and shamed before prosecution?

Really?

AVirginLitTheCandle · 18/10/2016 00:45

I'm not saying that any of these people are guilty btw.

AVirginLitTheCandle · 18/10/2016 00:46

You really think that an accusation is enough for people to be named and shamed before prosecution?

Nope.

AVirginLitTheCandle · 18/10/2016 00:47

And I know the woman in the Ched Evans case didn't accuse him of rape. It's a shame other people don't understand that though.

OnceThereWasThisGirlWho · 18/10/2016 00:49

Reading replies here with interest.

What sickens me about this is only calling for anonymity for those accused of sexual offences. If it was for all offences it would at least seem they had a point, other than trying to make out women just make up rape accusations for shits and giggles.

I recently reported a historical rape. I thought there might be others coming forward and other offences against women but surprisingly not. His name won't be going anywhere precisely because there is only my word against his.

Swipe left for the next trending thread