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?

It's not that men are more important and yes, there are many more women have been affected by rape. Does that mean the men who have had their lives ruined shouldn't be protected at all though? I know of a student teacher who was accused of something and his name was gossiped around campus. He killed himself. It was later found out that the woman who had accused him had had a history of false accusations and a long history of mental health issues. But even though he wasn't charged, the gossip was enough and there were far too many people who believed "there's no smoke without fire".

Protections for both parties until someone has been charged. When someone has been charged, then you can release their name. Why did the press know about Paul Gambaccini and Cliff Richard when they hadn't been charged with something? Trial by media, that's why. The police knew the accusers were lying, but they thought having their name all over the press might encourage some people to come forward with some more false accusations to build a case. Either that, or just get their name tainted.

Say what you want, but Cliff's name is forever tainted by that now, even though he was charged with nothing. I sincerely hope he pours his millions into a campaign to get the law changed. There needs to be another inquiry about the cozy relationship between the press and the police. No way should the raid on Cliff Richard's house been shown live on the news.

mycatstares

When they have been charged, release their name. When they've only been accused, they should have anonimity. Cliff and Paul Gambaccini had their names everywhere for months, despite never being charged with anything. Surely you can see that's wrong?

YANBU PinkyOfPie.

My one hope (and it's a v slim one) is that I find out someone else has reported my abuser, because in the current climate I'm sure as hell not going to do it, especially after the Ched Evans verdict. That said, although I'd love to find out, I'm not sure I could face googling his name, tbh.

I think Cliff Richard's suggestion would set us all back even further though. The legal process needs to change, but not in this direction.

Cliff has got some front.
If we had anonymity it would be the end of open justice.
When I think of all the high profile men acquitted in the last few years, I can't think of one who had his life/career ruined. They have all gone back to their careers in politics or acting.
And men that are either acquitted/don't even get charged that aren't in the public eye don't face the same stigma as the victim. Women can't be named but in small communtities where gossip runs wild, it's always the woman who is talked about. 'See, she must have lied, he would have been charged otherwise' or 'poor Joe Bloggs, I KNEW he hadn't done it, so awful that bitch falsely accused him'

And of course, if we had anonymity for those accused of rape, we'd still be hero worshipping Jimmy Savile. That case alone, should have put an end to the anonymity argument.

YANBU. This whole thing gives me the rage.

The sad face is is that rape is simply too mundane and ordinary to report it every time it happens.

I'm sure I read somewhere that in the UK a rape is reported every 35 minutes. Do you honestly believe that every single one of them rapes is going to be reported in the press with the man named and shamed every single time? Of course not. The news would be filled with nothing but rape stories if all of them were reported.

In fact even if a man is charged with rape and goes to court he is still not necessarily going to be named. I guarantee you that if you go sit in on any rape trial in the country you will come across numerous cases where none of it has being reported in the press.

I feel like a lot of people who screech that men shouldn't be named until after a conviction don't seem to get that the majority already aren't named until after conviction.

Face? I meant fact obviously

It is obvious most of you have not been accused of a crime you have not committed - everyone should be anonymous.

My 5 year old Grandson was ostracised in his street and school after their home was raided by the police - his life was definitely ruined by false allegations.

How would anonymity until convicted actually work anyway?* Would we have to get rid of open courts?

Currently any member of the public can sit in on any trial, including rape trials. So if would we have to put a stop to that if the suspect was given anonymity?

Any member of the public could sit in on the trial and find out his name that way. And what's stopping them from then telling people who he is and what's stopping those people from telling other people.

The only way you could truly have anonymity is if we switched to closed courts.

The same goes for the woman involved. People always go on about how she isn't allowed to be named but that only goes for printed media doesn't it? There's nothing stopping someone from sitting in on the trial and finding out who she is that way. And of course there's nothing stopping them then going on to tell other people.

*Disclaimer - I know there's a difference between being charged and convicted but there have been people on this thread (and elsewhere) who want anonymity until convicted, not just charged.

Cliff Richards case was handled horrendously, circling aerial footage whilst being searched the lot, was it South Yorkshire Police? Or am I wrong there? ...but I do agree in cases like John Warboys anonymity is dodgy , deeply.

His whole 'campaign' in every paper has been "ME ME ME", "i'm hurt", "i won't recover" and so on.

No one has suggested anonymity until conviction

There were some people at the start of the thread who said that they should only be named after they've been convicted.

I was addressing my post to them.

What a misogynistic thing to say

Um, right. Okay. Sure.

on balance: if there is risk of "hypothetical harm to the reputation of one man based on a false accusation of rape" and I must balance that against "actual harm done to 500 women by not having their rapist convicted PLUS "harm done to ALL women by living in a culture where rape is almost impossible to convict" PLUS "harm done to ALL women due to the perpetuation of the myth that women are liars who falsely report rape at high rates"

...then I'm going to vote in favour of least harm done to least amount of people. But then I happen to believe women are people, so...

And yes half it wasn't handled well, probably illegal information sharing went on between the police and the BBC and yes it's his right to sue, but does he have to make it all so public?

Rape and things to do with kids are not like any other crime even if people know the police are interested in you people think your guilty

What's the issue with waiting until charged also those who leak things to the press should be charged

Sun dance and it's obvious a lot of people haven't been raped and not believed.

Has anyone ever stopped to think, that if rapists were actually brought to justice, then when a rare false accusation was made and the person cleared, there'd be no stigma, because people would have faith in the system.

The fact remains that hardly any men are falsely accused of rape, when children compared with how many women are actually raped. Out of those handful of men hardly any are named in the press anyway before a conviction.

When compared, don't know where the children came from.

people think your guilty

Is that really what happens though?

IME people tend to disbelieve women who say they've been raped. That's why we needed a We Believe You campaign.

So if a woman says "he raped me" but the man says "no I didn't, she consented. She's lying" then who do people tend to believe? Most of the time? IME it's not the woman. Most people believe the man.

I actually believe in innocent till proven guilty for all crimes, I don't think anyone being investigated for anything should be named until there is sufficient evidence to charge them. If more people come forward after they have been charged then that could strengthen a court case but just imagine if you were innocent and the whole of the country had been told about the allegation people would still judge you even if you were found not guilty it must be horrible. If you are charged and found guilty then obviously it being public is in the publics interest

"What's to stop people on the jury from talking about it?"

Contempt of court? Huge jail time and massive fines? Simple, really. If they can grant anonimity to accusers (and most of the time it works) why not the other way around?

If they can grant anonimity to accusers (and most of the time it works)

Like the woman in the Ched Evans case...

Oh wait...

I said most of the time.

I think those suspected or investigated should be anonymous until they are going to be charged/ arrested.
Then it gives others the chance to come forward too, they will hear about it before it went to court and sentencing.

The detectives who came to our house told our neighbours what they were doing at our house and interviewed them about how long we'd lived there, what we were like etc.
They shouldn't have done this, even though they were lovely, knew us well etc. They still mentioned it in the local Post office, it was game over for dh business after this. Word gets round and even if people don't believe you would do something like that there is still the view of "No smoke without fire". I'd hear people talking, saying such things and they'd be quiet when I appeared.
Kids were saying things to ours at school.
It's wrong to name until there is concrete evidence and a charge is going to be made.

I know the poor victim will have to live with this all her life, and of course we don't. But if you went back to where we lived and mentioned dh name you'd be told he was a rapist If the Detectives had been more sensitive and not told our neighbours the result would have been the same.

If he'd done it fair enough, they don't deserve any consideration when they rape and ruin a womans life.