To think anonymity for suspects of sex offences is a bad idea?

[QuentinSummers]

Barry Bennell recently jailed for raping 10s if not 100s of boys in the 70s and 80s.
Much of his offending came to light after one man told his story in the national press. Others then came forward with stories of their own, they corroborated each other. Barry Bennell was an extremely prolific paedophile.

Many people think that someone accused of a sex offence should remain anonymous until convicted, as lives can be ruined by false allegations.

If that was in place then Alan Ackley cpuld never have told his story and the other men might never have come forward. Mr Bennell would not have faced justice for all he's done.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-38104681

There are many other similar stories, John Worboys being one.

AIBU to think anonymity for people accused of sex offences protects prolific paedophiles and rapists and is a bad idea?

OP what if I accused your DP or DS of sexual assault/rape.

What if someone's DP/DS really did rape someone?

How would you then feel if his name was splashed all over the papers and he was vilified in his community?

Why would his name automatically be splashed all over the paper?

No, in the eyes of the law it couldn't be proven beyond reasonable doubt that they raped. That doesn't mean they didn't do it.

I think that has just proven the no smoke without fire scenario...

I think there should be some sort of sliding scale. If more than one accusation is made and the police find them consistent and find evidence that the person may be a multiple offender then they should be able to apply to the courts to make the offenders name public.

I don't see how not wanting to ruin innocent peoples lives = happy for boys to be raped. How would you feel if you were falsely accused and your name was dragged through the mud all over the media and you and your family were attacked and vilified?And then even when you were found innocent there would still be nasty rumours that would effect your life, relationships , employment prospects etc forever. It's not just a simple case of "oh you were innocent sorry for all the trouble". People don't like to be wrong about things and will continue the "no smoke without fire" attitude regardless.

I don't under understand the idea that being accused of rape is a more heinous crime than others and is more likely to ruin poeple's lives if they are falsely accused.

What about animal torture/mistreatment, what about child abuse (non sexual), what about conning elderly people, what about carers beating the vulnerable people in their care, what about burning down a home with people inside....

The reason there is anonimity for people who report this crime is because without it, hardly anyone would it.

Also we see cases like the one in the OP and warboys, others as well where other victims came forward when they recognised their assailant which helped to convict (although with warboys the police still ignored women for a ridiculously long time).

There was a review which put the rates of false accusations at similar to other crimes - around 2%. There is also the point that very very few rapists are ever convicted.

If you had been violated, subjected to a series of degrading acts, woudl you want the details to be available to your children, parents, work colleagues, at the click of a mouse? Many wouldn't.

So really this step will

• Leave men liek warboys and bennells on the street
• Stop reporting in its tracks

To protect a small minority of falsely accused men.

it feels to me that this demonstrates just how much society places men and their comfort ahead of mainly women victims, when it comes to these crimes.

Question - would anonimity for children be removed as well? If not, why not.

Someone on a thread a while ago said better thousands of crimes are committed than one man goes to prison who is innocent... Which I found very stark.

Just plain ridiculous to state a not guilty verdit means guilty but not enough evidence. I hope you never sit on a jury.

They were named and shamed within local spheres from the moment of accusation.

What do you mean 'local spheres'?

I'm still unclear whether your relative was named in the press or not. You say he wasn't named in the national press. So was he named in the local press?

There are women on mn who have talked about being raped and then seeing their rapist walk free, that does not mean they weren't raped. The damage done from what happened to them doesn't go away because their rapist got a not guilty verdict.

OP what if I accused your DP or DS of sexual assault/rape.
People always throw this out on these threads. Yes I would be shocked but how I feel is irrelevant if he actually did do it.

Someone very close to me was falsely accused of rape . He was arrested outside his daughters school when he went to collect her. The police tweeted about the arrest and everyone was tweeting what a scumbag he was . After 5 months on bail whilst the police investigated he was told no crime committed as cctv placed him somewhere 10 miles away from his accuser.
He won't go and collect his daughter from school anymore after what happened that day. All over a bitter woman's false allegations.

"Re your Barry Bennall comment - 7 charges were found not guilty. I havent read the transcripts so no idea if that is because of (a) lack of evidence (b) 'band waggoners' (it does happen)."

Seriously?

Not guilty doesn't necessarily mean innocent. It means that the jury did not find that the evidence against him was enough to convince them that he was guilty beyond any reasonable doubt of those particular 7 offences.

To take a man like Bennell and say yeah probably some of these men are liars is crass in the extreme.

I think we should maybe look more at how the press report than changing the system as others have pointed out the public reaction is different to other crimes

Imagine if Savile had been charged with just one case and it went public and he wasn’t so protected how many would have come forward and he could have spent some of his life in jail sadly that wasn’t the case

Delete what if he didn't do it though?

How would you feel if you were falsely accused and your name was dragged through the mud all over the media and you and your family were attacked and vilified?

Again, why would being accused automatically mean I was named in the media? The majority of people accused of crimes are not named in the press.

Also how would a press anonymity law prevent me from being vilified and identified? I would still be named throughout the investigation. People would still find out who I was. A ban on naming me in the press would not stop people finding out who I was.

Just plain ridiculous to state a not guilty verdit means guilty but not enough evidence. I hope you never sit on a jury.

It's not ridiculous it's fact. There's no such thing as being 'proven innocent' in a U.K. court of law.

If you have people who look at Bennell and the particular crimes that the CPS chose to take to court, ie felt they had a good chance of convicton over, and see they were found not guilty of 7 of the offences, and say "Oh ban-waggoners", then we can easily see why sex offences are so hard to prosecute.

To take a man like Bennell and say yeah probably some of these men are liars is crass in the extreme.

I agree. This sort of narrative happens with female victims all the time so I'm not surprised to find some people have the same attitude in this case. Very sad.

Someone very close to me was falsely accused of rape . He was arrested outside his daughters school when he went to collect her. The police tweeted about the arrest and everyone was tweeting what a scumbag he was
This seems very unlikely. I doubt the police would see the need to tweet about arresting a rapist, they atrest several every day. Unless he had been on the run or something.

"His barrister accused the complainants of inventing stories about him and "jumping on the bandwagon"."

Yes it's always very important to believe 100% what the defence counsel say rather than the prosecution

i hope you're never on a jury mate.

That's terrible @gta but are you sure that he was the victim of a deliberate malicious allegation? Did the police confirm that no rape had taken place? Could it be possible that the woman really was raped but for some reason either she or the police had mistakenly thought it was the person close to you who did it?

Delete it's not a fact. The verdict of 'not guilty' doesn't mean 'guilty, but not enough evidence to prove it'.

Quentin, GMP do this often, check their Twitter they tweet arrests daily

what if he didn't do it though?

Then he didn't do it, chances are it won't get to court anyway. Most rape cases don't even when rape did take place.

Hate to break it to some of you but rapists don't walk around with signs. They are someone's brother, father, uncle, partner, friend etc. No one likes to think of someone close to them being capable of doing horrible things but the fact is some do.

There are two factors here

1. The underlying idea that most accusations are false or unfair

2. The shocking conviction rate which means that you can’t really be sure that someone found not guilty is actually not guilty

I don’t believe anyone accused should have anonymity, it’s important that other victims have the chance to come forwards. If the justice system was more effective for these crimes and victims and abusers and the wrongly accused had a better chance of getting the correct outcome it wouldn’t be an issue.

This seems very unlikely. I doubt the police would see the need to tweet about arresting a rapist, they atrest several every day. Unless he had been on the run or something.

That's why I suspect the woman in question really was raped @QuentinSummers. However for some reason the police messed up and arrested the wrong person.