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?

If a case is weak then that's surely the fault of the police, the CPS etc. They are the ones who collect evidence and decide whether to go to court.

So in cases where the police have fucked up their evidence, the penalty is naming the victim? Awesome.

@ChelleDawg2020 Fri 16-Feb-18 12:32:36

^Personally I would remove the right to anonymity for the accuser, if they are found to be lying. It could be decided by the jury, working as follows:

• GUILTY (anonymity for accuser, name-and-shame the offender)
• NOT GUILTY A (case not proved beyond doubt, anonymity for both)
• NOT GUILTY B (case so weak that the accuser should be named)^

No innocent until proven guilty for the accuser then? Just because her version of events can't be proven beyond reasonable doubt doesn't mean the person accused is telling the truth.

And what if the accused is found not guilty because the police or CPS fuck it up? The woman just gets thrown under a bus? Named as a liar?

I've posted about this before, but I am more conflicted now about anonymity for the accused since I had a bit of 'inside knowledge' if you like of a case where I have no doubt that the accuser was abused, although perhaps not all of the details were correct (human memory is not infallible).

The case collapsed and the accused got himself in the papers and, basically lied - I know some things he said were outright lies. He'd barely been mentioned in the news, I could only find one mention of the case prior to it's collapse and it was quite obscure, but he chose to do a character assassination on a vulnerable woman who has no right of reply without giving up her anonymity - and why would she do that, given the comments on the articles and tweets about the case?

Maybe if he hadn't been named at all he wouldn't have done that? That's where my conflicted feelings are. But on the other hand, obviously many people in the area would know, because people had to be interviewed and gossip happens...

What I do know is that it's not false allegations that would put me off reporting to the police, it's that the whole thing could collapse and I could end up reading that sort of horrendous article about myself.

@QuentinSummers flowers not needed but always appreciated

It's just scary how many women want to believe this shit doesn't happen, or if they do A; B; C, it won't happen to them