To think that most people who think men accused of rape should be granted anonymity don't understand what it actually means?

[PlantsArePeopleToo]

Anonymity simply refers to press anonymity. It has nothing to do with not being named during the course of the police investigation.

Even if those accused of rape and other sex crimes were granted anonymity it wouldn't stop allegations of those things needing to be investigated which would mean the suspect/accused would need to be named when speaking to potential witnesses and when building the case. Anonymity wouldn't stop those witnesses from then telling people who he is and it certainly wouldn't stop people walking into a rape trial and finding out who he is that way. Anonymity wouldn't stop bail conditions been set. It wouldn't stop people gossiping and making their own judgments.

I have seen it a lot, even on here, where people argue that they should be given anonymity because they know someone who was accused (falsely or otherwise) who had their lives torn apart as a result of the investigation or bail conditions despite the fact that those things have bugger all to do with anonymity and would still happen even if anonymity was in place.

I've even seen cases where a minor was accused and people still used them as examples as to why anonymity is important despite the fact that minors are automatically anonymous .

Not to mention the fact that the majority of men accused of rape are not named in the press anyway. Generally men only tend to be named if they are high profile or if there is an unusual or interesting element to the case (e.g serial rapist). The majority of men accused of rape already are anonymous.

I've been quite surprised by how many people seem confused by this why I've explained to them what it means or just flat out don't believe me.

AIBU to think that a lot of people arguing for anonymity for the accused think that it means that they won't be named or identified at all during the investigation? AIBU to think most people misunderstand what anonymity means?

Yet woman who do make false claims is NEVER allowed to be brought up in court ever or proven cases were they have been dishonest aka committed fraud so they are not as trustworthy as they appear.

The MN rape apologist is back.

Not Proven, the uniquely Scottish verdict open to juries, is an absolute disgrace.

It’s allowed guilty people to walk free, and left innocent people with a cloud of suspicion above their heads for the rest of their life.

Appalling.

Yet woman who do make false claims is NEVER allowed to be brought up in court ever or proven cases were they have been dishonest aka committed fraud so they are not as trustworthy as they appear

Wrong. Women have been convicted for perverting the course of justice (not fraud) WRT allegations of sexual assault or rape. It's just extremely rare, despite what rape myths may tell you.

The defense is not even allowed to test the credibility of the "victim" yet the defendants entire life history is open too the court. Which in a he said she said case is so lopsided its unreal.

Bollocks. Chef Evans' victim was grilled about her sex like. Plenty of rape victims are. I don't personally think it should be up to the victim to prove their credibility and this needs to stop in court, but then again I don't hate women so 🤷‍♀️

Yep plants I wonder if she has a google alert that says "mumsnet false rape allegations"

I would prefer there to be no rapists and crime.

However I don't think it's right that newspaper etc can publish your name, age etc when you may be innocent.

I agree YeTalk BUT an alarming number of people believe "not guilty" means "innocent", at least "not proven" spells it out a bit better. Only a bit though

I actually wish England had the not proven verdict. At least it might stop all the cries of "OMG she lied! Send her to jail!" that happen whenever a man is found not guilty.

The fact that a victim’s sex life can be dredged up in court and used against her by the defence, or worse, the rapist himself, is an aspect of our justice system that we should all be deeply ashamed of.

It doesn’t matter if she had sex with 20 men. If she said no to the 21st, or he forced her in any way, it’s rape. Her previous sex life is utterly irrelevant, yet she’ll be judged on it all the same.

Wouldn't we all DeFrack! But what about he victims I mentioned, they'd be forgotten if anonymity was enforced. Do you think they're less important than the few people who may be innocent?

And that's for all crimes.
And no I'm not a rape apologist.

I guess I’m coming from the angle of knowing people who’s lives have been devastated by Not Proven verdicts, but I see your point Plants.

I don't know, honestly I want anonymity, but then you mention warboys etc.

I think it's such a tough topic to be had.

There is most definitely a woeful misunderstanding that "not guilty" for a rape verdict means "she lied and she should be named and shamed". Is that what people mean when they say there's lots of false allegations? Because people get very upset about it (despite, and I'll say it again, the rarity) - yet they never seem to comment "why is his name being published innocent until proven guilty" when a local newspapers Facebook page reports a man accused of burglary, or animal cruelty. I wonder why that is?

There is most definitely a woeful misunderstanding that "not guilty" for a rape verdict means "she lied and she should be named and shamed". Is that what people mean when they say there's lots of false allegations

No, not when it’s not guilty, as that could be really not guilty, or guilty but there wasn’t enough evidence.
It’s in the cases where a woman has purposely made up false rape allegations.

MrMe I know I was being obtuse.

We really need to quash the myth that false allegations are rife. They're not. And the justice system and processes should not process as if they are common.

I actually think that a lot of people in RL DO think anonymity means that nobody should be able to know about it

I agree with this

I realise that people were sarky with me in the beginning but just thought I'd go back to my original point re: what people think anonymity means.

I defintley do think that a lot of people (I take my original claim back about it being most but I still think it's a significant enough number) do believe that anonymity means that they aren't allowed to be named ever in whatever form. It's not because people are thickos or idiots, I just don't think people are always thinking it through.

Even I never used to think it through when I was younger and just jumped on the bandwagon of being pro anonymity without really thinking it through. Yes I did think that it would mean anonymous in all aspects of the investigation and it wasn't because I was an idiot, I just wan't thinking about it any deeper than that.

I think it's naive to suggest that there aren't people out there who really do think that's what it means. On just about every thread on here about this subject, there are always posters who talk about how they know someone was falsely accused and had their lives ruined because of the investigation and bail conditions. Said posters then go on to argue that this is why we need anonymity. When someone asks if the accused was named in the press the answer is usually "no". Yet the implication is still there that they think anonymity would have somehow helped their falsely accused friend/relative despite the fact it would have made no difference.

There was a thread on Digital Spy forums ages ago (I'll try and find it) about a man who was acquitted of rape and gone to the press afterwards about being 'falsely accused'. Despite the fact that he hadn't been named in the press prior to going to them himself after his acquittal, there were still people bleating on about he should have been anonymous and how rape suspects need to be granted anonymity. When someone pointed out that anonymity only refers to press anonymity so wouldn't be helpful in this particular case there were posters going "nope that's not right, it means more than that."

Go to the comments section of any news article about a rape acquittal and there will be people there going on about anonymity even if there is no evidence they were named beforehand.

Maybe it's just a case of idiots shouting the loudest so it only looks like that's the majority view? I certainly hope so.

I do however think there are people out there who don't understand what anonymity means. There is no need to patronize me when I point out that there wrong.

IME most men who have their lives ruined because of an accusation (false or otherwise) have it ruined as a result of the investigation itself (bail conditions, etc) and not as a result of being named in the press. Again most men accused of rape are not named in the press so anonymity would make no difference to most men who are accused.

A lot of the things people complain about when someone is accused of sexual offences aren't because the person was named in the paper. It is because officers turned up at somewhere that would embarrass the suspect. Or because the suspect has been suspended from work and the allegation has got out as to why that was. I think that there are those who are close to folk who have been suspected of these crimes who think that if they are investigated for something that could be seen as quite so embarrassing and career ending that it should be done in secret to preserve their reputation. However I'm pretty sure that if it were their loved one as a victim they would not extend the suspect the same courtesy.

It's not just the accused that can be embarrassed and have difficulty at work due to cack-handed officers. A friend lived near the scene of a sexual assault that happened on a weekday afternoon. Friend was at work at the time of the assault. Perpetrator was unknown to the victim, but she gave a good description. Police going door to door realised my friend matched the age range, build, hair colour of the perpetrator. They phoned his workplace to check his alibi saying "We are investigating a serious sexual assault and is a suspect. Can you tell us when he was at work last week." Surely they could have said something like "We are investigating a crime and need to eliminate from our enquiries".

It's rare innocent men are convicted of or even charged with rape.

It may well be rare that innocent men are convicted, but about 20% of prosecutions for sexual assault that reach court fail (source = CPS), never mind cases that are dropped after charging but before court. This is not "rare".

jcyclops do you understand that not guilty verdict (or 'fail' as you put it) does not mean innocent, or that the jury believes the defendant is innocent?

Let's remember 2% of rapes end in conviction. 98% of rapist's are roaming the street get people biggest concern is the menz

And do you have a source for those stats?

but about 20% of prosecutions for sexual assault that reach court fail

Erm not sure what this has to do with anything

But i agree that the police should have been a bit more sensitive...but that is a matter for your friend to bring up with the police

Let's remember 2% of rapes end in conviction. 98% of rapist's are roaming the street get people biggest concern is the menz

That's a bit of an extrapolation. I know someone who was wrongly accused of rape. In fact maliciously accused. As soon as the police arrested and questioned this became very apparent. He had a cast iron alibi. And yet still he was hounded by suggestions of "no smoke without fire".

Being incredibly sad for my friend who had his life ruined by a lie doesn't mean I believe false rape allegations are common. But it IS - as with any crime - a concern I would have thought.

Nobody should be named until they have been proven guilty, regardless of the crime.

Innocent until proven guilty. You don't need to name suspects. You should not even name them when they are charged. Once a court of law has found them guilty, then you can name them.

It is often argued you need to make people so justice can be seen to be done, but they seem to manage perfectly well in other countries eg in Germany instead of saying Anna Schmidt they'd say Anna S.

And you don't need to name people so "people will come forward". If someone has attacked you, report it. You don't wait until someone else has reported it.

I see no reason for victims of crime to be named regardless of the crime.