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?

name people not make them!

I know someone who was wrongly accused of rape.

So was his accuser convicted for perverting the course of justice?

@Satsumaeater do you understand why it's the case that people can be named in court or when charges now?

So was his accuser convicted for perverting the course of justice?

Yes

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.

Do you think rape victims are just sitting around with "report rape" on the bottom of their to-do lists? That they haven't got round to it? OR could there possibly be a reason that they maybe don't want to report it? 🤔 research show las victims are far far more likely to report their abuser when someone else comes forward first. Like I saylook uo Tony Brunskill before you decide that perpetrators feelings come before justice for the actual victims

Wow. It's funny that even though convictions for perverting the course of justice WRT sexual assaults are VERY rare, every apologist on MN seems to know someone it happened to.

I never buy the "I know someone falsely accused of rape". Of course he didn't do it. They never do, not your friend 🙄

Of course he didn't do it. They never do, not your friend

Well he was playing a match live on tv when the “rape” took place so he had several thousand alibis!

I’ve been raped. I was roofied and raped whilst I slept.

Why would I lie about someone being wrongly accused to a faceless stranger on the internet

gunpowder

I know someone falsely accused of sexual assault

I know many many more women who were assaulted sexually or otherwise or raped

Knowing someone falsely accused does not make me a rape apologist

Its 1 man in my entire 49 years as opposed to hundreds of women

It's usually what is trotted out by the apologists though Rufus they ALWAYS know someone falsely accused, its usually just their word for it though (or they insist the were convicted of perverting the course of justice though, hmm)

Yes you are right it's usually a tactic

I think it was the blanket comment that pissed me off

But statistically i know many many more women!

Blanket statements are wrong Gelatine.

I’m no rape apologist. I also know someone wrongly accused. The two are entirely unconnected.

YANBU. Thankyou oh wise one for educating me.

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

And what’s the clearup rate for burglary? But strangely nobody complains about homeowners making false allegations, or is pressing for anonymity for thieves.

Sashkin

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

And what’s the clearup rate for burglary? But strangely nobody complains about homeowners making false allegations, or is pressing for anonymity for thieves.
because sexual offence carries such baggage especially ones against children you can never recover

You may give somone who was accused of shopped lifing a chance or even somone who was accused of robbing a house

Would you allow you child to be looked after by somone who had been accused of sexual assault

When I went to join the police you have to disclose if you had been accused of a crime even if found not guilty mud sticks

Their have been a few cases in the papers were the police withheld evidence that exsonrated a young lad of rape

It cost him a place at uni he won’t get that back and he will alway have to explain why he suddenly left half way through his course and also two years of his life I believe on bail

He would never be able to join the police or army or CPS
Not saying he wants to but

As a mother or a son I wouldn’t think it’s fair

You may give somone who was accused of shopped lifing a chance or even somone who was accused of robbing a house

No I wouldn't. It's just not worth the risk.

Would you allow you child to be looked after by somone who had been accused of sexual assault

No and I don't know many who would tbh.

My son is the most precious thing in the world to me so if I'm not going to risk someone nicking some money off me than there is no way in hell I'm going to take the chance that someone will hurt him.

Of course it's unfortunate if the person in question was falsely accused but potentially putting my child in danger is far worse than the hurt feelings of someone who may have been falsely accused.

@1981fishgut you're actually comparing burglary to sexual assault? Even enhanced DBS checks won't have 'false' accusations on them if not charged, unless the local police force believes there's some truth in it and its relevant to the job. There's quite a stringent process for this.

As a mother of a son and daughter I think it's perfectly fair that those facing trial can be named in the press. Don't you think it's in the public interest to know who's going through a trial?

Plus what if it came out later that they hadn't been falsely accused and did in fact do it? What if it came out that they'd abused your child after you had decided they must have been innocent and left them in their care? I just couldn't live with myself knowing that I'd been so stupid and taken that risk and my child had been hurt as a result of my actions.

That's not even the mentioning the backlash you would get from other people. I guarantee that the first words out of people's mouths but WTF did you leave your child who had prior allegations against them...

*would be

Their have been a few cases in the papers were the police withheld evidence that exsonrated a young lad of rape

It cost him a place at uni he won’t get that back and he will alway have to explain why he suddenly left half way through his course and also two years of his life I believe on bail

That is of course terrible but it has nothing to do with anonymity and everything to do with piss poor police work. Anonymity wouldn't change anything here.

This thread is a perfect example of why some things can never be debated on MN.

Really thankful you took time out of your day to come on here and clear that up.

Now maybe you can explain the off-side rule to us all.

I don’t think false allegations are as rare as people think. Look at Roxanne Pallet of CBB. And it’s not always mailicious. Sometimes, and I think this was the case in Roxannes case, she genuinely believed she had been abused. Some people even agreed Ryan should have toy punched her.

The belief is that a woman’s accusation is more important than a mans right to anonymity. Great if you are the accuser, not so good if you are the accused!

Also I thought we started on the premise of innocent till proven guilty, then you have to stop using provocative language like saying the accused is probably guilty anyway.