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?

I worked in the criminal justice system for nearly 12 years. In that time, two women in my area were prosecuted for perverting the course of justice because they made a false rape claim. One other could have been but the decision was taken not to prosecute because there were certain mitigating circumstances why it was appropriate not to (young complainant, family issues, the original accused happy for her not be prosecuted).

Three. Three women in 12 years who definitely lied about having been raped.

Do you know how many potential rape cases were sent back to the police without charge because there wasn't a reasonable prospect of conviction? Probably 5-6 per week, in an average week. Not because the women and girls had lied, but because the lawyer knew that the case simply wasn't strong enough to get to court. That possible-victim had been drinking, so that automatically weakened that case. That one had CCTV showing her smiling at her alleged attacker in the bar, so the defence would have a field day with that. This one is almost certainly telling the truth, but because a fair bit of time has elapsed since the alleged rape she's hazy on some of the details and there's no DNA evidence. (Sadly, rape myths were still alive and well even within pockets of the CJS, certainly when I was there and that wasn't too long ago).

That was literally day in, day out. Every one of those innocuous cardboard advice files was yet another man accused of rape. The story of yet another woman or girl having undergone an unpleasant physical examination, relating her tale - often full of embarrassment, shame, self-loathing, self-blame, self-hatred - to a couple of impassive police officers. And that was just the ones which didn't make it to court.

I'm not belittling how utterly awful it must be to have your name dragged through the mud thanks to a false allegation. But it really, truly does not happen that often. I have firsthand experience of how the odds are still so stacked against a survivor of rape receiving justice, so I would be very reluctant to see a measure introduced that could potentially reduce the chances even further, by not giving other victims the knowledge of seeing that someone else has complained about X, you're not alone, it wasn't just you, you're not some freak he singled out, this is on him not you, maybe just maybe you will be believed if you come forward now...

karyatide

I have been raped. Does that mean I’m allowed to hold an opinion?

My question is why is this only ever raised in relation to rape/sex crimes against women and children? Because women can’t be trusted? Or because rape claims are meant to ruin lives, where as murder charges etc don’t?

Yy kary

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.

Happened to someone I know, except the case never went to court so he wasn't actually found not guilty. Guy is a complete bastard anyway and now appears to be into a lot of MRA 'majority of rape accusations are false' crap and appears unable to understand statistics (I've seen his posts on social media). He's also pretty much been able to say what he wants about her as long as he doesn't name her, while she has no way of replying without losing her anonymity.

Pretty sure a 'not proven' verdict in cases like this would just make these people more attractive to the MRAs as victims of the system and 'vicious, lying' women, so I doubt it would help. It would probably just add more fuel to the fire.

@Satsumaeater "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 was abused 30 something years ago. It would be my word against his, and I'm pretty sure he's not going to suddenly be crushed by guilt and confess.

If I saw his name in the paper though? I'd come forward in the hope it would back up whatever the other victim was saying and that would mean a better chance of conviction.

zippey evidence points to the fact that false allegations are rare. Happy to provide a link

It's amazing how every other person on MN personally knows some poor sweet innocent paragon of virtue whose life was wrecked by an evil woman who out of nowhere randomly decided to invent a malicious lie about him raping her for literally no reason than Being A Bitch.

Yes!! It's not as if they're going to say "oh yes I did rape her", yet the blind faith in his word is terrifying. As anyone who's been raped will tell you it's not a pleasant process reporting it, why someone would do that if they didn't have to I'll never know. There's also the myth of most false accusations being a woman who slept with a man then "regretted it so she cried rape" when actually reports into false allegations show that people who make them don't use a named man, but for example unknown intruders, and strangers on the street

Also, everything Banana said with bells on. Let's not make it even harder for victims

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

Try getting a job behind a till as a convicted thief. Or anywhere with access to money.

Or even, if you are talking about access to children, try getting a job as a teacher as a convicted fraudster (there’s that poster on here who nicked her friend’s credit card at uni 20 years ago and still finds herself barred from professional jobs).

There is stigma attached to all crimes. Obviously child abuse (as a more serious crime) attracts more stigma than minor crimes such as shoplifting. But no, since you ask, I wouldn’t employ a burglar or thief as my nanny, or want them teaching my kids. Or nursing on my wards.

Also lol @ my superior intelligence. That genuinely is funny. Thanks for the laugh.

Op, responses like this are what rub people up the wrong way. You come across as arrogant and unpleasant

You say you want to start a discussion but I'm not sure what that discussion is, is it about whether anonymity should/shouldn't be granted or is it about people being stupid?

If it's about the pros and cons of anonymity then your op was inflammatory saying no one understands and your replies to the first posters were to shut people down and tell them that wasn't the point of the thread. So if it was the point of the thread it seems weird to categorically tell people it wasn't.

If the discussion you want is about people being stupid then of course people will be defensive!

I think you've changed your mind about what you want from this thread when you're original topic wasn't well received. And now you're breaking out the autism argument to defend yourself. People on mumsnet aren't stupid, treating them as though they are will rub them up the wrong way. People will see through your back pedalling and card brandishing