John Leslie - AIBU to agree that men accused of sexual assault should have anonymity until charged?

[FauxFurCoatAndBigKnickers]

Having 3 sons myself (and a daughter), cases like this are really worrying as people will always think ‘there’s no smoke without fire’.

I don’t understand why John Leslie didn’t sue the arse off that jibbering imbecile Wright or why Jonsson started the witch hunt then refused to speak out. That was what started off all the rest of the allegations and if, as it seems, he is entirely innocent, it is a disgusting travesty and has totally ruined his life.

Non DM link below:
www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/john-leslie-trial-not-guilty-a4572176.html%3famp

Either none named or both named is the only fair solution though looking at the predictable votes most would disagree.

I totally agree with you. John Leslie has had his life ruined by Wright and Johnsson. Why did she never say anything? Horrible woman

No. It is the only crime where people clamour for anonymity and that is because it mainly impacts men's reputation. If men are given anonymity for this, why not every other crime? And one of the reasons men like John Warboys was caught, is because other women were able to come forward due to his name and identity being publicised.

Not only that, but false allegations for rape are very rare. On par with false allegations of other crimes so why pick this one out? Oh that's right. Because it impacts men and a substantial minority of them would like to attack and abuse women with no one hearing about it. And if we did permit anonymity for rape cases and nothing else, it would send out a very clear message to women that no one believes them and that society views them as liars. It plays into every misogynistic man's hands.

And it destroys their reputation and life, really? How come then I saw Mike Tyson on Good Morning Britain just a few days ago, promoting himself? How come those awful Rugby players swanned off to new clubs? Chef Evans too, while his victim had to emigrate? Emotional, manipulative claptrap, all designed to let men do what they want, especially to women and girls.

I know that false reports are rare, but even when chances are rare, there should be some protection like this. For everyone involved.

YABU. The number of rapes being reported to police is growing but the number of prosecutions is falling and a record low.

Police are using rape victims' mobile phone history against.

That is what your AIBU should be.

Having 3 sons myself

Teach your sons not to rape and they should be fine.

Not charged, because it still has to go to court.

I would say convicted

Most guilty rapists walk free, I'm glad they're not anonymous, if it helps just one woman to know to avoid John Leslie like the plague then that's ok by me.

Personally I think and hope I've done a good job in teaching my nearly 17 year old about consent, i.e. not to be a rapist, so I think he'll be ok.

@Cadent

YABU. The number of rapes being reported to police is growing but the number of prosecutions is falling and a record low.

Police are using rape victims' mobile phone history against.

That is what your AIBU should be.

I cannot understand this argument. If there is evidence on the phone then it's entirely right it should be taken into account. We have something called due process - for the time being, at least.

I'm inclined to agree with you OP. Although I see the argument for situations like Warboys. It's a tricky one.

In the Netherlands criminal's names are reported like John L until they've been convicted.

I feel that's much fairer. In this day and age especially with Google etc. Think of that poor couple who got accused of flying the drones around Heathrow. They are now forever associated with it.

@Cadent

YABU. The number of rapes being reported to police is growing but the number of prosecutions is falling and a record low.

Police are using rape victims' mobile phone history against.

That is what your AIBU should be.

Police are using rape victims' mobile phone history against.

Not the police, they want to prosicute rapists.

The defence will try and use it against the victim.

YABVU. First of all, the CPS will have reviewed the case and will have been satisfied that there was sufficient evidence at the time of charging for there to be a realistic prospect of conviction. That evidence was tested in a courtroom and examined against the required criminal burden of proof - as is every single other charged case. It's exactly as it should be. So less of that 'no smoke without fire' rubbish please, it's just how the legal system works. For everyone.

Secondly, we don't grant anonymity to adults charged of a crime for the most part, partly because it can assist with gathering vital evidence. In plenty of sexual assault cases, the only reason other survivors came forward and reported is because they've seen the offender's name in the paper- it's only then that we can understand the true scale of the offending. As long as the media follow the appropriate guidelines and rules and don't interfere with the process of justice, there isn't a problem. Granting anonymity in rape cases is tantamount to saying 'we don't believe you by default, so won't say the offender's name just in case'. And I really did think we were past that...

I have a better solution. Tell men to stop raping and sexually assaulting women.

This fallacy again!

"Women" don't get anonymity in the case of alleged rape, nor do "men" get named. Victims of rape and sexual assault get anonymity and the defendants do not. The fact that the most likely gender pairing for sexual violence is male on female is apparently not worth remembering. But if a woman or man was accused of sexually assaulting a man, the alleged male victim would get anonymity.

And that's because victims of this type of crime, more so than others, are less likely to come forward without it, more likely to come forward when they see that someone else has made a claim against their attacker, and much, much more likely to be fucking pilloried in the media and by the general public. Justice should be as open as possible and it's not a quid pro quo that attackers should get the same protection as victims because of the specific effects of identifying the latter in this particular type of crime.

The vast majority of rape cases never even make it to court.

I know how tempting it is to be all cool and not like feminists and all that, but please stop. You know the British media and our culture. Do you really think these rules came in out of nowhere?

No, men charged with rape should not have anonymity. For all other crimes, there is no anonymity except for very specific circumstances (e.g., the defendant is a minor or a vulnerable person) and rape should be no different. Naming the accused can also encourage other victims to come forward, this happened with John Warboys and Rolf Harris. False accusations are very rare and granting the accused anonymity would do nothing to change this.

I'm not even going to comment in details on the notion of accusations ruining the reputations of men except to say that isn't it amazing how quickly and easily men are forgiven, particularly if they also happen to be good at their job and/or are wealthy/famous.

Without referencing any specific cases I would also like to point out that in law "not guilty" is not the same thing as "innocent". A verdict of "not guilty" means there is insufficient evidence on either side to enable a verdict that is beyond reasonable doubt.

@CuteOrangeElephant

In the Netherlands criminal's names are reported like John L until they've been convicted.

I feel that's much fairer. In this day and age especially with Google etc. Think of that poor couple who got accused of flying the drones around Heathrow. They are now forever associated with it.

No, the less information you give, the more likely you are to accidentally implicate someone else. That's why reports always give full names, living locations and as much information as possible, to make it very clear who's being charged.

I'd very much teach my DD and any other women to avoid John Leslie.

As Hellothere says he had a hell of a reputation for years in the TV industry before anyone named him (and I could name a few others who have never been identified and prosecuted). It's just a shame justice has not been done.

YABU. The number of rapes being reported to police is growing but the number of prosecutions is falling and a record low. Police are using rape victims' mobile phone history against. That is what your AIBU should be

I cannot understand this argument. If there is evidence on the phone then it's entirely right it should be taken into account. We have something called due process - for the time being, at least

Because anything on a phone is completely irrelevant to the issue of consent. You can be as up for it as it’s possible to be, sending nudes and sexting and all sorts. But if you get in his bedroom and suddenly he wants to do something to you that you don’t want him to do - you can withdraw consent there and then. And if he ignores it, he’s a rapist. Whatever you texted to him half an hour earlier means fuck all.

How many women does he need to abuse for it to be believed? He’s had 4+ accusers at this point. Maybe it needs to be like Bill Cosby or Harvey Weinstein where dozens of women speak out?

Do you really think John Leslie is an honest, upstanding man that just keeps bumping into lying women determined to bring him down? Why on earth can't you see? Why does he keep getting these accusations when others aren’t? He’s hardly a billionaire! He hasn’t worked for 20 years?!

@Newwayofthinking

Not the police, they want to prosicute rapists.

The defence will try and use it against the victim.

See article:

Police in England and Wales dropping rape inquiries when victims refuse to hand in phones

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2020/jun/17/police-in-england-and-wales-dropping-inquiries-when-victims-refuse-to-hand-in-phones

I disagree due to the poor number of convictions. This was a couple decades ago now, but my sister ended a new relationship after finding out the fella had previously been accused of rape, he never got convicted for whatever reason. Within a year he was sentenced to 9 years in prison for 3 knifepoint rapes against his new girlfriend. There’s far more dangerous men that get let off, than there are falsely accused

I used to feel differently about this, back in the days when people didn’t hear an allegation and immediately assume it was true. But these days if you say, “Well, he might not have done it” (which, before conviction, is a simple fact) people get quite adversarial and suggest you are making excuses for rapists. So now I have changed my mind.

@Newwayofthinking

Not charged, because it still has to go to court.

I would say convicted

I agree and for all crimes, not just sexual assault. Makes a mockery of 'innocent until proven guilty' otherwise. I am all for naming names once proven guilty.