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

I agree. I don't believe this is a sexism thing. It's true for men and women. And any legal case. How can it be ok for someone's name to be released pre? Ever?

Our legal system is (in my opinion, rightly) designed to give a strong benefit of the doubt to ANY defendant accused of a crime.

I believe that the latest guidance is to say that the jury need to be ‘sure’ that the defendant committed the crime, an almost impossibly high bar for some jury members. Many want to see DNA or CCTV evidence, which, where the issue is consent, does not even help. We live in a high tech society with people not giving much credence to oral testimony alone, however compelling.

I do think that symmetry is fair here. Either accusers and accused are public, or neither, regardless of how rare false accusations are. It is not a civil case with a balance of probabilities bar, but a criminal case.

The reality is that this is only an issue with high net worth famous men, where there is a clear incentive to join a bandwagon of accusations. However, an exemption only applying to the rich and famous does not seem fair.

(The phone thing is a total disgrace and no victim should have to have their privacy invaded to allow a prosecution. I thought that had been stopped??)

I remember Mel Gibson being dropped from 'The Hangover 2' because of cast objections. Hmmmm. Interesting how the cast didn't object to the presence of convicted rapist and wife-beater Mike Tyson in the first one. But then I guess it's easier to have principles after the first one was a sleeper hit.

So women have a responsibility for reporting their rapist

Not the rapist has a responsibility for his own actions

If that’s the case why do men not go to the police and admit their crime/s they will be well aware that they have sexually assaulted a women they will know that they raped a woman

But no let’s once again blame women in some way for mens violence towards them It’s not just how much we drank, what we were wearing, how we behaved now it’s that we didn’t report that is the reason men sexually assault and rape women

[quote WinWinnieTheWay]@TheQuietWoman

I agree with every word you said.[/quote]

Thanks Winnie and everyone else. It is sickening that some women just cannot find it in themselves to have empathy for their own sex. Seemingly no understanding as to why women don't report while in the same breath they lay into them and attack them and accuse them of lying. Wtf? Right there in their own words is their own answer! People need to stop trying to make it easier for men to abuse women.

Believe women, ffs.
The chance of anything being brought to court is vanishingly small; convictions near impossible. False allegations almost never happen but rapes happen all the fucking time.

Yes, DH and I actively teach our sons about enthusiastic consent because everything around them tells them women say no when they mean yes, that women are commodities, support humans, drunk or sleeping women are fair game etc etc.

Unless we are ACTIVE in calling out this bullshit, we raise yet another generation of men who rape and abuse women.

Most rapists don’t think they are actually rapists. They “got carried away”. They “were having fun”. They think unless a woman is screaming and punching them, her “no, please stop “ is all part of it because they just don’t care. Women’s bodily autonomy doesn’t matter. Porn tells them women secretly like it, ffs.

And we believe those rare and brave women who speak out.
Christ this thread has been grim reading.

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.

Well said. like MrsTerryPratchett I was a young victim of sexual assault, similar story - in my case it was one of the college sporting heroes. There was no point in me reporting - even if the police took me seriously he had money and parental power and I knew exactly what that meant as did all my friends.

However the adult me is a different person and I would absolutely come forward if his name appeared associated with sexual assault.

Men want anonymity for sexual assault because its their best shield against that ever tinier risk that they will be held to account. Rape is pretty much a punishment free crime at the momenet.

There is no symmetry between the perpetrator and the victim - this is nonsense. There is no equality between them so to say that the victim should be named is simply a device to suppress victims thinking of reporting. In reality victims of famous rapists are outed on social media already and their lives are destroyed whilst celeb boy carries on even if found guilty.

"Most rapists don’t think they are actually rapists. They “got carried away”. They “were having fun”. "

@TheQuietWoman says it best again!

We HAVE to teach our sons not to be rapists. What's the point of teaching our daughters about consent if we don't teach our sons?

Most rapists don't think they've done anything wrong. They think it's ok to have sex with a girl who doesn't really want to. They think they want it enough for both of them.

Thanks so much Pickle but those excellent words come from @KiposWonderbeasts. 😊

Late to thread, but YANBU OP
There is also precedent because the rape gang members running sex rings in northern England were granted court ordered anonymity until after conviction.
However, I think arrested and charged is the right stage that names should be publicised. Conviction is waiting too long.
And not just for rape but for all crimes.

@TheQuietWoman

Thanks so much Pickle but those excellent words come from *@KiposWonderbeasts*. 😊

Thank you both.

DH and I actively teach our sons about enthusiastic consent because everything around them tells them women say no when they mean yes

I remember from my single days so many men view "no" as a starting point for negotiations rather than the final answer.

Pressed send too soon

I remember from my single days so many men view "no" as a starting point for negotiations rather than the final answer and they don't view this as problematic even though it is part of the foundation of thought that underpins societal attitudes towards rape and consent. Plenty of men don't seem to realise that if a woman says no to them buying her a drink/giving them her phone number/going on a date, etc and they continue to pursue her then they're part of the view that coercion is okay, pressure is okay, and no means maybe. They're giving validation to that guy who doesn't stop at "can I buy you a drink?" and who takes it all the way to its horrible conclusion, they're reinforcing for him that it's okay to be a "player" and it's okay to pursue women because they all want it really, its just a matter of convincing them.

I think it should be anonymity until you are charged and appear in court, with the provision for the courts to lift this in certain defined circumstances.

I remember the raid on Cliff Richard's house, where allegations were made, and it seemed convenient for someone in South Yorkshire Police to leak this when the force was being criticised in the Hillsborough inquiry.

I think this idea of ‘enthusiastic’ consent is both complicated (legally) and infantilising for women. An adult can consent for whatever reason they like; it is part of adult hood.

And, once you get into this murky area, there would be an awful lot of men raped (or, if you want to be pedantic, sexually assaulted.

However, all of this is kind of irrelevant. Rape is currently a crime with a strict legal definition and, like all crimes, needs to be proven in front of a jury of one’s peers.

This is only really an issue for the famous where there is mileage in false allegations and safety in numbers.

I don’t know what the solution is, but some reasonable protection of privacy until at least the CPD brings a formal charge seems reasonable. The police leaking raids on famous people’s houses ahead of time is not what they are paid to do as public servants.

I think this idea of ‘enthusiastic’ consent is both complicated (legally) and infantilising for women

In what way does it infantalise women? Enthusiastic consent means you have sex with someone who is freely, mutually consenting and who actually wants to be there. It should be clear, respectful, ongoing, and voluntary.

Coercion is not consent. Incoherence or incapacitation is not consent. Lack of engagement is not consent. A previous yes, is not consent. Implied or assumed consent is not consent. No is not consent. Silence is not consent.

Its not difficult.

This is only really an issue for the famous where there is mileage in false allegations and safety in numbers.

As previously established, the official COS figure for false allegations is 0.62% - roughly 350 cases a year. This will include allegations made against any famous people. CPS acknowledge that some of the "false reports" are not actually false reports and that victims may retract a statement as false for other reasons. By the time the many thousands of unreported rapes and sexual assaults are considered, that 0.62% will shrink further.

By the "mileage in false allegations" against the famous, I presume you mean money? Where are all these women who have become rich as a result?

COS = CPS

I believe Ulrika. She is pointing the finger at John Leslie and I believe her.

As previously established, the official COS figure for false allegations is 0.62% - roughly 350 cases a year. I think it depends on how you count what is a false rape allegation. On the other end of the spectrum, studies have counted false rape allegations by counting all police rape reports and then deducting only those convicted as “true” and all the rest as “false” (because accused was either never was tried, or was found not guilty). Since only 5% or so of rape reports end in a conviction, these studies count 95% of rape reports as “false”.

Allegations would be many more as not all allegations are even reported to police (similar to how many rapes are also not reported to police).

I’m not saying that your number is wrong and this one above is right, I’m saying that no one knows how many rape allegations are false because we can’t know and everyone who studies it uses a methodology that will give them the results they are biased towards.

The reality is that this is only an issue with high net worth famous men, where there is a clear incentive to join a bandwagon of accusations. However, an exemption only applying to the rich and famous does not seem fair.

So now there aren't just a very few women who report rapes falsely. There are hordes of them waiting to pounce en mass? What a load of sexist shite.

And the thing about 'enthusiastic consent' is that introduces a lovely grey area on the RIGHT side of consent rather than the wrong side. If men (and women) are taught to wait for enthusiastic consent, there is no issue. No 'I thought she was consenting' because it's very obvious she's consenting with enthusiastic consent. Less of these 'misunderstandings' that misogynists insist occur all the time.

Considering that women can't get a conviction with a video of them unconscious and with a second men entering the room and raping them without speaking a word, I don't think anyone will be convicting any men based on lack of enthusiasm.

'And the thing about 'enthusiastic consent' is that introduces a lovely grey area on the RIGHT side of consent rather than the wrong side.'

So, what you are trying to do here is to ask someone to prove they are innocent of a crime, reversing centuries of jurisprudence just in the case of this one crime.

And, as for this 'enthusiastic thing it is perfectly ok to have sex:

To conceive a child
To please a partner
Because it has a been a long time and you just feel you ought.
Because you have made a bet with your friend that you will have sex tonight.

It is not for a third person to tell an adult what a suitable motivation is for any legal act.

Which is why, even if the entire population of lawmakers where female, this would never get anywhere near a statute book.

So now there aren't just a very few women who report rapes falsely. There are hordes of them waiting to pounce en mass? What a load of sexist shite.

@MrsTerryPratchett I agree, I was watching the interview of the PR person who taped her meeting with Harvey Wankstain . I can’t imagine how hard it was her to show that footage and then disclose that he later raped her in his hotel room. It really is not easy coming forward.

Ugh, even in those scenarios, Larry, there should be a bit of enthusiasm surely?

Enthusiasm doesn't mean performance style, just that both parties are actively involved. Taking off some clothes- either their own or their partner's; maybe giving some verbal encouragement; eye contact; or smiling. Some sign that they want to be there.

Pickle,

Fundamentally I agree with you that CLEAR consent should be given, and what you outline is clear consent, not enthusiastic consent.

You may say that I am being pedantic but words do matter when they apply to a crime.