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

Damn, bold fail.

Add that to the monetisation of selling yourself as a sex object and it is tough to tell boys not to objectivise when, as my son has already noticed, the highest earning ‘Ticktocker’ basically dresses revealingly and twerks.

So I’d be having discussions around why women need to dress revealing and twerk to earn money, when men by and large don’t. If men were as objectified as women - if it was an equal issue - we’d have nearly naked men in TikTok being paid millions but we don’t to anywhere near the same degree.

If we don’t question why women need to use their sexuality to be as well paid as men, don’t challenge that stays quo we do perpetuate the idea that female sex and sexuality is up for grabs. That’s a societal issue yes, but challenging it rests with individuals. If nobody paid for it, no one would do it.

I don’t think there is many jobs closed to women, other than possibly some religious ones.

However the fact remains there are jobs that women don’t apply to do as much, working in a refinery, working on an oil rig, general labouring. Even things like long distance lorry driving, or delivering coal/logs, or being a lumber jack, even house removals,, These jobs are open to women, but very few actually apply to do them. There is simply no way round that fact.

@Bluntness100

I don’t think there is many jobs closed to women, other than possibly some religious ones.

However the fact remains there are jobs that women don’t apply to do as much, working in a refinery, working on an oil rig, general labouring. Even things like long distance lorry driving, or delivering coal/logs, or being a lumber jack, even house removals,, These jobs are open to women, but very few actually apply to do them. There is simply no way round that fact.

I’m not arguing that it’s a fact Bluntess, I’m asking why that’s the case. Dirty and not strong enough is what we’ve had so far, which I disagree with.

@Jellycatspyjamas

Add that to the monetisation of selling yourself as a sex object and it is tough to tell boys not to objectivise when, as my son has already noticed, the highest earning ‘Ticktocker’ basically dresses revealingly and twerks.

So I’d be having discussions around why women need to dress revealing and twerk to earn money, when men by and large don’t. If men were as objectified as women - if it was an equal issue - we’d have nearly naked men in TikTok being paid millions but we don’t to anywhere near the same degree.

If we don’t question why women need to use their sexuality to be as well paid as men, don’t challenge that stays quo we do perpetuate the idea that female sex and sexuality is up for grabs. That’s a societal issue yes, but challenging it rests with individuals. If nobody paid for it, no one would do it.

Women don't need to "dress revealing and twerk to earn money", it's just an easy option if you are relatively genetically blessed. I don't think anyone making good money from Tik Tok or Instagram sees that as a problem on an individual level.

I said that the reasons women didn’t typically apply to work in my industry was because it was dirty, heavy and very stem related, which historically had fewer women.

I know exactly why women don’t apply as we try to encourage them to, so you can disagree all you want, but I’ll go with what the women we ask tell us.

@Bluntness100

I said that the reasons women didn’t typically apply to work in my industry was because it was dirty, heavy and very stem related, which historically had fewer women.

I know exactly why women don’t apply as we try to encourage them to, so you can disagree all you want, but I’ll go with what the women we ask tell us.

Women don’t apply to STEM because they’ve told you it’s dirty, heavy work?

Bullshit.

Women don’t apply to STEM because they’ve told you it’s dirty, heavy work

Is it a reading comprehension issue? I don’t understand how you’re struggling to comprehend what is written, once again, and for the last time, as this is beyond bizarre, I said “and” stem related which historically had fewer women

The word was and, not “because”.

Do you mean someone who builds fences, or someone who fights with a sword? Either way, not an example of professions closed completely to women. Can you think of one? No there aren't any jobs completely closed to women. There are jobs that most women can't do with as much efficiency.

someone who fights with a sword Do give over.
careersmart.org.uk/occupations/equality/which-jobs-do-men-and-women-do-occupational-breakdown-gender Here's a list of most jobs that people do and none of them are 100% male or 100% female.
My point is that there are jobs that men prefer and some that women prefer and jobs which require physical strength are preferred by men.
Even in Sweden teens choose jobs according to gender stereotypes.
theculturetrip.com/europe/sweden/articles/swedish-teens-choose-careers-based-on-gender-roles-according-to-science/

@Bluntness100

Women don’t apply to STEM because they’ve told you it’s dirty, heavy work

Is it a reading comprehension issue? I don’t understand how you’re struggling to comprehend what is written, once again, and for the last time, as this is beyond bizarre, I said “and” stem related which historically had fewer women

The word was and, not “because”.

Your answer to the question ‘why aren’t women working in these male-dominated environments’ was ‘because it’s dirty, heavy work’. That’s not true. So why is it? Why is this question so difficult for you and Derxa to answer?

I don’t believe for one second you’ve gone along to a careers event aimed at young women and told them the salary a mid-level electrical engineer can earn with overtime and they’ve knocked it back because they might have to touch a bit of switch gear.

STEM is a moot point because all the encouraging has worked and women now make up the majority of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Medicine) students in U.K. universities as of 2018 Higher Education report. % female listed below
medicine- 79.1%
veterinary science- 77.3%,
agricultural sciences- 63.4%,
biological sciences- 63%,
all SET subjects- 51%
www.advance-he.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2018_HE-stats-report-students.pdf

Pumper I'm a farmer and there are plenty of women in farming now. My shepherd is a woman. Most of the vets at our practice are women.
But none of us are strong enough to knock in a strainer fence post as well as a man or handle silage or straw bales as well as a man.

@derxa

Pumper I'm a farmer and there are plenty of women in farming now. My shepherd is a woman. Most of the vets at our practice are women. But none of us are strong enough to knock in a strainer fence post as well as a man or handle silage or straw bales as well as a man.

Again, so? What’s your point? Unless you’re saying absolutely no women could possibly do that job, I don’t see how you can say it’s closed to them. It isn’t.

I don’t see how you can say it’s closed to them. It isn’t. It's not closed to them but most women wouldn't be very good at it and couldn't make a living at it. I'm sure there are female fencers but I've never heard of one. I'm all for women taking up traditionally male professions having said all that.

Bluntness and Stoneofdestiny it’s hilarious that you both keep saying the thread is being derailed when you were the ones posting about your workplaces and that not all men are evil and what not.

@Pumperthepumper I commend you for having patience to refute this crap.

I'd really like to know why a few people on here are advocating anonymity for people accused of ANY crime. So essentially let's do away with an important part of open justice. Can't you see any downsides to this? Good god.

For what it's worth no I don't agree with people accused of sexual assault being granted anonymity. It should be the same as any other crime.

Funny how no one ever advocates people accused of downloading child abuse images being granted anonymity until there's been a guilty verdict. What's the difference? Being accused of that is going to tank your standing in the community.

@everybodysang
@froggygoneacourting

I’m so sorry that happened to you and I’m sorry your stories are being drowned here in favour of NAMALT .

I'd really like to know why a few people on here are advocating anonymity for people accused of ANY crime. So essentially let's do away with an important part of open justice. Can't you see any downsides to this? Good god.

It's a ridiculous idea that completely does away with transparency of justice, as you say. But because they're so determined to make a quid pro quo of anonymity for rape and sexual assault victims, they have to say this so they can claim they're being totally fair and rational.

The whole thing collapses from the start because women don't get anonymity in rape cases anyway. Alleged victims of rape and sexual assault do. If a man alleged rape or sexual assault, against a woman or another man (women cannot rape in law but they can commit assault by penetration), he would get the anonymity and the alleged attacker, whether male or female, would not.

There are excellent reasons for giving sex crime victims anonymity, not least the fucking pillorying they used to get without it (come on people, why do you think the law slapped this down on the press in a time when people gave even less of a shit than they do now? What do you think the papers were doing to women who alleged rape?) and the documented phenomenon that victims are more likely to come forward when they see their attacker is already starting to see action against them.

The fact that so many people really do believe it's women who get anonymity rather than victims in general just shows you which way the gender pairing overwhelmingly lies for sexual violence (yes, I know we all know this but some people will insist that it's not significant or relevant). Of course not all men are sexually violent but almost everyone who is sexually violent is male and I'm sick of having to apologise for this as a condition of having a voice about it.

Of course not all men are sexually violent but almost everyone who is sexually violent is male and I'm sick of having to apologise for this as a condition of having a voice about it.

I agree so much with this.

Why does every discussion about sexual violence against women have to be bracketed with the statements that not all men are like that and men are victims too and of course some (very few) allegations are false? Why can't women discuss issues that predominantly have an impact upon women without men jumping in with a load of whatabouttery?

@ohnomesandwiches

I'd really like to know why a few people on here are advocating anonymity for people accused of ANY crime. So essentially let's do away with an important part of open justice. Can't you see any downsides to this? Good god.

For what it's worth no I don't agree with people accused of sexual assault being granted anonymity. It should be the same as any other crime.

Funny how no one ever advocates people accused of downloading child abuse images being granted anonymity until there's been a guilty verdict. What's the difference? Being accused of that is going to tank your standing in the community.

It's not against the principles of open justice. Why do you need to know who has been charged with a crime. All you need to know is that someone has been charged, how the proceedings are going and what people are saying. Those involved don't need to be named unless and until they've been proven to be guilty.

I said further down the thread that the Germans manage perfectly well with saying Christine C rather than Christine Cologne. Of course some people will know who it is if they live locally etc.

Does anyone remember the debacle around the landlord in the case of that lady who was murdered in Bristol? THAT is why you don't name people until you know they've actually committed the crime.

And as I also said above, if I am accused of shoplifting and then exonerated, I don't want my name in the press/online because all anyone will see is the fact I was charged, they won't carry on to read that I was found not guilty.

Life has moved on with the internet and social media and laws need to change. It was different when it was just press outlets.

Funny how no one ever advocates people accused of downloading child abuse images being granted anonymity until there's been a guilty verdict. What's the difference? Being accused of that is going to tank your standing in the community

And I do advocate that, because I do advocate it for every crime, not just sexual ones. I mentioned shoplifting, but you wouldn't want future employers to know you were accused of fraud if you were innocent, either.

Sorry needed to look up the case - Joanna Yeates - and the landlord's name comes straight up too.

@Jellycatspyjamas
Add that to the monetisation of selling yourself as a sex object and it is tough to tell boys not to objectivise when, as my son has already noticed, the highest earning ‘Ticktocker’ basically dresses revealingly and twerks.

Are they selling themselves as a ‘sex object’ though? Surely it’s more about receiving attention for being perceived as beautiful or sexy.

From a consent perspective there needs to be an understanding that twerking doesn’t mean ‘come and have sex with me’ boys and men need to understand that just because a woman is enjoying being looked at, or being told she’s sexy and beautiful, doesn’t mean she wants to sleep with everyone. Women twerking in their pants shouldn’t impact on someone’s understanding of consent.

Sorry if that’s not what you meant.

In most western European jurisdictions there are demanding criteria that need to be met to move through different stages (report through to decision to prosecute). It's far from perfect where I work, but in the vast majority of situations, when the decision to prosecute is made it is never lightly. For sex crimes, it is especially high ... and of course it is with the jury to decide the verdict.

Well I have a young Son too .I have brought him up to be respectful of women and boundaries .Hellothere111 Agree totally .Some (very few) may be wrongfully accused ,but only recently I read that the conviction rate at the moment is very low.AS PP said John Warboys would have escaped conviction for a longer period if his name hadnt been made public! Leave the law as it stands!