Allegations of sexual misconduct

[NonConsensualSchweppes]

Just wondering about people's attitudes to this. If an allegation is made of rape or sexual assault (whether towards a celebrity or someone you see down the pub), do people generally think there must be something in it even if there's 'no further action' or do they maintain the notion of 'innocent until proven', with no social stigma?

'No further action' stays on file and can be reopened if fresh evidence arises - although obviously in many cases of sexual offence, there is no evidence beyond the witness statement.

Just wondering about people's actual gut reactions - not how the law stands. Thanks.

You are being unreasonable = absolutely innocent until proven guilty, no stigma
You are NOT being unreasonable = there's no smoke without fire

Fifty fifty split so far on the poll. I’m always suspicious and I also believe many men get away with it due to the lack of evidence. I was subjected to SA and R several times as a teenager, didn’t bother reporting it because even at a young age I knew it would be my word against theirs. There are obviously exceptions to the rule, like the woman who accused multiple men and it turned out there was evidence to debunk the accusations and it was horrific for the men. But largely I think that most accusations are genuine. And the prosecution rate and not guilty verdicts mean that women report it and end up suffering more than the perpetrators.

This.

I do generally lean towards the 'well, no smoke without fire'.
And I realise that there is a chance not all are guilty. But from life experience, these seem to be in the minority.
And I understand it would be very traumatic for a man to be accused or it be insinuated he had committed a sexual assault. But also he can realistically blame men for that. Because far too many men have got away with it and far too many women have not been believed.
So yes if I heard rumours, I would lean towards 'no smoke without fire'. And I do think it is far, far more common for guilty men to not be found guilty through lack of evidence (its a very hard crime to prove unless there is obvious violence or its on actual video), than it is for innocent men to be accused.

It depends on the person tbh. If it's a celebrity or poerson of public status and power I'd be inclining towards 'no smoke without fire' because it takes a lot of guts to accuse a powerful person and probably a losing game if the accuser is making it up / wasn't sure of their ground.

If a bloke down the pub, I'd be ambivalent until further evidence, I mean proper evidence ie police charges. Because I did know someone who got falsely accused, it was a very sad circumstance, the accuser had indeed been sexually assaulted as a child, but not by the man she accused (ie he was physically in a different country and could not have done it). I believe she was traumatised and projecting.

I try hard to hover on the fence, and weigh it up alongside my own experiences.

If I know Fred is an arrogant bugger I have no problem believing he doesn’t understand consent.
If Fred has been consistently careful about boundaries in all areas- not just sexual- then I hold off my innate suspicion of men.

But I do have an innate suspicion of men. Even the ones who have appeared to understand eventually behave as though they don’t, imo.

If it’s someone I don’t know then I don’t Form an opinion.

This is where I am too ☝️. I would think that it's highly likely there's something in it.

Drunkenness, bad communication and ineptitude are all possible reasons why a disconnect might occur between two versions of the same event, but I don't believe that many women put themselves through the stress of making a police report unless they really felt that they had been the victim of an action which goes beyond any reasonable justification.

That said, the case @CantDealwithChristmas cites is a slightly unusual one and one in which withholding judgement is probably advisable. But it's still not a false accusation as such, just one embedded in trauma and possible mental health issues.

Given the tiny number of overall sexual assaults that are reported to the police, and given that of that tiny number of overall assaults only a small number are actually prosecuted, and of that small number only an even smaller number are found guilty, I don't think it's all that black and white.

It was deinitely a false accusation - the guy accused didn't do it, and he did suffer some short term reputational damage and the stress of a (non-police) investigation which quickly ended when everyone realised he couldn't possibly have done it. But still. If that happened to me I'd betraumatised.

On the other hand, the number of people here saying 'no smoke without fire' (me included) makes me glad of our legal system as flawed as it is!

To clarify, @CantDealwithChristmas I understand what you're saying. I just meant it wasn't a malicious allegation which was untrue, in the sense that the complainant probably believed their perception was the correct one. Very sadly for them. I understand that this must have been awful for the man concerned, but it's coming from a place of trauma, not one of deceit.

I think the opposite: statistically I believe that false accusations are more likely to be made against against famous people. There have been quite a number of celebrities who have been falsely accused, so I am always cautious of 'no smoke without fire'. It's something that people like to say, but it isn't always true by any means.

OK ISWYM. I was a close friend of the accuser at the time. I think she believed it and didn't believe it at the same time if that makes sense. She wanted to accuse the man who abused her, but couldn't, so accused someone who was in her close orbit in an act of transference.

it was very sad and she went on to lead a very troubled and chaotic life.

I was discussing this with my friend who's an ex lawyer, now magistrate. I said how as soon as a man came under charges of rape, sexual violence, coercion I would fully assume guilty till proven innocent. She's a DV victim herself so fully understands, though of course she's trained to be neutral. And they are never really proven innocent are they, they call the victim a liar and a slag etc. well, not all the time but nearly all.
So in just about every situation I think I could be a juror, but not for a rape trial.

Depends on the exact circumstances, but I tend to believe people. But I understand you absolutely cannot punish people until they have been proven, to the required standard of proof, that they are guilty of what they’ve been accused of.

I can't vote as I don't think it is as cut and dried as it should be. On one hand, I think there is no smoke without fire, however on the other, I know several men who have had accusations made against them which were completely untrue and proved to be so. In their instances, their names were publicised but there accusers weren't, so they are forever tarred with a question mark over their heads, while their accusers walked away.

I think the law should protect both accuser and accused until the conclusion. I know the names are often published in an attempt to shake the tree, but I don't think it helps either side for this to happen.

With all that said, men can be fairly awful, and it is a great shame that women do not come forward because they don't think they will be believed.

The main problem is that, these days, we are tried by the court of public opinion which is the worst of all possibilities.

I wish I had a solution to propose.

Unless there's a significant and compelling amount of evidence to the contrary then I believe other women

I find this a hard one to vote on. Because there was a young man I knew who was accused of something by his then ex girlfriend and I knew the girlfriend and I genuinely believed his side of the events and his story, that went all the way to court and he was found not guilty, but he was tarred with a certain label for a very long time and we live(d) (I moved) in a very small town where he worked in the local Butchers! He had to leave his job because of the gossip,

I suppose it depends on if you know the individuals involved, and maybe we shouldn't speculate when we know absolutely nothing about the people involved?

It would depend a lot on the situation, the nature of the allegations and potentially the person making them. I think if several women who don’t know each other all come forward with similar allegations against someone, and those allegations are plausible in terms of opportunity and are perhaps supported by long-term prior rumours, or by the suspect openly having a shitty attitude to women, then that to me makes it a lot more likely that they’re guilty as sin.

There was a celeb in the early 2000s who was cleared more than once of fairly serious sexual assault charges against several women. Before he was ever charged with anything, a colleague of mine at the time had been on a date with him and confided in me and another colleague that he had behaved in a very sexually aggressive way not just to her but also to two friends of hers they’d met up with that evening. She didn’t go to the police. But obviously for that reason I very much doubt he was innocent of the charges he was cleared of.

But I’ve also seen allegations about people which are so vanishingly unlikely on a practical level, and where the person making the accusations is very obviously not a credible witness, that I tend to assume it’s bollocks. Those rarely get to court though.

Quite often it seems to be no smoke without fire when you don't know the person, if it's someone you know or admire then it's innocent until proven guilty.

This comes to down to me believing men or women.

I know which side I'm standing.

I've known men get away with it. And crime stats every single year show that they get away with it.

There is a thread running right now about research that shows many men saying they would assault children of they could get away with it.

I can see it both ways; like most women I have been subject to definitely sexual unwanted advances although I would not say they were anywhere near as bad as some. On the other hand, I can believe that there are women who will concoct baseless accusations out of malice and spite. An example would be someone who is reasonably passed over for promotion by a male boss and decides to make up a story that
he has assaulted her. Also, in the case of celebrities, there could be girls who think
that they can get a nice financial settlement to keep quiet if a few key people believe that the celebrity has gone too far physically.
It is awful to make up these accusations because, for every one that gets found out, there will be many more genuine victims who don’t get taken seriously.

I've always been the sort of person who says let the jury decide but having recently been on the receiving end of an aggravated sexual assault, I'm now firmly on the basis of believing the women. Yes, there are a few that might make it up, but I really don't think that any woman would put herself through the process for a lie. It's brutal.

I don't work in the police but I know somrone close who does. Their experience is that a lot of rape claims are generally false and used to excuse drunkenly cheating. On the flip side, a rape claim against a famous actor - or at least a recognisable face on TV - (found 'innocent') was almost certainly true.

Hmmm

in general, I would think that a man accused of sexual misconduct most likely did do it

that is unless the accuser is a known, habitual liar.

the problem is that if an abuser wants to abuse someone, a habitual liar is a good choice of victim, because they might not be believed.

difficult

This obviously was a factor in both Jimmy Savile's actions & the Rotherham cases. Target girls who are perceived to be 'trouble', so they won't be believed anyway.

I tend to believe the victim's claims.

The prosecution and conviction rates for rape and sexual assault are still appalling low so it is fair to say that there are quite a few men out there who are abusers but manage to get away with it, often for years and with several victims.

Not to mention that so many women and girls chose not to report things because they know how hard it will be for them to be taken seriously so assaults stay under-reported.

With celebrities I would say I also believe the majority of claims.