"Most rape allegations are genuine, keeping names out of the headlines until convicted means that will be far less public attention to the small number of false allegations as those men won't be publicly victimised and branded."
Wrong. Before 1975, there was anonymity for defendants accused of rape. There was no less "public attention to the small number of false allegations" then than there is now - the first subject of discussion was in fact, how many false allegations there were, just as it is now. Not only that, every time the jury retired to consider its verdict, judges would remind them that however convincing the evidence seemed, it was well known that women frequently lied about rape.
I'm not making that up, this is what happened. Judges warned juries that women frequently lied about rape.
Why do you think they did that? Because there was research which showed how mad women were, how unbalanced, morally deficient and malicious they were? No, there was no research, there was simply kneejerk misogyny, which is where the idea of the prevalence of false allegations comes from.
Here's a thing: Most accused rapists walk free from a police interview. Most don't even get taken to court, let alone convicted. The vast majority of men accused of rape, are guilty. When a man walks free having been accused of rape, because of the statistics, there will always be a bit of a doubt as to whether he's innocent, because we all know that he's most likely to be guilty but have got away with it.
I would have thought that those of you so concerned with innocent men wrongly accused, would have had more interest in seeing how we can raise the conviction rate of those who are actually guilty. That would surely be the best immunisation against the lingering cloud of suspicion following a false or mistaken allegation. Anonymity for accused rapists wouldn't do that, it would ensure that even more rapists walk free.
John Worboys is in prison because he didn't have anonymity. If he had had, he'd still be driving round London raping women. But who cares, what does that matter, compared with the tiny risk of a man being falsely accused eh?
"I really wish you could spend an hour with my husband ..he is a broken man...broken by a women who accused him of historic abuse and rape"
I really wish you could spend an hour in the company of the thousands of women who have been raped and have had their lives utterly broken by it for years and years, sometimes forever. There are many, many more of them, than men who have been falsely accused. But they just don't matter as much, do they? It's OK to have them as collateral damage because their lives just don't matter as much as those of men.