Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

R4 Today - anonymity for those accused of sex crimes

41 replies

C8H10N4O2 · 01/07/2019 13:56

Did anyone else hear R4 Today this morning? From 1h 20mins to 1h 25mins in there was an uninterrupted advert for the campaign for anonymity for men accused of sex crimes (pre charging).

One mild question from John Humphries about the "claim" that naming helps bring other "victims" (his airquotes), rapidly rephrased by Gambaccini as "soliciting claims" who also stated as fact that in such cases the complainants were nearly always false.

He went on to claim equivalance between being wrongly accused of a crime and being the victim of sex crimes. Apparently his audience not being able to hear him was counted as "suffering". All of this was completely unchallenged and no speaker was included to put an alternate point of view.

I'm sympthetic to people wrongly accused but his issue was with the way the media covered it and behaved and the time to process - not the naming.

Every review I've ever seen cites the importance of naming in sex crimes as people are so reluctant to come forward if they think they are the only victim. This goes multiple if the perpetrator is famous or powerful.

Maybe its just me but the whole piece left me angry at being subjected to a five minute propaganda piece, unevidenced on the BBC.

OP posts:
Bourdic · 01/07/2019 14:48

The whole way this is being covered today is making me furious. All sorts of different issues being thrown into the pot by mostly men. Not understanding the difference between being arrested, charged, convicted. Not understanding ( as you say) that many issues are about robust investigation by the police and proper preparation of cases. Not understanding that being found not guilty does not equate with a false allegation having been made. Not understanding what type of sex crimes are being talked about . Not understanding why the accusers are given anonymity, Not understanding the huge under reporting and low conviction rates. And the totally useless unbriefed male presenters . Basically the message today is that the world us full of lying women and hard done by men

ZuttZeVootEeeVro · 01/07/2019 15:30

It's not the naming of suspects that's wrong, it's the way the media sometimes reports on the facts.

The BBC didn't need to send TV cameras when the police searched Richards house, that's an invasion of privacy. Being publicly named as a suspect isn't an invasion of privacy.

Melroses · 01/07/2019 15:38

I think the all the fallout from BBC sending helicopters to film at the house and subsequent litigation is affecting how they are reporting anything to do with Richard now.

LordProfFekkoThePenguinPhD · 01/07/2019 15:39

Just sex crimes? I remember a case a few years ago when a young woman was murdered and the finger of suspicion pointed at her landlord who ‘looked the part’. He was all over the papers and of course the real culprit was found but the landlord still had a whiff of suspicion about him. Or the couple accused of the drone attacks that closed Gatwick last summer.

It’s the sensationalism of it all - all the combing through social media for any juiceless gossip.

Redshoeblueshoe · 01/07/2019 15:42

Bourdic I completely agree with you. I saw a bit of Sky News with Richards on. I turned my TV off.

beanaseireann · 01/07/2019 15:58

I live in Ireland and there is anonymity for both defendants and complainants in rape cases. I think that is ok.
In the north of Ireland last year there was a rape trial with a well known sports person as a defendant. The law in the north is different and he was named and found innocent.

FermatsTheorem · 01/07/2019 16:35

Brought to you by the organisation which employed Savile, Hall, Harris...

You'd think they'd have learned something about the way the powerful collude to silence their victims and that sometimes (Weinstein, Nasser) multiple complainants are the only way of getting sufficient counterbalance to pursue these predators using a legal system which is heavily stacked against the victims.

Oh.. Hang on a minute... That's exactly the lesson they have learned. Just not in the same way any one with an ounce of moral decency would learn it.

(And yes, I remember the Ulster rugby trial, an absolute travesty of justice. That poor, poor woman.)

Dervel · 01/07/2019 16:43

I’m a man and given how bloody difficult it is to get rapists to see the inside of a prison cell no I don’t think there should be anonymity. Yeah ok a slight anxiety on the vanishingly small proposition I’m ever accused of anything, but honestly as I’m given to understand it many women have an anxiety just stepping outside their front doors everyday so I reckon I can live with it.

BarbarianMum · 01/07/2019 16:44

I think no naming before charging would be a reasonable compromise actually. Plenty of time bw charging and trial for publicity to bring other victims forward.

BickerinBrattle · 01/07/2019 16:45

Secrecy in legal proceedings is a dangerous step to take. There’s a reason people fought for public justice.

But honestly, between this, transactivism, the acclamation of the rights of men to wank at work, the advocating of sex work to teenage girls, the celebration of male fetish, the push to legalize brothels, the push to commercialize surrogacy, the push against reproductive rights in the US, the successful murder defences of sex-gone-wrong, the push to eliminate data collection based on sex —

Join up the dots: we’re in the midst, in the Anglophone world, of a massive men’s rights movement coalescing from both the right and the left.

It’s no coincidence that at a time when there’s consternation that university students are majority female, it’s feminist academics under attack and feminist history undergoing revisionist treatment.

I expect a push to change divorce, child maintenance, and custody laws will be forthcoming.

TheInebriati · 01/07/2019 16:50

The problem is trial by media. If Warboys had been granted anonymity, how many victims would have been discovered had the first prosecution failed - as the majority of prosecutions do?

I'm sick of MRA's claiming that a failed prosecution equals an innocent man wrongly accused. Its disingenuous at best.

OrchidInTheSun · 01/07/2019 17:00

Bean that is incorrect. Paddy Jackson was found not guilty. That is not the same as innocent.

Original poster
C8H10N4O2 · 01/07/2019 17:00

Bourdic

Yes these are exactly my frustrations and I'm angry that the "solution" is not to address any problems but simply do something which further protects men.

Its near impossible to get men, especially men with power and money, convicted of anything let alone sex crimes. This will make it even harder.

If they have an issue with the media they should make it a media issue. Gambaccini claimed that the media had doorstepped his relatives abroad. I don't know how true it is but its consistent with some of our tabloids. So deal with the excesses in this situation of the media.

OP posts:
Original poster
C8H10N4O2 · 01/07/2019 17:01

If Warboys had been granted anonymity, how many victims would have been discovered had the first prosecution failed - as the majority of prosecutions do?

Well quite and interestingly that case was referenced in the item but dismissed as it was having a 'strong case' so anonymity wouldn't have stopped it. Which is a straightforward denial of many of the facts of the case.

OP posts:
Original poster
C8H10N4O2 · 01/07/2019 17:02

Sounds like its just about to be covered again on PM but I have a call to join!

OP posts:
beanaseireann · 01/07/2019 17:06

OrchidintheSun
Sincere apologies. He was found not guilty of the rape.
I am no fan of his or his friends who were also found not guilty of various charges.

Hadalifeonce · 01/07/2019 17:15

I think it is all to do with media coverage, Paul Gambaccini was saying in his case, he hadn't been charged, was being interviewed by police, and the media was on the doorstep of his siblings in the US and Switzerland.
In Cliff Richard's case the BBC were filming his house whilst the police were searching it, he hadn't even been contacted by the police.
I can understand needing other complainants to feel OK about coming forward, but the veracity of the original complainant needs to be ascertained first; if they can offer no details whatsoever how can they be considered worthy of investigation?
With details of one of the complainants against Edward Heath gave, it was proved that Heath wasn't even in the country for the period in question; the police didn't even go down this route for quite sometime after the allegations came to light.

wheresmymojo · 01/07/2019 17:17

I think not naming them before charging them is a good compromise.

There's still the opportunity for coverage and other victims to come forward when their details are published at the charging stage.

I think this should be extended to some other crimes such as murder for example.

wheresmymojo · 01/07/2019 17:19

I don't agree that this amounts to 'secrecy in legal proceedings' - there are no 'legal proceedings' before the defendant is charged...

OrchidInTheSun · 01/07/2019 17:29

It is already standard procedure not to name accused before charging: https://rapecrisis.org.uk/news/latest-news/rape-crisis-statement-on-anonymity-for-sexual-abuse-suspects/?fbclid=IwAR2hQJOoUoXpiqEFagvZyy_5NCAABfwDvxm05UeVgyqRbijViMRzrbiEgIg

I suspect with famous people, members of the police leak the info to journalists

LordProfFekkoThePenguinPhD · 01/07/2019 17:35

Harriet Harman giving her expert knowledge and understanding of the topic on R4. Thanks for the 🥧 Harriet.

Original poster
C8H10N4O2 · 01/07/2019 17:49

It is already standard procedure not to name accused before charging

It is but at the moment that is not a legal requirement and if the police think it appropriate they can release the name. The fiasco around Cliff Richard was ridiculous but frankly that was the stupidity of teh BBC wanting a scoop so again its a media behaviour issue.

OP posts:
LizzieSiddal · 01/07/2019 17:58

Yes, Harriet Harmen was fantastic, full of actual facts and knowledge. She said the Police should be blamed for naming people, who haven't even been fully investigated.

So we already have a law to deal with this and their campaign is a waste of time.

LizzieSiddal · 01/07/2019 18:02

If the police think it appropriate they can release the name.

Harriet stated that they have to have a very valid reason for doing this- only if someone has been fully investigated and are 90% there. They also supposed to go to a senior officer and the CPS, to get permission. The problem with Cliff Richard was that he hadn't even been spoken to, and the Police had told reporters that they were going to go to his home. This is against the law and Cliff Richards and others should be going after the Police, rather than trying to change the law.

Original poster
C8H10N4O2 · 01/07/2019 18:09

Harriet stated that they have to have a very valid reason for doing this-

Yes that is my understanding. The key thing is there isn't a legal block on them doing it and that is how it should stay. Discipline/address the behavioural issues in the media /police as needed but we don't need another law making it even harder for victims to get justice.

The description of victims as "victims" this morning and the insistance that most people coming forward after a naming are liars was a disgrace and went completely unchallenged.

OP posts: