Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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:
aliasundercover · 01/07/2019 18:15

Paddy Jackson was found not guilty. That is not the same as innocent
It is the same. Under UK law we are all innocent until proved guilty. I suggest you think very carefully about demanding that this be changed.

Childrenofthestones · 01/07/2019 18:30

"Paddy Jackson was found not guilty. That is not the same as innocent"

All this is proving is that for innocent men, the accusation alone is the sentence.

FlippinFumin · 01/07/2019 18:34

I am sure I read that a man is more likely to be a victim of rape than he is to be falsely accused of rape.

Insignificant numbers compared to the women living their lives having been victims of rape and not daring to say anything. Seeing rapists not charged, victims not believed, shitty court cases where the woman always always has to defend herself even as the victim, abominable sentences handed down for the most heinous of crimes against women and children, and the media pushing to out every single victim, but keep the perpetrator hidden. Fuck them all. Bastards.

OrchidInTheSun · 01/07/2019 18:46

Paddy Jackson was found not guilty. That is not the same as innocent
It is the same. Under UK law we are all innocent until proved guilty. I suggest you think very carefully about demanding that this be changed.

No it isn't. I am not demanding that the law is changed. The jury found that there was insufficient evidence to convict Jackson and his friends. That is not the same as innocent. He has not been cleared of charges.

aliasundercover · 01/07/2019 19:02

If there is insufficient evidence that means you are not proved guilty, which under the law means you are innocent.

Of course people have committed crimes and got away with it because there is not enough evidence, but a court studied all the evidence there is and did not convict.
For all intents and purposes Jackson is innocent. There are good reasons that our justice system works this way.

LassOfFyvie · 02/07/2019 00:56

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?

Richards is asking for anonymity before charge, not at trial stage or even pre-trial.

Childrenofthestones · 02/07/2019 05:36

Does anybody have figures for what % of rape charges and the resulting publicity, lead to other victims coming forward to accuse the same man?

TheInebriati · 02/07/2019 09:37

Only 1.7% of reported rapes prosecuted in England and Wales, new figures show
Overall proportion of reported crimes prosecuted plummets to 8 per cent amid justice ‘crisis’
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/rape-prosecution-england-wales-victims-court-cps-police-a8885961.html

I think that means 8% of reported sexual offences result in a conviction. By contrast, 28% of drug offences resulted in a charge or summons.

Childrenofthestones · 02/07/2019 11:42

TheInebriati
"Only 1.7% of reported rapes prosecuted in England and Wales, new figures show"

Theinebriati , Are you answering my question above your post?
The question is what % of individual rape charges that have had publicity, result in further victims coming forward to the police?

BarbarianMum · 02/07/2019 12:17

Do are you arguing that removing the ability of the media to name men being investigated before charging will further decrease the number of rapes prosecuted? Because I'm not sure that they're related.

Goosefoot · 02/07/2019 12:24

I can understand why people might think this is a good idea. I'm not sure if it is, but I can easily see why it might be suggested.

I don't know that false accusations are the only issue, there are other reasons a person may be looked at, or charged, mistakenly that are not about someone deliberately telling lies.

But as some said, looking at how the media behaves much be a more effective approach.

Childrenofthestones · 02/07/2019 21:59

The question is what % of individual rape charges that have had publicity, result in further victims coming forward to the police?

Anybody?

Time40 · 02/07/2019 22:25

Being publicly named as a suspect isn't an invasion of privacy

What a ridiculous statement. Of course it is. Being named in a case like this can completely ruin someone's life. Paul Gamberchini couldn't work as a result, and lost a year of earnings - and as he's said, there are many people who believe the "no smoke without fire" theory. He's been put under suspicion now, and that will never go away - and that's an horrific thing to do to someone. He said he was used "like flypaper" for a year, in the hope that having his name in the public eye would encourage other people to come forward ... and no one did.

I support this campaign. I believe that no one should be named for any crime before being charged. Real human beings ought not to be used as fly paper, because using people in that way ruins their reputations and their entire lives.

Original poster
C8H10N4O2 · 03/07/2019 08:38

I believe that no one should be named for any crime before being charged

I don't agree. Crimes against children, women and any vulnerable group happen in the dark. The powerful use this. Jimmy Saville and endless predatory men taking roles in the priesthood, social work, teaching, politics and other "trusted" roles abused those positions for years. People didn't speak out because they felt afraid and alone.

There are already policies in place as stated up thread which require permissions to release a name before charge. Those policies were not followed in the Cliff Richard case. That is the problem which needs addressing.

We don't need yet more laws protecting rich and/or powerful men in a world where rape and sexual assault are crimes that such men already commit with near impunity.

OP posts:
BarbarianMum · 03/07/2019 10:22

Yes we know you don't agree, you said so in your OP.

I don't think the answer to people being afraid to report crimes is the police/media putting famous men's names out there in order to entice possible other victims to come forward - fly paper is right. The law needs to be fair to all, not equally unfair.

Grimbles · 03/07/2019 11:42

Under UK law we are all innocent until proved guilty

We are presumed to be innocent by the law. Which is different to actually being innocent.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page