Cliff Richard has started a petition re anonymity of sex-related accusations until charge

[traceyracer]

Note he isn't looking for "anonymous until convicted", only until/if charged. Interested on what you think of this?
www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/pressure-group-backed-by-cliff-richard-to-launch-petition-for-anonymity-reform/ar-AADGfzZ
The petition is here:
petition.parliament.uk/petitions/247912

Are you suggesting deliberate false rape allegations are blameless?

In preventing women coming forward? Yes.

Plenty of people commit insurance fraud, I wouldn't think twice about claiming on mine because of that. If I say I've been mugged, the police start with a presumption that I've been mugged. If they find the mugger, and he says that no, I gave my bag to them voluntarily, then the police don't go 'well, it's your word against theirs, I see that you hand your bag to your partner quite often, and another mother at the school says you asked them to put it in their car once, so you do have a history of giving your bag to other people, it's reasonable that you might have given your bag to this mugger'

Yet if I say a man put his penis in my vagina and I didn't want him to, suddenly it's all very different. Suddenly I apparently have to prove that he didn't know that I didn't want it. Suddenly the fact I've had sex with other people is relevant. Or what fucking underpants I was wearing. Apparently I'm more likely to lie about people putting things in my body, than I am about who I give my handbag to? Of course bloody not. It's ridiculous.

What, in this situation, prevents women coming forward, is this attitude that 'women lie about this all the time' - when there is no evidence of this whatsoever.

the opportunity for so much media attention mean a change is needed prior to charges

Yes, still has nothing to do with victims, Male and female, having lifelong anonymity.

Jessica legally that is true, but people, generally, don't see that. The inequity is what is seen.

In this case, where law, equity and public perception coincide, it would be an easy change to make!

I'm inclined to support this.

And it's not because of women, a lot of the shit-stirring which has now been found to be false was done by men, in particular the 'Nick' person.

I don’t know.

On the surface, I am inclined to agree, but I’m not informed enough to understand how this would interact with contempt of court and press restrictions.

It may, in practise, mean that anonymity is granted right up until trial (anonymity before charge via this, and then press restrictions taking over when the charge is made) leaving no opportunity at all for other victims to come forward in time to be added to the trial.

Hopefully someone who understands this on a professional level will post.

That's why the lawyer who put the petition up asked for a change "prior to being charged " Nothing else.

No one is asking for accused men to retain anonymity after charging.

It does seem reasonable, but then I heard him being interviewed and saying it was time to "redress the balance", and that pissed me off.
I can't imagine what an awful time he had with the investigation, but I in no way believe that "on balance" it's poor men who are suffering here in the great scheme of things.

I agree that anonymity before charging is reasonable.

The issue is of course the police and their deliberate (and repeated) leaking of names and information to journalists. I suspect that won't stop until the individuals who do this are challenged and effectively sanctioned - but presumably there's little interest in doing this.

it was time to "redress the balance", I think, given the worldwide coverage it gained, you can understand why he feels that way, on an individual level. Paul Gambaccini too!

But it is a crass thing to have said. Even from one as self centred as he seems to be!

then I heard him being interviewed and saying it was time to "redress the balance", and that pissed me off.

Yes me too, that Gloria woman who is a friend also annoys me. She’s outraged by this but silent about the low conviction rate. I am not impressed with his attitude.

I started out by agreeing with Richard and Gambaccini and then I read this:

www.endviolenceagainstwomen.org.uk/evaw-calls-on-cliff-richard-paul-gambaccini-and-nigel-evans-to-drop-anonymity-campaign/

It seems to me that the sensationalist and salacious demonising reporting is what needs to be addressed, not the anonymity of the accused.

I can see an argument that the accused could be kept anonymous until charges are brought, or at least until an arrest is made, but not if that would be at the cost of other victims not being able to come forward.

'Redress the balance' is definitely not the right way of looking at it.

But why just for sexual offences? Surely their reputation would be equally damaged if they were named before they are charged for other crimes, too.

Signed too. No system is perfect, but this is something that needs to be addressed.

It seems to me that the sensationalist and salacious demonising reporting is what needs to be addressed, not the anonymity of the accused. Then the anonymity given could be in the form of the press not being allowed to publish names - like a blanket super injunction - until charges are brought.

not if that would be at the cost of other victims not being able to come forward. there is no reason why however the law might be changed it would do that. Unless there is a root and branch change to how rape is investigated, charged and taken through court (which it most depserately needs if the recent CPS decisions are anything to go by) women will always be 'simply a witness' to their own rape! THAT is unacceptable to me - as one who took her rapist to court and saw him charged and found giulty!

Zutt if, as it seems it is, it is press coverage that is the issue the answer to that is simple - other crimes, less famous people don't sell column inches or attract advertisers.

CuriousaboutSamphire

I’m glad you got a guilty verdict, so many don’t x

Even fewer back in the 80s!

It helped that my boyfriend, now DH, was firmly behind me, and has never blamed me. I worked in pubs, never had any problem walking home after a late shift. Got pulled into an alleyway on a day off by a complete stranger. About a month later I recognised him, working a bar in a posh hotel! To say I was more furious than afraid would be an understatement! I was livid and called the poilice from the phone in the hotel lobby.

But why just for sexual offences? Surely their reputation would be equally damaged if they were named before they are charged for other crimes, too.

I'm not sure there's many other crimes which are so reviled, and also where especially in the case of historic crimes there may be little supporting physical evidence. Newspapers are cautious about being sued for libel.

What about those guilty of abuse who aren't charged due to lack of evidence who are clearly as guilty as sin. (Mentioning no names).

The problem is with the media reporting and police collusion with the media.
The media do not see the trauma of rape they see it as erotic fiction.
Many victims of rape withdraw their complaint prior to charge - for this reason it is important to allow the police to name the accused if they see fit.
I believe this petition is a move toward anonymity of the accused to the point of conviction but they realised that starting at that point would garner little support.
Additionally I do not wish to feed any further rape myths. Therefore the accused can be named like any other accused.

The conviction rate for sexual crimes is shockingly low, and the rate of cases that are even brought to court at all is even lower. truly false accusations are even rarer than convictions, so logically that means that the majority of rapists are getting away with it. So, would this just not result in giving them even more opportunities to commit crimes if their previous history is completely hidden from potential victims?

Also, I'm sure there have been cases that the accused being named and other victims asked to come forward has helped in their conviction. John worboys for example. This may not have been possible otherwise. Some of those women didn't even realise exactly what had happened to them until the information was released, because they had been drugged.

"FromEden

Also, I'm sure there have been cases that the accused being named and other victims asked to come forward has helped in their conviction. John worboys for example. This may not have been possible otherwise. Some of those women didn't even realise exactly what had happened to them until the information was released, because they had been drugged."

What is the % of such cases.

I asked this question on another thread 48 hours ago and nobody has given an answer yet.

In what % of rape cases does disclosure of the accuseds name and publicity lead to another other victim of the same man come forward

Would less anonymity actually improve things both ways? Increase victims coming forward and increase convictions but also it would decrease the stigma of being named a suspect?

Then they need to do it for all crimes not just sex offences.

Otherwise the implication is that there is a specific need for it with sex offences ie the accusation is more likely to be a lie (false), its worse to be accused of rape than any other crime (also false).