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

I had already actually signed the petition, before this post.
I agree with him.

I agree that justice can only be served if there is anonymity until convicted. Too many lives ruined by allegations that are not proven. I think that for all crimes. Your right to innocence should be protected and trials should be by jury not media.

I think Cliff Richard is right, it's certainly understandable he is taking such a strong line in view of what he had to go through.

Interesting study into the impact of being wrongly accused of abuse:

www.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/the_impact_of_being_wrongly_accused_of_abuse_hoyle_et_al_2016_15_may.pdf

'The present study suggests that during and following all these processes, accused individuals and their families do indeed suffer enormously from the stigma and revulsion associated with sexual abuse, from the deprivations during the investigation and the lifelong suspicion (that they ‘got away with it’) that is likely to follow. It finds that even if such allegations do not lead to criminal proceedings, they are likely to have life-changing effects. Formal investigations, whether in a civil or criminal context, are harrowing for the accused person, and may result in immediate suspension from work and temporary restrictions on contact with children, and a record of having been reported and investigated, which can cause longer term damage to employment prospects and relationships.'

I agree that justice can only be served if there is anonymity until convicted. Too many lives ruined by allegations that are not proven. I think that for all crimes. Your right to innocence should be protected and trials should be by jury not media. I seem to be repeating this... NOT CONVICTED, until CHARGED. Once charged the name can be made publi as there would be a weight of evidence suggesting an individual had committed a crime and naming them might bring forward more witnesses and/or victims.

I don't see why this isn't the case for EVERY crime. Though I do appreciate it is gossips, neighbours, freinds and family who do most of the leakong to the press, journalists should be restrained from publishing names until charges are brought.

But barelove that study is about the stigma left behind because of the investigation itself. So should we not investigate?

It’s not trial by media that’s the problem - the press are bound by incredibly strict contempt laws which they follow. It’s social media that’s the problem. I’d like to see judges robustly deal with people who are in contempt of court because of what they post on forums and Facebook. The law should be equally applied.

journalists should be restrained from publishing names until charges are brought.

But they, in effect, are. I can think of only a couple of cases ever (Cliff Richard and Paul Gambiccini) where they’ve been named before charge. In real life, the press never name suspects of rape before charge because they don’t know their names.

That you can think if any is the point, I think.

And Christopher Jefferies? Different crime...

It isn't about contempt of court, this is speculation before anything gets to court. Sometimes it is, as I said, gosips etc, other times it is the media.

And I have personal experience of a journalist lifting a name off facebook. So it does happen to 'nobodies' too (this man was guilty, but that isn't the point).

I didn't think anyone should be named unless convicted of any crime ! You are innocent until PROVEN guilty. That's the basis of our legal system. Mud sticks even if someone is accused and they are totally innocent

Charged... charged....

Right now we have a 1.7% conviction rate so there names being out there is virtually the only deterrent at this point.

I agree and will sign the petition.

I see no reason why this would prevent victims from coming forward.

Given that many victims come forward because their abuser is named in the press, of course it will stop victims from coming forward - much easier for victims to come forward when they know an investigation is already taking place.

Right now we have a 1.7% conviction rate so there names being out there is virtually the only deterrent at this point.

1.7% prosecution rate. Not even a conviction rate.

Exactly. Only around 3% of people are lying about being raped. The vast majority of guilty rapists are not punished. At this point being named and shamed is the only deterrent we have.

I'm pleased to see thi spotition has very few signitorys, consudering how much publicity it's had.

The law already states that the names of anyone questioned for a sex offense, should not be released UNLESS there are exceptional circumstances, and permission to release a name has to be made from a senior police officer.
Cliff should be going after the police and the media rather than trying to change the law.

I'm pleased to see thi spotition has very few signitorys, consudering how much publicity it's had

I agree. It’s so depressing how people on a “feminism” board are so quick to sign this. We all know very few rapists will ever be convicted. This is the last deterrent we have.

I've not signed it, I'm in two minds.

But they, in effect, are. I can think of only a couple of cases ever (Cliff Richard and Paul Gambiccini) where they’ve been named before charge. In real life, the press never name suspects of rape before charge because they don’t know their names.

There was the whole 'operation midland' business. One 'informant', who is now on trial, made grave accusations against various 'members of the establishment', living and dead. (Perhaps coincidentally, many of them were Jewish )

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48885476

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/05/14/man-known-nick-invented-heinous-sex-abuse-allegations-against/

Seems reasonable to me (anonymity before charge, that is).

He was treated disgracefully. There was a whiff of "oh look, a gay man who acts all goody goody, let's get him" about it.

yes, most definitely.
my dh lost a lot of business when he was questioned about a rape as someone thought he looked like the mug shot on tv.
The Police interviewed his clients for alibi and told them what it was about.
I don't think they should be allowed to do this if they aren't going to charge.
The rapist was caught in the end, but nobody made a big deal of publicising the fact he hadn't done it. We had to move in the end, and it harmed him mentally for a long time.

Excuse my typos.

Kashali
yes, most definitely.
my dh lost a lot of business when he was questioned about a rape

...and when I saw just the first part of your post on the "I'm On" page my brain instantly went to "how does she know he didn't do it?". 😳 proving that people are judgmental, unfortunately.

I've felt so sorry for Leon Brittan, the last few years of his life were ruined by the false allegations, and it must have damaged relationships within his family. His wife has to live with the fallout now, as well. Nothing will ever make up for it. That other poor MP too, can't remember his name, bad wig, targeted because he's gay.

We need to protect the innocent, once word gets about it's so hard for people to see the truth.
We even heard voices in the playground, "No smoke without fire"
My dh vomited for a week and lost a lot of weight in the first week, they kept coming round asking for things for about a month. Police asked our neighbours about our family, visited the school.
He was never charged, cautioned, or anything official, but they kept calling for items.

'my dh lost a lot of business when he was questioned about a rape as someone thought he looked like the mug shot on tv.
The Police interviewed his clients for alibi and told them what it was about.'

So this is an idea that, what exactly?

Mug shots should not be shared to find criminals?
The police should not investigate suspects?

What exactly do you want' anonymity to charge ' to mean, because it sounds like you want to put blocks into the police investigation.

He was never charged, cautioned, or anything official, but they kept calling for items.

That’s called investigating crimes. What would you like them to do? Not investigate because it will inevitably mean questioning innocent people? The victim, and the public, and their safety from sexual offenders, is more important.