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 think they should remain anonymous unless they need more evidence or they think there are other victims out there

Slippery that is the current position.
It's the media who fucked up here and whoever told them

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

Why so nasty to someone whose family obviously went through hell? The police shouldn't have told people what was being investigated.

Menu

should we allow others to suffer like my dh did?
He didn't do anything wrong and our world was turned upside down.
Small village too, so everybody knew, parents avoided us and the dc at school.
People think no smoke without fire.
You might think differently if it had happened to you or one of yours.

People shouldn't be named unless proven guilty, it's not rocket science. Police can still investigate they don't need to name, and in my dh case didn't have to tell his clients and our neighbours it was a rape they were investigating.

So you want mugshots not to be issued and the police not be allowed to say who they are investigating when they talk to people.

This is way further than anything I have heard before and would absokutely hamper the police.

Do you want this for all crimes or just some?

Do you want this to continue to charge or to prosecution?

Do you want victims barred from telling friends / family in case it gets out?

Why does anybody need to know the accused’s name before charge?

Menu

The poor raped woman I'm talking about didn't know her attacker, she wasn't acquainted to know his name.
She wouldn't have known my dh name to tell anyone either.

A victim should tell who they like, if they know the name they should report it.
This then doesn't have to become common knowledge to your friends, family, employer, clients, neighbours.

But presumably your DH resembled the efit of the attacker if he was investigated? Are you suggesting that the media don't release descriptions of attackers just in case the wrong person gets investigated? How exactly do you propose we catch criminals if we can't release descriptions of them?

Coming back for more items and interviewing people is how criminal investigations work though. How else do you propose we investigate crimes, catch perpetrators and in people such as your DH's case, be able to eliminate them?

This discussion is pointless anyway because it's about the criminal investigation and has nothing to do with anonymity. Even if anonymity was brought in tomorrow, alleged rapes will still need to be investigated and yes that involves identified the suspect when interviewing potential witnesses. No law change will prevent a criminal investigation from taking place and it certainly will not prevent people from gossiping.

*identifying.

The majority of men accused of rape are not named in the media. In fact the majority of people accused of any crime are not named.

Why do people think a ban on the press being able to name suspects will somehow fix what happens in the criminal investigation and anything which occurs as a result of that?

Hugs

Innocent until proven guilty. You don't have to bandy somebody's name against a rape or murder to investigate.
Police asking for items wasn't the problem it was naming an innocent man.
At one point an officer mentioned ss for our children, if it came to it.
FFS it was harassment.

The police were investigating a rape and your DH was a suspect. Suggesting social services seems perfectly sensible to me.

And none of what you're talking about has anything to do with anonymity and everything to do with the police investigation.

Alleged crimes need to be investigated and you can't do that without telling potential witnesses who the suspect is and what they're being investigated for.

I agree that mud sticks. I can just about remember that Cliff Richard and Paul Gambaccini were not charged with anything but others I just remember they were investigated and so there is always a question mark in my mind about them. Jimmy Tarbuck and Dave Lee Travis? I know they were investigated but don't recall the outcome so they are covered in mud for me. It has truly stuck.
There are countless others too.

"The latest data on this is from a 17-month period in 2011 and 2012, when the CPS prosecuted 35 people for making false allegations of rape. I think alot of times women who make false allegations don't get prosecuted. I assume that is because there are mental health conditions so quite right not to prosecute but I don't think the number being prosecuted tells us alot.

I'd imagine the fact it's also quite difficult to prove a false rape accusation plays a part...

It’s so depressing how people on a “feminism” board are so quick to sign this I'm no sure many have. Much as I think this could be a good thing, if rolled out across all crimes, to take in account of social media and our ever decreasingly journalistic press, I have reservations about it being only for rape. I think that there needs to be a more holistic upheaval of the CPS - whose apparent current take on rape is disgusting - and so have not signed.

That has been my thought process through reading this thread..

More depressing on a feminism board to come across people who essentially want investigating rape to be banned, and who say you can't trust stats on false accusations due to low conviction rate (even though that's not how they compile them!).

I think this thread has drawn in some people with a keen interest in this for other reasons, rather than that that are interested in fwminist chat :D

Quote:"That's why the lawyer who put the petition up asked for a change "prior to being charged ""

IMO I think the petition organisers would have ideally wanted anonymity until convicted but they knew the chance of that happening was so slim, so they are just asking for anonymity until charged because that would have more support and more chance of being successful.

"I'd imagine the fact it's also quite difficult to prove a false rape accusation plays a part..."

Agree. Recently a taxi driver was accused of rape by a passenger, the truth only came out when it turned out the car was fitted with a tracker which showed exactly where the car had been.

news.yahoo.com/woman-facing-jail-after-falsely-claiming-she-was-raped-in-the-back-of-a-taxi-135404792.html