Cameron backtracking (a bit) on anonymity for rape defendants

[Maranello]

it now looks as though the proposal might extend only to the period between a suspect being arrested and charged.

here

i'm still with harriet harman on this one, though.

Thrilled that they've made this concession, but still hoping they'll bin the whole idea.

yes, it does seem a curiously pointless idea now, doesn't it?

i didn't see pmqs but i imagine harriet harman was pretty good on this. anyone see it?

You can watch it on the BBC Democracy site the Q from HH starts at 5m 20s in.

I thought it was great that it was HH's first question.

I am only just at the beginning of understanding/investigating rape - eg the statistics/the legal system/issues around making women victims etc but this quote from one of the other threads here has really made me think:

"if men didn't want to be accused of rape, they shouldn't put themselves in situations where that could happen"

(quote from KittyTwoShoes)

By LondonSun Wed 02-Jun-10 20:41:09
Thrilled that they've made this concession, but still hoping they'll bin the whole idea.

What they are doing is bining the whole idea.

The police can remove anonimity as soon as the man is charged which is what we have now.

"if men didn't want to be accused of rape, they shouldn't put themselves in situations where that could happen"

(quote from KittyTwoShoes)

Yes men should stay inside and not go anywhere near women.

"Yes men should stay inside and not go anywhere near women."

No, but perhaps they should think twice before having sex with women who are under the influence of alcohol or drugs or who haven't explicitly consented. If they didn't have sex, there's not much chance of being accused of rape is there?

No one seems to think twice about saying women should protect themselves, shouldn't get drunk, shouldn't walk home alone at night, shouldn't invite men in for coffee, why is it such a terrible idea that if men behaved better and had more respect towards women, then they would be far less likely to be accused of rape?

Excellent news about Cameron backtracking as well. I did think that people were already anonymous until charged, is this not the case?

The advice given to women BBJ, is that if they wish to avoid being raped they should stay inside and not go anywhere near men.

It is interesting that when this advice is reversed it is met with . What is goos sensible advice for one sex is a terrible restriction of freedom for the other, it seems.

I don't think that people are anon til charged, it is currently reported when people are brought in for questioning or arrested, I am sure.

I'm just thinking of news reports that say "police are questioning/have arrested a 36-year-old man" for example. Maybe the police have the option of releasing identities at that stage, but don't always choose to?

"The advice given to women BBJ, is that if they wish to avoid being raped they should stay inside and not go anywhere near men."

Its wrong when given to women and wrong when given to men.

niether gender should have to live in fear of either of these happening, both should take reasonible steps.

I am certain that you have to be charged before your name can be released. Thats why as Allidon posted they use things like "police are questioning/have arrested a 36-year-old man" and " A man is helping with enquiries"

Allidon I can think of loads when they have released the names of the people being questioned in connection with... mainly slebs and child porn that I can think of for some reason.

"both should take reasonible steps"

And I would suggest that reasonable steps are that when a woman is drunk, under the influence of drugs or not explicitly consenting, don't have sex with her. When a woman does not seem to be enjoying sex, or is not responding, stop and ensure she is ok and wants to continue. This way there is no chance of sexual activity which she has not consented to, and therefore no chance of being charged with sexual assault or rape.

that is reasonable but it doesn't cover all eventualities, but that is me spliting hairs and hijacking the thread, sorry.

if someone is arrested/being questioned but not (yet) been charged, though, the identity of that person is often reported. it might not be that the police have released the name (not sure if that's at their discretion?) but you often read that "local sources have named the man as x" or whatever - i don't think there is any restriction before charge on what the media can report about a suspect, whereas once someone is charged, the amount of info that can be reported is very restricted so as not to influence the trial.

i still don't buy the argument that those accused of rape need "special" protection though. but agree with leningrad about it highlighting the issues about how far we still have to go in dealing with rape in this country.

I can just imagining him squirming in his shiny shoes and opining "that's what we meant all along...".

By declaring originally that this would apply to "defendants", the clear implication was that anonymity applied until conviction had taken place. Surely when people are being arrested or questioned, and before they are charged, they are not actually described as "defendants" - are they?

No, that's right. They're accused, or persons of interest.

Not sure why HH didn't pick up on the fact that he was backtracking then? E.g. "I'm pleased to hear that DC has dropped his original plan to protect defendants in rape trials, given the huge negatives such a policy was likely to bring with it." Do they have to plan comments beforehand or something?

It's good that this is looking less likely. Still need to fight it though. And frankly I feel sick now knowing that this is how the govt feels about rape and women's rights in general.

Oh proles, if it wasn't for MN and the moves made on here in the past 10 days I really would feel alone in the world on this issue. Now I know there are at least - oh, 1354 - people who feel the same way.

When will this MN feminist meetup be anyway?