I have not yet signed FAIR's petition for anonymity for those accused of sexual offences, until charge. I imagine that most here, like me, feel that Cliff and others (not least JK himself) have been very badly treated, and that there are serious problems with the way that these cases are handled. My concerns are that the proposal is at best a sticking plaster (which may actually distract from, or even be used to justify, other unfair aspects of the sysyem) and that at worst it may lead to situations in which someone could be held without approriate notification to concerned parties.

This article in The Week suggests that it is only intended to apply to "those with reputations to protect", but also quotes Society of Editors Executive director Ian Murray as saying:“What would exist is a state of affairs where the actions of the police when investigating and arresting citizens cannot be reported on by the media. This is surely one of the worst aspects of a totalitarian state.” I know there are some here who, one way or the other, have strong views on how sexual offences are dealt with. I'd be very interested to hear any views on this proposal.

Misa wrote:
My concerns are that the proposal is at best a sticking plaster (which may actually distract from, or even be used to justify, other unfair aspects of the sysyem) and that at worst it may lead to situations in which someone could be held without approriate notification to concerned parties.


Agreed.

Public scrutiny of trials, whether by the press or by members of the public, is an essential check on the power of the state. I wish the press would do a better job of this, but that's for another thread.

It's easy to imagine how anonymity might be extended to a defendant on remand, and then through his trial, and then post-conviction to "protect victims." We then have a secret trial all the way from arrest to prison and no one knows who was prosecuted, who accused him or what the evidence was.

This is exactly what lots of campaigners would love. They want a a guilty verdict to follow automatically from a woman's accusation without any requirement for evidence or examination of the allegation. And any evidence the defendant might want to use in his defence isn't allowed.

The petition for defendant anonymity is playing right into the hands of groups who want to destroy the right to a fair trial and presumption of innocence. The Guardian supports the petition, which should ring alarm bells loud and clear.

I'd go in the opposite direction. No more anonymity for complainants.

In abuse / sex cases it should be anonymity until conviction and even then if they immediately launch an appeal anonymity should remain.

This is a unique crime where there is rarely tangible evidence rather one person's word against anothers.

FAIR are being right bastards by suggesting anonymity for a certain class of person.
A shocking notion but I think like many advocate groups they in turn are too are intimidated by alternative "victim advocates" who have bestowed saint-like status upon all claimants (and in turn had sainthood bestowed upon them merely for being victims).

When did the victims of burglary or car theft or fraud become bloody experts in the crime?

The chairman of the Criminal Bar Association is too close to the action and like so many, doesn't realise he too could be falsely accused and his career destroyed in an instant.

Recall the QC (not naming him) who was involved in the early days of IICSA and was accused of touching someone up in a lift. Resigned, cleared..but still whispered about on internet forums.

What the Bar Association chairman, FAIR etc are NOT taking into account is the deviousness and viciousness of the mass media.
If we had a media constrained by laws that prevented them from vindictively attacking and destroying their chosen targets ( as Lord Leveson explained) it may be a different story.

The media can build up a case and destroy and then when it all fall apart as in Carl Beech still profit by undoing the story. They never lose no matter how many victims they have. ie: the BBC helicopter & Cliff.

Some of these people are too close to the coal face.

FAIR or the Bar Association Chairman or any of the others are basically unknown..but it only takes one nutter to single them out and accuse.

And this is the problem with the endless claim that "false accusations are rare" a completely unproven and possibly unprovably mantra trotted out to stifle discussion.

by the way..as an example of how insidious this entire matter is..are the tags associated with that story in The Week.

they are this:

Read more: UK News Sex offenders Cliff Richard Crime

and there we have it: as completely innocent man with his reputation in tatters near the end of his life when he should be considering a nice semi-retirement in the sun after a splendid career (same applies to a motor mechanic, a fire-fighter) but his name is forever from now until eternity linked to those offending words.

# all kudos and love to Cliff, Harvey Proctor, Lord Bramall and all those who fight the good fight !!

Randall, more openness rather than less, I agree. This 'anonymity for life' business, irrespective of whether there is a conviction, seems crazy.

hedda, FAIR's suggestion that only certain people would receive this protection is certainly disappointing. Presumably, our dear host would not have been protected, last time around, by their kind of anonymity, as he had a previous conviction.

The notion of victimhood is quite unhelpful, generally, I think. We should be wary of those who would be victims, and equally wary of those who would label us victims. Victim advocates presumably fall into the latter category.

In a rational and decent society, we should not be allowing the views of victims to affect the way we deal with criminals.

Randall wrote:
Misa wrote:
My concerns are that the proposal is at best a sticking plaster (which may actually distract from, or even be used to justify, other unfair aspects of the sysyem) and that at worst it may lead to situations in which someone could be held without approriate notification to concerned parties.


Agreed.

Public scrutiny of trials, whether by the press or by members of the public, is an essential check on the power of the state. I wish the press would do a better job of this, but that's for another thread.

It's easy to imagine how anonymity might be extended to a defendant on remand, and then through his trial, and then post-conviction to "protect victims." We then have a secret trial all the way from arrest to prison and no one knows who was prosecuted, who accused him or what the evidence was.

This is exactly what lots of campaigners would love. They want a a guilty verdict to follow automatically from a woman's accusation without any requirement for evidence or examination of the allegation. And any evidence the defendant might want to use in his defence isn't allowed.

The petition for defendant anonymity is playing right into the hands of groups who want to destroy the right to a fair trial and presumption of innocence. The Guardian supports the petition, which should ring alarm bells loud and clear.

I'd go in the opposite direction. No more anonymity for complainants.

The only reason we need the whole procedure to be visible is because we know it is rotten.

Making it all public is tackling it backwards.
We need to change the system so that people CANT be stitched up and mistreated.

Of course it all needs watching, and to be accountable, but this could be monitoring by an independent body, rather than relying on the vague possibility that the Daily mail might notice an injustice.

Misa wrote:
In a rational and decent society, we should not be allowing the views of victims to affect the way we deal with criminals.
Or defendants...

But yes, I strongly agree. As a society, we give up the function of enforcing the law to an independent and dispassionate system. If we didn't, we'd have lynchings and vigilante justice. Errrr… those seem to be making a comeback don't they?

But this social agreement to hand over the justice function to an independent, dispassionate system only works if it really is independent and dispassionate. Introducing The Victim's Voice to the process takes us a step away from impartial rule of law and a step towards mob justice, such as it is.

honey!oh sugar sugar wrote:The only reason we need the whole procedure to be visible is because we know it is rotten. I'm not so sure about this, honey!oh. It may be that we are inevitably corrupted, sooner or later, and openness is a protection against that. But I think just as great a danger are our fear and suspicion – openness is a guard against these too.
We need to change the system so that people CANT be stitched up and mistreated.I'm not sure that a human system can ever ensure that. It's not so much about the Daily Mail reporting on a case, but the principle that any member of the public can walk into a courtroom at any time and witness proceedings, and that a jury of regular folk make the final decision based on what they have seen in court.

If you were to lend me some money (heaven help you), when I paid you back, I would not simply hand you an envelope stuffed with notes, but I would count it out in front of you, or ask you to count it out in front of me. I would do this not because I don't trust you, but because this simple act can ensure that even an innocent mistake cannot soil our relationship. That openness is a guard against much more than corruption, though it is that too.

(btw I'm a bit skint at the moment, but I'm sure JK has a few bob kicking about if you're really in need)

Misa wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar wrote:The only reason we need the whole procedure to be visible is because we know it is rotten. I'm not so sure about this, honey!oh. It may be that we are inevitably corrupted, sooner or later, and openness is a protection against that. But I think just as great a danger are our fear and suspicion – openness is a guard against these too.
We need to change the system so that people CANT be stitched up and mistreated.I'm not sure that a human system can ever ensure that. It's not so much about the Daily Mail reporting on a case, but the principle that any member of the public can walk into a courtroom at any time and witness proceedings, and that a jury of regular folk make the final decision based on what they have seen in court.

If you were to lend me some money (heaven help you), when I paid you back, I would not simply hand you an envelope stuffed with notes, but I would count it out in front of you, or ask you to count it out in front of me. I would do this not because I don't trust you, but because this simple act can ensure that even an innocent mistake cannot soil our relationship. That openness is a guard against much more than corruption, though it is that too.

(btw I'm a bit skint at the moment, but I'm sure JK has a few bob kicking about if you're really in need)

Funnily enough, I never lend money at all, but will freely give it.
Expecting it back doesn't help long term.

I agree, there is no guarantee against corruption, but they could at least try, instead of accepting it.

I am just sick of altering my behaviour to accommodate gobshites.