Wilshere Arrested

[DB10GOONER]

Without going into too much detail my brother in law had his life ruined (lost his job, access to his kid, was assaulted, had to move house, ended up on remand) because of a false accusation his ex-girlfriend made about him. He was totally vindicated (she eventually admitted to the cops she was lying to get revenge for his dumping her) but that was nearly a year later and only because one cop doubted her story and kept up the (legal) pressure on her.

You wouldn't meet a nicer, more decent and honest bloke than my bro-in-law, but his life was ruined on the word of one skank with no evidence - he admitted he came close to killing himself but the thought of his kids with no dad stopped him thankfully.

Worse thing for me is that lying bitch got away with it scot-free. THAT to me is as much an injustice as any. She should have been prosecuted. Any woman that lies about that crime is as evil as any man that commits it. Both type of "people" are scum and should be imprisoned for a long time.

[BT]

Totally agree false accusations should be punished but I can't agree its right to protect the 6% falsely accused over the 94% rightly accused and not able to be convicted.

If we're gonna get personal, I know at least 5 close friends/family who have been raped and hadn't a chance of even being able to press charges. Women who can't face going out, who have panic attacks and depression as a result, who's relationships have broken down as a result.

One friend had to call the police weekly for an update on her case only to find they hadn't even sent her clothes off for testing 3 months later and they were now unusable as evidence! She then received an undated letter a week later saying her clothes would be incinerated if she didn't pick them up in the next few days! The police did nothing - they didn't track her mobile phone which was stolen (and which he phone company refused to replace because it wasn't 'accidental loss or damage'), they didnt check cctv of the area, they didn't offer any counselling or support, they were dismissive, accusitory and negligent in their attitude towards her, they didnt put up any signs to warn people or ask for witnesses, they told her since she's had a beer that afternoon she was unlikely to be able to take it any further anyway as a judge would throw it out so why waste everyone's time? She was so badly effected, by the treatment of the police more than anything, that she couldnt finish her degree, she had to leave the town where it happened because she had to walk past the same spot every day and her relationship completely broke down.

Damage is damage but 94% to 6% is overwhelming so why is the law and the attitude on here so i favour of the 6%? (sorry, DB, i know you hate stats!)

[LDB]

Olgit, i've no doubt that was a terrible experience for your uncle but I still maintain it pales incomparison to the 94% or true allegations that are made, of which 2% meet a conviction.

You're still comparing things that really do not need to be compared. No doubt there are more women who are raped then there are men who are falsely accused but unless you can convincingly show that providing defendants with media anonymity somehow impedes the legal proccess in genuine rape cases then it really is a moot point.

Your line of argument seems to be willing to allow false allegations to continue for no substantial benefit other then you feel guarding against it is somehow siding with the perpetrator, even though he gains no practical/legal advantage by being anonymous.

[topgoon]

Shame this has become a debate on rape cases as Jack's unfortunate night out seems to not have involved a sexual assault and we will never know what happened between RVP and the young lady involved.

Because 73% of rape victims know their assailant, chances are the anonymity isn't that much of an issue but that means 27% are ubknown to the victim.

That 27% are usually have commited or will go on to commit more rapes. The 73% may also be work colleagues who are sexual predators and have a history of assaults and attempted rapes. If they remained anonymous and yet another case failed then they get off.

Most victims will not go through the judicial process for obvious reasons but might if someone else reads the case and identifies the man involved as a past rapist.
The shockinlgy low rape conviction rate (6%) in this country is one reason why I don't think the assailant should be anonymous. Does anyone really think that only 6% of the rapes took place, under any rational reasoning, no way. The victim until proven otherwise has done absolutely nothing wrong and should remain anonymous.

The problem with malicious accusations is the penalty for doing it. Make it a lot more severe, serious jail terms for it then it would stop or reduce in number.

I actually knew 2 people who had been raped and a friend of a friend who did get falsely accused. On both sides the victims deserved better from the judicial process.

[topgoon]

Olgit, i've no doubt that was a terrible experience for your uncle but I still maintain it pales incomparison to the 94% or true allegations that are made, of which 2% meet a conviction.

You're still comparing things that really do not need to be compared. No doubt there are more women who are raped then there are men who are falsely accused but unless you can convincingly show that providing defendants with media anonymity somehow impedes the legal proccess in genuine rape cases then it really is a moot point.

Your line of argument seems to be willing to allow false allegations to continue for no substantial benefit other then you feel guarding against it is somehow siding with the perpetrator, even though he gains no practical/legal advantage by being anonymous.

Victims anonymity isn't anything to do with the legal process and more to do with protection of the victim imo. They find it hard enough to come forward as it is.

I know it sounds like a copout but you have to imagine being the victim of a rape and believe me the last thing you want is your name bandied about as THE RAPE VICTIM. It's why most people don't report it, it's yet another humiliation and loss of power and control over their lives.

[DB10GOONER]

Totally agree false accusations should be punished but I can't agree its right to protect the 6% falsely accused over the 94% rightly accused and not able to be convicted.

If we're gonna get personal, I know at least 5 close friends/family who have been raped and hadn't a chance of even being able to press charges. Women who can't face going out, who have panic attacks and depression as a result, who's relationships have broken down as a result.

One friend had to call the police weekly for an update on her case only to find they hadn't even sent her clothes off for testing 3 months later and they were now unusable as evidence! She then received an undated letter a week later saying her clothes would be incinerated if she didn't pick them up in the next few days! The police did nothing - they didn't track her mobile phone which was stolen (and which he phone company refused to replace because it wasn't 'accidental loss or damage'), they didnt check cctv of the area, they didn't offer any counselling or support, they were dismissive, accusitory and negligent in their attitude towards her, they didnt put up any signs to warn people or ask for witnesses, they told her since she's had a beer that afternoon she was unlikely to be able to take it any further anyway as a judge would throw it out so why waste everyone's time? She was so badly effected, by the treatment of the police more than anything, that she couldnt finish her degree, she had to leave the town where it happened because she had to walk past the same spot every day and her relationship completely broke down.

Damage is damage but 94% to 6% is overwhelming so why is the law and the attitude on here so i favour of the 6%? (sorry, DB, i know you hate stats!)

I'll forgive the stats this once BT! And I'm sorry to hear about your friend, God love her, she went through an awful ordeal at the hands of the people that were supposed to help her. Rape is a terrible physical and psychological crime. But I suppose my point was more to do with women that cry rape as an act of revenge knowing there is no punishment for themselves.

Personally I believe a rape victim should be entitled to public anonimity but I also believe a person is innocent until proven guilty. That particular crime carries a very public shame and humiliation with it and there is always that old chesnut "no smoke without fire" to deal with. I don't know what I would have done in my bro-in-laws position TBH.

But I can also see the argument behind naming accused rapists as it is proven that it can encourage other victims to come forward. It's a tough one and as you say, should we protect the minority of innocent accused at the expense of possibly convicting the majority of guilty accused? In a bit of a tenuous way it is similar to the death penalty question; if one innocent person is executed is it justified because 99 guilty men were too? I don't have the answer, just an opinion.

I suppose my opinion is subjective too as I saw what happened to my bro-in-law. I do also agree that rape victims seem to be treated very shoddily by alot of policemen in both Oireland and Engerland. I also feel the punishment for rapists is just no where near severe enough.

Just one last point, BT. You stated earlier that it wasn't possible to compare being raped with being falsely accused of rape. I'm not sure about that. I certainly don't intend to demean in any way what any rape victim has gone through but I would contest that both are very destructive things to go through. In my bro-in-laws case he was physically hurt (had the shit kicked out of him by two local vigilante wannabe heroes) and psychologically and emotionally damaged (lost his job and self esteem, suffered depression, loss of freedom, missed his kid, nearly killed himself). Of course, I've never experienced either, so I can only offer an opinion.

[BT]

Olgit, i've no doubt that was a terrible experience for your uncle but I still maintain it pales incomparison to the 94% or true allegations that are made, of which 2% meet a conviction.

You're still comparing things that really do not need to be compared. No doubt there are more women who are raped then there are men who are falsely accused but unless you can convincingly show that providing defendants with media anonymity somehow impedes the legal proccess in genuine rape cases then it really is a moot point.

Your line of argument seems to be willing to allow false allegations to continue for no substantial benefit other then you feel guarding against it is somehow siding with the perpetrator, even though he gains no practical/legal advantage by being anonymous.

I don't want false allegations to happen at all, and i think they should be severely punished, especially since they hinder real cases. There is a proven reason why defendents should be named, hence why the law was changed in the 70s to do so far all crimes. Hence why some lawyers are taking the governments proposed changes to task as a breach of the human rights act. I've given you a very clear example of the black cab driver case where his conviction was only possible because he was named. I quote:

Several women who gave evidence had come forward to report their assaults only after hearing of Worboys's arrest. At least one of them had been unaware that she had been assaulted until police informed her that her DNA had been found on a vibrator belonging to Worboys.

It emerged in court that Worboys was arrested and questioned in July 2007 following reports by a number of women, but he was released on police bail without further action. A further seven of the women who gave evidence in court were assaulted after his initial release.

Following the verdict, the Independent Police Complaints Commission announced it will review the Metropolitan police's handling of the case and examine how Worboys managed to slip through detectives' fingers after the July 2007 attack. Scotland Yard referred itself to the watchdog and the officers involved could face misconduct charges if found to have acted negligently.

I completely believe in 'innocent until proven guilty' but my problem is the system is set up to make the victim be the one having to prove her innocence and that is wrong. Of course there's an advantage for the accused if he is anonymous if other women who he has raped don't get a chance to identify him as their rapist too and feel encouraged to come forward. After all, the more people who can attest to something, the more liklihood that the woman will be taken seriously and not be branded as making a false allegation.

DB10, a great post. I'm in no way denying its horrific to be accused (and I also know people who have been falsly accused of crimes) but I would still say its the lesser of two evils. Using Van Persie as an example again, I would be inclined to say he has recovered from a very public slander. I imagine its a very twisted person that would falsely accuse someone but once they do, their reputation is also ruined too.

[QuartzGooner]

Using Van Persie as an example again, I would be inclined to say he has recovered from a very public slander. I imagine its a very twisted person that would falsely accuse someone but once they do, their reputation is also ruined too.

Beg to differ.

In these cases where someone in the public eye is accused, the accuser can be someone out of the public eye, hence outside of their immediate social circle, has negligible reputation to lose in the first place.

RVP's accuser was an ex beauty contestant, hardly a household name.

[Vince]

Anyway, is there anything wrong in taking pictures up women's skirts with his mobile??
He's 18, he's having fun with young girls, nothing wrong with that. It's not because he's footballer he should live like a monk.