Tory Mp Mark Pritchard Cleared Of Rape.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2898620/Police-drop-rape-investigation-backbench-Tory-MP-Mark-Pritchard.html

/// Anyone who makes an accusation that they are the victim of a sexual assault is given anonymity for life, under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. ///

/// But the same protection is not granted to the alleged perpetrator. ///

Should this unfair anonymity law now be changed so as to protect the innocent?

[Tilly2]

He hasn't been cleared. There was not enough evidence to charge him.

Not quite the same thing.

[hc4361]

Changed in what way? You ask if the anonymity law should be changed, does this mean you want both parties to be anonymous, or none?

[sp1814]

AOG

No, because of the difficulty in proving cases of rape, when a suspect is charged, it gives other victims the opportunity to come forward. One of the most effective ways to successfully prosecute a rapist is to demonstrate 'patterns of behaviour'.

One other thing - if rapists are to be granted anonymity until the point they are proven guilty or innocent, should the same consideration be extended to paedophiles, fraudsters, murderers etc?

All would be similarly tainted.

[anotheoldgit]

Tilly2

/// He hasn't been cleared. There was not enough evidence to charge him. ///

/// Not quite the same thing. ///

So if you had not done anything wrong then you wouldn't have the right to be cleared, they could just say there isn't enough evidence to charge you, which would be correct wouldn't it?

Of course it is, if it wasn't then any innocent person who had done nothing wrong, would not deserve the right to cleared because

[anotheoldgit]

Lower paragraph should have been deleted.

[youngmafbog]

//He hasn't been cleared. There was not enough evidence to charge him. //

And that attitude is exactly why the alleged perpetrator should also be given anonymity.

Plod dont want it changed of course because they use it to make up for lazy Policing. Instead of fully investigating they sling the name out and hope someone else comes out the wood work with solid evidence.

But the problem is, *** sticks as we see.

[sunny-dave]

I think AoG might be suggesting that where person named as a rapist is found 'not proven', 'not guilty' or (indeed) not even charged, then his accuser(s) should then lose their right to anonymity.

Not sure I agree with this, although I can see the logic at work.

[youngmafbog]

//should the same consideration be extended to paedophiles, fraudsters, murderers etc? //

Yes.

[ummmm]

Rape is very hard to prove if the victim doesn't go straight to the police.

So I agree with sp.

[youngmafbog]

And s*d anyone falsely accused then ummm?

[sandyRoe]

In Scotland there's a verdict, 'Not Proven', which is like saying we think you did it but there's not enough evidence.
This MP must be thinking it's a great pity he didn't get his day in court rather than the police saying there's not enough evidence.

[anotheoldgit]

sp1814

And what if their accuser had been telling 'porkies', should they retain the right to remain anomalous, while the innocent party has to be publicly recognised and carry the shame all their life?

[ummmm]

Women have been exposed and prosecuted for false accusations of rape.

[hc4361]

sunny-dave, I hope that is not what AOG means.

A victim of rape reports to the police, which can be traumatic in itself, and if the CPS find there is not enough evidence to charge the accused, the rape victim is then branded a liar, vindictive attention seeker or worse.

The police have charged people with wasting police time when a false allegation of rape has been made and then they are named in the press. That is good enough for me. In fact 109 people have been prosecuted for just that in the last five years.
http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/dec/01/109-women-prosecuted-false-rape-allegations

Now, I would hardly call that lazy policing.

[Tilly2]

I'm just splitting hairs over the word 'cleared'. Not proven seems a better term.

[hc4361]

For all we know Mark Pritchard's accuser may have retracted the statement, admitted she was lying.

[sp1814]

divebuddy

I worded it badly.

I was trying to say that I didn't agree with anonymity for those charged with rape. If you go down that road, then arguably why not anonymity for all serious crime (a bad thing IMO).

[hc4361]

It has been shown time and again that naming a person accused of sexual offences encourages others to come forward. That is not lazy policing, it is common sense.
The offences may be separated by many years or many miles and if the accused doesn't confess that how are the police to start looking? It is very hard to a conviction of rape but the evidence of multiple victims does help.