Callum Hudson-Odoi arrested on suspicion of rape.

[KS55]

Remember the tory MP Neil Hamilton? He and his wife were accused of sexually abusing a woman at a party in London. After some discussion with the police, they agreed to go to the cop shop for interviews under strict confidentiality, since even the police were doubtful. By the time they left the station, the whole of the press were there. The point being that even if there is doubt, at least one cop will sell the info to the press. However desirable anonimity is, it will not be observed if the accused is famous.
(A sidelight: the 'victims' solicitor was an old friend of mine. He told me she was a gold digging fantasist and, at their first meeting, he advised her to withdraw the accusation. She sacked him, in favour of a charlatan appointed by Max Clifford.)

 

[Dirty Harry]

Max Clifford, always makes laugh that name, should have been called "Min".

 

[blueinsa]

Bloody hell.

Yeah he broke national lockdown rules, and we can all morally judge him on that, but rape is a very, very serious allegation. I find it truly absurd that an allegation like that can be allowed to be made public while the police investigation is still ongoing and no charges has been put forward yet.

Indeed. Innocent until proven guilty unless its our media involved and they feel like creating headlines regardless of the cost.

 

[BigJoe#1]

Indeed, but that's news media nowadays. As soon as it's out, it'll be reported until the law is changed.

I haven't heard the BBC report it on TV yet, although it's on the website.

That's because he doesn't play for Manchester City FC.

Have Sky Sports news run with it yet?

 

[Iamthemusicman]

Names of anybody involved in a criminal case (both suspect and victim) should be kept anonymous until someone is convicted.

Obviously if there's a genuine risk to public safety then fair enough names should be made public, e.g. the black cab rapist or a killer on the loose.

 

[SWP's back]

Interestingly though it's only ever been controversial to name rape suspects. If he'd been accused of assault or robbery or even murder, there would be absolutely no-one complaining that he's been named. And when you point this out, people might argue that no alleged criminal should be named until they've been charged (or found guilty), but the difference is that you never then see the same people making such comments about it on stories about other crimes. I wonder why these sort of comments are found exclusively on threads where rape is the alleged crime? And I'd argue that it's because we still live in a society where people instinctively doubt women who claim they've been raped in a way that we don't with other crimes.

It would be difficult for me to falsely accuse you of murdering me.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

It would be difficult for me to falsely accuse you of murdering me.

It wouldn't be difficult for someone to be falsely accused of murder by the authorities though. When Oscar Pistorius was first accused, nobody knew whether it was murder or a tragic accident. His name was still plastered over the international media, and not a single person to my knowledge was bemoaning the fact in the same way they do every time someone is accused of rape.

 

[SWP's back]

It wouldn't be difficult for someone to be falsely accused of murder by the authorities though. When Oscar Pistorius was first accused, nobody knew whether it was murder or a tragic accident. His name was still plastered over the international media, and not a single person to my knowledge was bemoaning the fact in the same way they do every time someone is accused of rape.

Because the required level of evidence in a murder trial is very high whereas often in rape trials it’s one person’s word against another’s.

 

[lonestay]

As an aside and not wishing to take this thread off subject, what is the latest in Pistorius"s story?

 

[I'm With Stupid]

Because the required level of evidence in a murder trial is very high whereas often in rape trials it’s one person’s word against another’s.

Well they actually have the opposite problem. With most crimes, the difficulty is finding who did it. With rape, the victim usually knows who did it, and the difficulty is proving it. The standard defence of most criminals is "It wasn't me." The standard defence for a rapist nowadays is "Yes, I did it, but I was allowed to."

It's hard to find statistics on what percentage of accusations lead to an arrest (it might even involve looking past the first page of Google search results), not just how many result in charges or summons (just 1 in 65), but I've got to assume that they need a credible accusation. In fact one of the big problems is with vulnerable women with a dodgy past, women who have worked as prostitutes, etc, because they often won't be seen as a credible accuser, even thought they're exactly the sort of person most likely to be a victim of sexual assault.