TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

UK: Former student, 23, accused of rape by female friend who 'woke up on top of him after they shared a bottle of Prosecco' is cleared. Outrageous he was even charged.

furchfur

September 22, 2017
2457 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4909300/Former-student-accused-rape-female-friend-cleared.html
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title UK: Former student, 23, accused of rape by female friend who 'woke up on top of him after they shared a bottle of Prosecco' is cleared. Outrageous he was even charged.
Author

furchfur

Upvotes 2457
Comments 161
Date September 22, 2017 9:04 AM UTC
(8 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/71pssu/uk_former_student_23_accused_of_rape_by_female/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/uk-former-student-23-accused-of-rape-by-female.1175332
https://theredarchive.com/post/1175332
Top posts by furchfur

UK: Innocent student wrongly accused of rape calls for anonymity for sex assault defendants until they are found guilty.

17408 upvotes
December 18, 2017
/r/MensRights

Thousands of dads are left in shock as DIY paternity tests soar. Up to 30,000 tests are being performed every year, says Alphabiolabs. In the UK about 750,000 babies are born every year. Feminists want the test to be illegal without the written consent of the mother.

4746 upvotes
January 13, 2019
/r/MensRights

Male rape survivors tell of their battle to have their voices heard after being told ‘men are the attackers, women are the victims’

4394 upvotes
April 14, 2017
/r/MensRights

16yo female 'prodigy' developer's app was actually written by a male programmer.

4210 upvotes
February 6, 2018
/r/PussyPassDenied

Mother-of-two, 40, falsely branded a neighbour a sex offender because he 'made too much noise building a guinea pig hutch in his garden'. It seems for many women if they do not get their way they make a false sex allegation knowing a man is not protected by the law.

3937 upvotes
March 4, 2019
/r/MensRights

Female British YouTube vlogger accuses Dublin hotel of bullying her after it refused her request to stay there for free and posted their scathing response saying she 'lacked dignity' online

3871 upvotes
January 18, 2018
/r/PussyPassDenied

Nearly 500 men and boys are freed from 'house of torture' Islamic boarding school where they were chained up, raped by staff and starved 'in the name of teaching them the Koran' in Nigeria. OP: We will see how much media coverage this gets.

3825 upvotes
September 27, 2019
/r/MensRights

Teenager, 18, who lied that ex-boyfriend drugged and raped her after he refused to rekindle their romance is convicted of wasting police time

3747 upvotes
May 29, 2018
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]LinkRar 744 points745 points746 points 8 years ago (41 children) | Copy Link

The part that bothers me the most is that they don't release the girl's name because of "legal reasons." SURE, SURE. THAT'S PERFECTLY FINE. I SEE NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.

[–]lexpython 219 points220 points221 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

And there's a half-dozen pictures of him. WTF?

[–]anticommon 66 points67 points68 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

If you abuse someone of false charges I think the social cost should be redeemable in a defamation lawsuit. Also is it okay for him to release the name of the false accuser?

[–]SJW_Skeptic 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

In the U.K. The default is that accusers even if found to be vindictive get anonymity where as the accused gets publicised in order to collect more complaints. The result of political influence on the crown prosecutor.

The case of Mark Pearson was a classic example .his name was plastered over the newspapers for months. The accuser was given anonymity even when it was clear she was either crazy or simply lying. Out of the UK the identity 'Souad Faress' of game of thrones fame is publicly available.

[–]geniice 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If you abuse someone of false charges I think the social cost should be redeemable in a defamation lawsuit.

Eh unless he has a lot of money risking a balance of probability lawsuit would be pretty foolish.

Also is it okay for him to release the name of the false accuser?

Can you prove there was one?

[–]geniice 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And there's a half-dozen pictures of him. WTF?

Its the daily mail. Its what they do.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I think that might help show this guy was cleared of wrong doing

[–]lexpython 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Because a sweet-looking guy with silly hats can do no wrong?

[–]HenryCurtmantle 81 points82 points83 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

There is pressure building here in the UK to scrap that provision, and either keep both names under wraps or name both accuser and accused.

[–]LinkRar 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I hope that becomes a thing. I'm not sure if it is like that in the us (probably isn't), but let's hope so.

[–]Xtermix 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Norway doesnt release anything unless charged

[–]DontTrustRedditors 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'll believe it when I see it. I don't believe I'll ever see it.

[+]Mencite -9 points-8 points-7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

We don't want that. Common smarten up.

[–]ttnorac 303 points304 points305 points 8 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

I'm totally ok with that, but the SAME RULE SHOULD APPLY TO THE ACCUSED.

[–]stick_with_me 89 points90 points91 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Yep either release both or none at all unless he's officially charged. This will hang over him for the rest of his life now

[–]Neko404 33 points34 points35 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

think you mean convicted. then again maybe i am misunderstanding the difference

[–]stick_with_me 18 points19 points20 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You are correct. I've not had any sleep in 36 hours so not really with it

[–]LadyVimes 10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Dude! Get some sleep before you start seeing tap dancing penguins in the closet.

[–]seraph85 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And the accused is far more damaged by having thier identity out there than the "victim" that guys life is over he's gonna have to move.

[–]Warod0 71 points72 points73 points 8 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

Like someone said in another thread. The accused can't be anonymous. Because it is the government that accuses most of the times and we can't have the government sending unknown people into jail.

In my opinion, the accused and accuser should both be known to the public. Nothing is ever gained by concealing the truth.

[–]MisterDamage 126 points127 points128 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

You can protect the identity of people accused but not convicted. Those convicted should be identified but if the accuser can be anonymous, so too can the accused until such time as they are convicted.

[+][deleted] 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]SchalaZeal01 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The same thing as for alleged victims. If you reveal it, you go in court for outrage at magistrate or something.

[–]MisterDamage 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The same way that the identity of accusers is protected. Whatever that actually is. TBH, I think that neither's identity should be protected, that justice should be done in the open. So many mens rights issues are a result of judicial processes cloaked in darkness which desperately need the cleansing light of day to shine upon them. Family court stands as the single most egregious example of this.

But as long as the accuser can be anonymous, it follows that the accused ought also be anonymous and the same mechanisms that protect the identity of the accuser can protect the identity of the accused.

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points17 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You aren't sending unknown people to jail.

You hold in camera sessions for all sexual assaults. Both the accused and the complainant are known to every member of the court, but not to the public, because all records generated during the trial are kept under lock and key, and no press are allowed in the court room.

Once the court case is finished, the documents get filed in court records like every other case, so they both stop being anonymous at that point in time ... if someone cares to dredge up the files from the mountain of files generated every year by our courts. That will stop pretty much everyone from blowing things out of proportion and starting viral action to punish people in vigilante fashion.

[–]Krissam 13 points14 points15 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

You're looking at it from 2 extremes.

Here in Denmark at least, we have what we refer to as "name ban", in which a court can mandate that passing on the identity of a person who has been charged with a crime is forbidden to prevent putting them in physical danger or risking harassment.

In such a case, even if their identities are a matter of public record a newspaper printing something like "college student charged with rape", very few people would look up the identity of said college student and even if some people do, it's still much fewer who would know who he is compared to having his name and picture plastered over every newspaper for anyone to find should they do a simple googlesearch for his name any time in the future.

[–]thetarget3 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Yep, though the difference is that we have a much higher trust in our government. We aren't concerned with them sending random innocents to jail, or misusing the law to oppress people.

The Americans are much more concerned with protecting the people against the government, and are worried that they will use their power against them. Probably for good reason.

[–]MrMatmaka 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Frankly, any country should be concerned with such activities. I'm guessing you're from the UK? You've already had a completely secret trial or two, where the defendant wasn't publicly named but was tried anyway on terrorism charges. That's the kind of stuff that gives legal scholars in our countries nightmares....

[–]thetarget3 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No I'm from Denmark as well, and yes, these things are obviously concerning. On the other hand publically shaming potentially innocent people is also a problem. I think we need to find a compromise, and that compromise should probably depend on how much trust you place in your legal system.

[–]benno2332 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I feel like the Scandanavians have got it down whilst the rest of Europe just fumbles for meaning all the time

[–]circlhat 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is stupid you can only send someone to jail if they have been convicted of a crime, no one is asking that, if someone accuses you of a crime your name should be protected until a conviction is made

Understand?

[–]Amogh24 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Why not a compromise. The accused can choose wether to reveal his name or not

[–]DontTrustRedditors 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The UK doesn't give a shit about protecting its citizens. Don't trot out this transparent bullshit to me.

Hiding the accusers name, while allowing the name of the accused IS concealing the truth you fucking retard.

[–]AFuckYou 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yea but what if the accuser is like gang raped and beat, and doesn't want to share her or his identity but would like to press charges?

[–]Ikilledkenny128 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

that would be good punishment for false rape acusations. Just plastering their names and visages all over the internet to be memed and mocked

[–]Waldhorn 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Agreed, that is ridiculous.... feminism is about equality, let's see her party pictures.

[–]mymraccount_ac 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Worse still, due to changes going through in the UK atm, if she accuses another man of rape, this court judgement will not be usable as evidence of her history of making false rape claims. It is totally without consequence.

[–]EnIdiot 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Our legal system in the US and Britain requires public trials and everything--evidence, accusers, alleged perpetrators, charges, witnesses--every last damn thing-- be public. The only exception might be the names of children involved because they are minors (and even that probably needs to be public).

If you don't feel aggrieved and justified enough to put your name out there in public, you have no goddamn business taking your complaint to court. Don't even get me started on rape-shield laws.

[–]Mencite 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Did you think of this all by yourself genius. If this is a now a main stream opinion its an indication that MRA's need to be pushing for greater equality.

[–]Mencite -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Common bozo you come up with that all by yourself how original. Would you honestly prefer they bully this guy in private. Far better the world knows how women have massive victim power.

[–]GlassTwiceTooBig 212 points213 points214 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

"My husband gave me PTSD because I woke up after drinking heavily to find him under me with a knife in his chest! I'm going to need years of therapy, and his surviving family needs to compensate me for it!"

[–]benno2332 321 points322 points323 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

The woman cannot be named for legal reasons, but his name has been dragged through the mud for 3 YEARS.

Men need more protection when it comes to rape accusations. Their names should ONLY be released once they've been proven guilty. There are groups of radical feminists out there that will still think he's guilty because of #IBelieveHer, encouraging people to instantaneously believe he's guilty without even a shred of evidence.

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points16 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I think that's how it should work for any crime honestly.

[–]FiveThumbsPerHand 21 points22 points23 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

The government could accuse you of a crime, not release your name, lock you up, and nobody would even know you've been charged.

It's fucked up the way it's ruins people's reputations, but not releasing the name of the accused could lead to serious abuses by governments and even worse the police when charging people with a crime.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Man, i didn't even think about that. That's pretty fucked up but you're right

[–]Potatoe_Master 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Then in cases like these they should also release the accuser's name.

[–]Krissam 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/71pssu/uk_former_student_23_accused_of_rape_by_female/dnczdtg/

[–]furchfur[S] 165 points166 points167 points 8 years ago* (36 children) | Copy Link

Obviously this was regret sex, they did not actually have sex or even she raped him, I mean she was on top!

[–]mikesteane 207 points208 points209 points 8 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

She has lifetime anonymity. His name is forever tarnished.

[–]leo9g 52 points53 points54 points 8 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

What if he sues her tho?

[–]Imnotmrabut 79 points80 points81 points 8 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

He could only seek redress by taking a private Criminal Prosecution showing that she had made false report to police and "Perverted the Course Of Justice"

See: "ALEXANDER ECONOMOU CALLS FOR A CHANGE IN THE LAW TO PROTECT THE WRONGLY ACCUSED"

[–]leo9g 44 points45 points46 points 8 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

He can't sue her for raping him?

[–]furchfur[S] 147 points148 points149 points 8 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

Only men can be charged with rape in the UK

[–]leo9g 68 points69 points70 points 8 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

Are you being serious here?

[–]Baalzabub 112 points113 points114 points 8 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

Yes.

[–]leo9g 41 points42 points43 points 8 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

That's... very bizzare...

[–]originalSpacePirate 57 points58 points59 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I believe our official law for rape defines it as the act of non consenting penetration. So it does nothing to protect men

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I honestly do not understand people who are confused or surprised by how the legal system and society in general shows deference for a woman in a case where a man is accused of rape.

How can you be so naive?

[+]Baalzabub -11 points-10 points-9 points 8 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

How so?

Edit: Seriously people? I was just trying to prompted more conversation on the inequality of the rape law in the United Kingdom.

[–]tricks_23 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Somewhat true. Women can be charged with rape if they hold a victim down or assist in the rape

[–]meatboitantan 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

For real the UKs and Australia's government's outlook on men have really put me off from ever wanting to visit your countries. That's a shame because I know not all are to blame in the county and it's a small reason, but the principle of it makes it very difficult for me.

[–]Imnotmrabut 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

He could try .... but when a lack of evidence and a bottle of prosecco goes both ways.....

[–]leo9g 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Ye, but I'm thinking about it as a way to also fuck up her reputation, not just his. Im being petty here xD

[+]Imnotmrabut -9 points-8 points-7 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

You are also advocating wasting police time and perverting the course of justice.

[–]leo9g 13 points14 points15 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Is that what I'm doing? Oh :)

[–]Hypertroph 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Why are you being downvoted? OP is literally advocating for him to do exactly what we're all against her doing. Talk about double standards...

[–]Imnotmrabut 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Common Sense and reality always gets downvoted by the Vengeful, Irrate and Irrational.

Now watch this plummet! P¬))

[–]Spontex1 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Obviously this was regret sex

READ THE ARTICLE. THERE WAS NO SEX ACCORDING TO HIM.

'When the film was put on I begun to feel funny and the room was spinning - she was a bit tipsy too. I then fell asleep and when I woke up she had her head on my chest. I tried to move her out of the way but she was draped over me with her legs either side.

And

A medical examination carried out on the woman several days later showed no traces of his DNA.

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I like how she claimed she wasn't drunk at all yet this guy picked her up and fucked her without her noticing?

[–]SomeoneStopMePlease 67 points68 points69 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If people have to register as sex offenders when they commit crime, people should have to register as a false sexual accuser when they lie.

[–][deleted] 45 points46 points47 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What pisses me off about the aftermath is that his picture and name are plastered EVERYWHERE this story is discussed but hers are absent. How come no one gets to find out who she is? His name is now irrevocably tied to a rape charge thanks to the longevity of the internet, but hers won't be associated with a false rape accusation?

[–]brokedown 20 points21 points22 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Holy shit they posted so many photos of this dude, and none of the girl.

[–]derpylord143 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

They can't post any of the girl... uk law and all (see my response to AndrasOpinio)

[–]brokedown 14 points15 points16 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Sure, but that's not really the point. THe point is there are SO MANY photos of this poor guy. And the article absolutely does not call him a victim of false accusation, just some guy they couldn't land a conviction on.

[–]geniice 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sure, but that's not really the point. THe point is there are SO MANY photos of this poor guy.

Yeah its the daily mail its what they do. Look on the bright side. At least he's over 18 (or in one extreme case born) and in a public place.

[–]derpylord143 -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Technically, it was the point (you seemed angry over why there were a tonne of him and none of her. or atleast that was implied due to the comparison, i explained why none of her were there). I apologise if I misread the point.

Whilst he remains innocent, due to being innocent until proven guilty, we can't prove it never happened, or more importantly, that she is lying (which we need to prove a false accusation - as she is innocent until proven guilty) and thus they cannot call it a false accusation, just like they cannot say it was rape, only that he was accused of rape.

The issue of his pictures however, I agree completely with you.

[–]brokedown 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

My issue is that the article is still essentially a hit piece. Imagine the following "also completely factual" story:

Did [your name] rape someone? Well, we can't prove that he did. Here's a photo of him in college. There totally isn't enough evidence to say that [your name] got someone drunk and raped them. Here's a photo of him at the park. [your name]'s potential sexual deviancy has not been proven in a court of law. Here's a picture of him with his family. We're not saying that we can prove [your name] rammed a poor innocent girl in the rear without consent, but here's a photo of him hanging out with friends.
The courts did not find [your name] guilty of kidnapping and human trafficking and sexual exploitation, by the way here's a photo of him with his mom shopping for groceries.

etc. This guy's name is forever tarnished and he doesn't have an avenue to clear it in any meaningful way.

[–]derpylord143 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Like I said, I completely agree with that, its just not what was conveyed in the first reply, which is why I responded how I did.

[–]furyoffive 19 points20 points21 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Also no pictures of this lovely young lady...

[–]derpylord143 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

They can't, uk law blocks such things (see my reply to AndrasOpinio)

[–]furyoffive 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

boooooooo :) thanks for the info

[–]derpylord143 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

No problem, I just believe in being fair to the press, they have laws they need to adhere to here as well. Generally its their fault but here, I can't really blame them.

[–]furyoffive 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

here in the US they dont have to adhere to those...but they do anyway. unfortunately.

[–]derpylord143 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Its only in specific cases (such as sexual offences), in general its public. We had allowed it in the past, but I believe the press were being a tad "zealous" in their attitudes, and basically calling women sluts, doubting their claims, and thus causing the women problems, especially from people they know. Atleast thats what I think, its been a couple of years since I studied the sexual offences and false allegations in specific.

[–]nforne 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

This is true. It's difficult to strike the right balance, where genuine victims don't fear coming forward, but spurious claims don't wreck the lives of the accused.

At the moment in the UK, it's falsely accused men who get the raw deal. Not sure what the answer is.

[–]derpylord143 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I personally think it should be:

Anonymity for accused and accuser from the press, until one party is found guilty (be it of rape or false accusation). In which case the guilty party can be named.

This anonymity can be revoked but only from both parties or neither (and the press must use both equally - picture and name counts must be equal) All individuals who are in police custody are put into an online database (probably filtered by region). This prevents government abuse as if someone goes missing you know what happened. Similarly, the courts can use their actual names etc. Only the press can't.

This prevents most benefits of abusive use of this law, peoples names are public access through the online database, and very little chance of government abuse. (some remain such as the 'ops I cheated, I will say I was raped' but they are probably the rarer false accusations.

[–][deleted] 24 points25 points26 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Hard to know what actually happened, based on the evidence presented in the article. Another he-said/she-said case. Glad the court didn't cave to the "listen and believe" mantra though.

[–]Joemanji84 20 points21 points22 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well they did in the sense they charge him and held three trials in an effort to convict.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

What it's even happening with the courts in the UK?

[–]derpylord143 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

To be fair, its not really the courts fault, they have to take cases, brought before them by the CPS (or other groups in rarer cases).

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Its just interesting how fast it goes public

[–]derpylord143 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Mhmm. Honestly I mis-read what you said (I thought it said "whats even happening with the courts in the uk?"). Things like this are interesting because the uk government has had a lot of discussions on the topic of anonymity for the alleger and the accused. We have had pretty public ones recently though. I can't remember the name, but it was this dude in the underground accused of sexually assaulting someone when it was physically impossible for him to have done so.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Hmm that it's interesting. It seems like until convicted you shouldn't be able to put people's name on blast like that

[–]derpylord143 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Oh I agree, but they say "other victims wont come forwards". Doesn't hold up, release his name after conviction, then other victims can come forward.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Yeah I can see that which is ridiculous. Other victims should have come forward in the first place, coming forward after for publicity sake only makes the case weaker.

[–]derpylord143 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

It also starts witch hunts, which can prejudice juries. I read a piece that said, something like 70% of juries know of a sexual assault case before they even get to court. (gimmie five, I will see if i can find the source).

Wait nope, it applied to all serious crimes:

Thomas (2010) conducted the first study of this issue with juries in England and Wales, and found that jurors serving on high-profile cases (serious offences with longer trials) were almost seven times more likely to recall media coverage (70%) than jurors serving on standard cases (11%) (less serious offences with trials lasting a few days). Most of those who recalled media reports of their case saw or heard information only during the time their trial was going on, providing the first empirical evidence in this country of the ’fade factor’. One-third (35%) of those serving on high profile cases remembered some pre-trial coverage but most were unable to recall the content.

it goes onto say:

Most jurors (66%) in high profile cases who recalled media coverage did not remember it having any particular slant, but 20% of these said they found it difficult to put the reports out of their mind while serving as a juror. In high profile cases, then, almost three-quarters of jurors were aware of media coverage of their case and some of them found it difficult to ignore

and also this

Thomas (2010) also looked for the first time in this country at the extent to which jurors ignored judicial prohibitions about looking for information about their case during the trial. In recent years, a number of juries have had to be discharged, trials abandoned or conviction ruled unsafe due to jurors’ inappropriate use of the internet during trial (including at least one rape trial). This is a growing area of concern in the Criminal Justice System, and is an issue that also has an impact on the question of whether to grant anonymity to defendants in rape cases.

Found here (there is evidence against anonymity as well, I think, I had a uni piece on the topic, where I grabbed my source from again, but I didn't read it all, just the parts I needed.)

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That would be a good source to read. Yeah it seems to make things public about any case does more harm than good. Half the public gets "justice" while the other half does not, then it injects itself into politics no matter how untrue a narrative may be.

[–]derpylord143 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I just updated my last post, with what I found, it wasn't specific to "sexual offences" but "serious offences" sorry, none the less, impretty certain rape is a serious offence, as are most sexual offences.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Damn. As suspected making the public pick sides messes up cases

[–]derpylord143 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It certainly interferes if not outright messes up.

[–]Dalinair 27 points28 points29 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

She should be named and shamed on there.

[–]infinitethrill 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Agreed.

[–]AndrasOpinio6 points 8 years ago [recovered] (10 children) | Copy Link

What are the actual "legal reasons" for not naming her? Why does his name get plastered and she gets off anonymously?

[–]derpylord143 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

In the uk, all sexual assault based cases afford the victim anonymity, unless they choose to void it. I'm not sure of the exact law, but thats the case AFAIK (I could be wrong about the "unless they choose to void it part" - not sure). Let me see if i can find it.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/v_to_z/witness_protection_and_anonymity/

the above link details most anonymity issues in the uk. the specific relevant area is:

The court also has relevant powers under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, as amended by the YJCEA 1999, schedule 2. The victim in a case of rape or one of the sexual offences listed in the 1992 Act is entitled to 'anonymity' in the press. Once an allegation of one of the relevant offences has been made, nothing can be published which is likely to lead members of the public to identify the victim. The offences listed in the 1992 Act include most offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, part 1.

[–]MunchmaKoochy 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

That is a shitty fucking "law", and someone should get to work on repealing it. This just encourages false accusations. Why not? It seems like the accuser gets all the benefits and protections of the law, while the accused gets fucked in the face with his name all over the world forever as a potential rapist and sexual monster. Fuck, this really pisses me off. That girl needs to go to jail right now.

[–]derpylord143 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

I addressed this earlier in brief to someone else. The uk press i believe had a history of portraying women who slept about as slutty, unreliable liars, who cant be trusted. Thus undermining cases and the victims. This went further though because it had implications for the women in real life. At least this is what i remember from my independant study. it could be wrong. Anyway this was felt to make the process of coming forwards so unpleasant that it was likened to being raped itself in the trauma it caused (aka revictimisation).

Similarly, it was aimed at allowing victims to come forward without facing the social stigma surround this crime that had been victim to. Of course this can abused

I agree with this in so far i can see it being logical to provide anonymity, but it ought have been applied to both parties.it would have rendered false accusations pretty much pointless (except in cases where a jury makes a mistake)

Consider this, we in this movement hate how men are mocked when we are assaulted sexually, now consider that but your entire neighborehood thinking of you as a lying sociopathic slut when you could be telling the truth. Especially when society was far less trusting of its prevailance (by which i mean, we were under guessing as opposed to over guessing its existance -this the beginning period of the transition between the two) That said, it should have been applied both parties, not just the victim, atleast until the end of the case and trial.

It has become abused in my view, and does need revision. It should be applied to all parties and revokable by court order, but if revoked both parties anonymity is removed.

[–]MunchmaKoochy 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Once you're done fixing that pile of shit, the next step is to make it so that the accuser, once it is found to be a false accusation, should instantly go to jail for perjury, for falsely accusing someone, for wasting the courts time, etc. Good luck and God speed.

[–]derpylord143 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Mhmm, exactly. It's a pain to prove, don't get me wrong, proving anything to do sexual assaults is hard but that's why the balance here is so key.

I try to understand both sides before deciding on issues like this (anonymity for accusers and the accused), normally it results in a middle ground, which I hope helps me as an individual to come to a fair compromise. How my country progresses, I hope is to find a similar compromise.

[–]geniice 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Once you're done fixing that pile of shit, the next step is to make it so that the accuser, once it is found to be a false accusation, should instantly go to jail for perjury, for falsely accusing someone, for wasting the courts time, etc.

Already the law. however proving perjury beyond reasonable doubt is really really difficult so largely irrelivant.

[–]NibblyPig 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

She's not the victim though...

[–]derpylord143 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

This is both true and false based on two different metrics. Certainly we cannot prove whats she saying true and thus we dont have a succesful rape accusation (im unsure of all the facts, it may be highly unlike or whatever) and to that extent you may judge her 'not a victim' on the flipside we cannot prove her to be a liar and thus she is a victim. whilst we ought provide all help we can to him in rectifying the harm this has done (including civil measures against her), so to should we not then needlessly harm her for we cannot and have not proved her to be a liar (he deserves rectofication for the harm she caused to his character if it is more likely a lie, but this is not needless). unless it can be proven beyond a doubt to be false and a malious lie, we ought not deliberately harm her needlessly. Just like we oppose the needless harm done in these cases done to men

[–]NibblyPig 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Naw, if you use the second metric, then everybody involved should be a 'victim' until a decision is made. Although victim is the wrong word, really it should be 'person involved in the case'. Also once a decision is made, victim status ends. I'm surprised more people don't make everyday crimes sexual in nature to keep themselves out of the papers. I'll steal your car and when caught, I'll say it was because I was sexually abused. Boom. I'm the victim, my name stays out of the papers.

[–]derpylord143 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Firstly i doubt that idea would work, i assume that the incident needs to be related to the sexual offence. So maybe if you smashed up your supposed rapists car, but even then requires admitting to the crime, and maybe claiming insanity (not a good idea). You probably cant say i smashed up this random peeos car cause i was sexually assaulted. (the above is just a summary remember)

Secondly whilst thats its true that such a metric gives that result (though i should have said potential victim, not victim) it only applies to protections and if someone may have been a victim, it would be wholely unfair subject them to its removal. That said sexual offences anonymity should be given to both, because it renders most hostiles uses of an accuser moot.Put another way, what do we gain by blanket removing this protection, not a lot, but can cause harm. Remove yourself from the ideology, and it makes sense that there needs ir needed to be such a protection (see my other comments on this). If someone is found guilty (of rape or false accusation) then those names shoukd be released, and anonymity removable in other cases but only for both or niether party. In my view anyway

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It's a shame no one will ever hold her truly accountable

[–]geniice 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Did you just abandon the standard of beyond reasonable doubt?

[–]HenryCurtmantle 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If a man gets drunk and has sex, he's a rapist. If a woman gets drunk and has sex, she's been raped.

Because equality, ya know.

[–]Consilio_et_Animis 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What's really frightening is that he was tried twice, and both times the jury was hung. That means that at least one of two of the jurors had found him guilty.

[–]foot_kisser 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It makes no sense to give her anonymity, but not give it to him.

If neither were anonymous, that might discourage people from reporting a rape falsely, because if people figure out that they're lying, they'll take a hit to their reputation. If both were anonymous, the victim of a false accusation wouldn't have his name and photo forever associated with rape after being acquitted.

With her being anonymous and him having his picture in the papers next to the word "rape", it's plausible for an accuser who is lying to be motivated by the harm she can do to his reputation without being similarly harmed herself.

This seems to be most likely a misunderstanding on her part, but many people are going to assume she's a lying slut, and many other people are going to assume he's a rapist. But we know not only his name, but exactly what he looks like, while we don't know anything at all about her. There are potential bad effects for both of their reputations, and only the one who instigates the court proceedings gets anonymity. Basically, the courts are providing a motivation for lying about rape.

[–]Beddall 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Good point. I'd question whether cases like this need to be made public at all until a final verdict is reached. What good does it do anyone?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

deleted What is this?

[–]Neldryn 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Female woke up on top of him... So he undressed her and put her on top of him and left her there?

[–]bear2dbone 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It is completely unfair, prejudice and plain wrong that the girl is not named and no photograph is shown of her. Unfair

[–]Mythandros 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So... It's OK to drag his name through the mud... But not hers?

What a complete farce.

[+]Feeham4prez 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

This is one of those times where'd I'd be totally fine with hearing someone was doxxed

[–]g_squidman 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Why are you downvoted? "doxxing" is like the reddit n-word or something. Literally everyone else in the thread is calling for "release her nam/picture!" But you say "doxx her" and here you are. Weird.

[+]Feeham4prez 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Who knows. As far as I'm concerned she effectively doxxed him and committed several felonies in the process of filing false reports. Realistically, doxxing her would be beneficial. I'd like to know who exactly has a history of filing false reports to try to ruin people's lives.

[–]geniice 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Who knows. As far as I'm concerned she effectively doxxed him and committed several felonies in the process of filing false reports.

So you are abandoning the standard of beyond reasonable doubt?

[+]Feeham4prez 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What are you talking about? She did file a false report. She would have to be incredibly dumb to not know the innocent guy's name and photo would be all over the news as a result. How am I abandoning any standards here...

[–]Rape_Means_Yes -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

"doxxing" is like the reddit n-word or something.

Named?

[–]g_squidman 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Go away.

[–]Rape_Means_Yes -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

don't wanna

[–]doihavemakeanewword 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I get it, people get drunk at parties and loose some control over their actions and you can't call that consent.

But chances are they're both going to be drunk at least some of the time and neither of them could give consent to what happened.

[–]IronJohnMRA 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The judge Recorder Rowena Goode told him: 'We have heard what has been said that means we must draw a line under this matter. May I remind parties that the complainant will receive lifetime anonymity.'

The wording here really bothers me. They make it sound like the woman is receiving an award for a job well done. It definitely sends the wrong message to would be false accusers.

[–]MartBehaim 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

This is clear failure of prosecutors. They had no legal reason to conduct prosecution. Either prosecutors are biased feminists or stupid cowards passing resposibility to the court.

[–]geniice 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The standard is a reasonable prospect of a conviction. Given the previously hung juries there obviously was one.

[–]MartBehaim 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I know only what was published about the case. I don't see a smallest prospect of a conviction.

[+][deleted] 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]geniice 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

can we see the picture of the dumb bitch? I mean perpetrator.

So you are abandoning the standard of beyond reasonable doubt?

i thought we kept victim identities a secret.

Being found not guilty does not make you a victim in the eyes of the law.

[–]NeDictu 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

was reflecting more on the violation of the guys rights (sarcastically) as opposed to what she be done to the woman. thanks comic book guy from the simpsons.

[–]sleepisme 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Man: Excuse me, m'am. You dropped your keys.

Woman: Rape! Rape!

[–]mrwhibbley 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Lifetime anonymity for her but never for him. Hmmmmmm

[–]Just4yourpost 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Keep on trusting womyn guys.

"That can't happen to me" "No girl I know would be batshit crazy".

You reap what you fucking sow.

[–]a_posh_trophy 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Rule is; if you're both blind drunk, then you either both consented, or neither of you did. I hope she is eventually ousted and tried appropriately.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I don't know the UK law on this, but it seems like a civil action for libel or slander might be appropriate.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Slander maybe but I don't see libel. Did they print anything untrue? They would have printed that he was being charged with rape, which was true.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I suppose you would have to go through all the writings over the years. If there was an editorial or a written statement saying he raped her...bam!!

[–]geniice 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Papers aren't stupid and court reporting is protected by absolute privilege.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

But then you have people like Nancy grace who would try people on tv through the court of her own opinion.

[–]lemproplayer 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Imagine tho you get accused of rape and they use the 4th picture In the article lmao feels bad

[–]RolfIsSonOfShepnard 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Does the UK have any laws regarding filing a false police report? If so do the police ever try to press charges when it comes to rape accusations or should we just call this a pussypass?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

deleted What is this?

[–]geniice 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Given there were previously two hung juries the odds of you proving a false report beyond reasonable doubt are nill.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And now his name is tarnished. Awesome....

[–]tetraourogallus 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

How big was that bottle of Prosecco?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Too bad he didn't charge her with sexual assault in response.

I say sexual assault because in the U.K., women can't rape legally.

[–]Trident1000 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

He should just drop her name

[–]GreasedLightning 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Wanna hear a rape joke? This guy raping somebody.

[–]MrMatmaka 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Is it me, or is this scenario written in such a way that she might've sobered up while having drunk sex, then refused to accept that's what happened?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Its just so sad what they do to these young men. No recourse. Even without being convicted, his name will appear online for the rest of his life.

[–]rubenroadtrip1 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

My girlfriend told me of a guy in her uni who was accused of raping a girl and it seemed like everyone was vilifying him and he hasn't even been convicted.

[–]Lethn 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Of course they would, they're not interested in due process or simply finding out the truth, they want to say they stopped a rapist so they can all feel good about themselves. I think virtue signalling in all it's forms has to be one of the greatest evils I've seen modern society create, the biggest reason being it doesn't matter what happens to the victims in these scenarios because the people involved are all taking part as a mob to try and drive them out of society or worse get them killed.

Even just now I had some fucker over on another subreddit accuse me of 'enabling paedophilia' for defending a person's due process. I will gladly argue with and hunt fuckers now who think they can incite violence against other people and get away with it.

It's particularly amusing when they think they can target me, thinking I'm a soft target like everybody else lol.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter