This ere news story about the girl guilty of making a false allegation

As I understand it a 19 year old woman made an allegation that she had been raped by 12 Israeli men and as such her name was withheld as it should be.

Video evidence emerged showing her engaging in consensual sex and at some point shortly afterwards she withdrew her claim and admitted the rape never happened.

Then she was charged with making a false allegation of rape which she denies and claims the video simply shows her having consensual sex with one man and that the others all turned up and forced themselves on her (Ched Evans style). She also claims that she was forced to make the newer statement denying the rape by corrupt police.

Now she's been found guilty of making a false allegation and at this point is a criminal who faces a possible prison sentence upon sentencing.

Now I am not in possession of all the facts so I'm not going to say she's wrong or they're wrong because how would any of us know?

My question is though that men who are accused of rape are named. Not convicted, not even charged, simply if you are accused of rape then you are named by the media and it's all legal and extremely common. Yet in this case we have a woman who has not only been charged but has been found guilty of making a false claim and she has been granted anonymity by the British media.

Why? Why the hypocrisy? I fully understand granting anonymity to victims of sexual crimes and even of granting anonymity to those who make allegations where the accused is found not guilty due to whatever reason but that isn't the case here. Here is a woman who has been found guilty in a court of law of making an extremely serious false allegation and yet the British media are still hiding the name of a criminal and imo it is an extremely dangerous precedent to set.

Anonymity should work both ways until the point of a conviction, at that point anonymity should be lifted regardless of who the criminal is.

 

Not really sure how that's relevant to somebody who has been found guilty of making a false claim being given anonymity.

Of course it's crazy that so few cases are prosecuted, it's a disgrace. But that's not what's happened here is it?

 

But you have to prosecute for false claims. A false claim is a much different thing to an unproven claim. You can't possibly be suggesting that women should be allowed to go around making up disgusting false claims that can destroy lives with immunity can you?

By the way that doesn't mean I think she lied, I don't know. I've no idea what happened and haven't seen any of the evidence either way. All I know is that prosecutors believed that she was lying (not mistaken or they simply thought they coukdnt get a conviction) they believed she was making a false allegation. Deliberately. They charged her and after a trial found her guilty. Doesn't mean I think she's guilty or that you do or anything like that, just means that a court judged her to be. My only point is that it's setting an extremely dangerous precedent when anonymity is granted to convicted criminals

 

But that shouldn't allow vindictive women to try to destroy lives with immunity which is what you're suggesting.

 

Not prosecuting vindictive women who try to destroy lives won't help those statistics either though which is what we're talking about isn't it? Huge difference between deliberate false allegations and failed prosecutions.

What will help those statistics is better investigation of rape allegations and a more sympathetic attitude towards the victim throughout the trial with more emphasis placed on the events of the specific day rather than trying to destroy their reputation by finding things in their history which suggests, shock horror, that they enjoy sex because that's no different than saying "she was asking for it" because she wore a skirt.

 

Something which I haven't disagreed with. You are saying that in order to encourage other women to come forwards that these vindictive life destroyers should be given immunity from prosecution. That is exactly what you're saying.

 

Worrying.

I understand the need to encourage more victims to come forwards and the need to increase the prosecution rate but that's not the answer

 

I don't think it's common but I would imagine it does happen but that isn't the point is it? The point is that a court of law has decided that's what happened. Not me, not you. A court. My only opinion was that once found guilty offering immunity is wrong.

 

You are completely missing the point . There is a huge difference between what you are describing and what DOES occasionally happen but you refuse to distinguish between the two

 

If you don't think a man's life can be ruined by a woman deliberately accusing him of the most abhorrent of crimes and him forever having his name associated with rape then I give up.

Ched Evans didn't really carry on as normal that much, he was falsely imprisoned. And I think he was guilty as **** too