Peter Lloyd: Why anonymity for men accused of rape is imperative

An excellent new article from Peter Lloyd published by the Telegraph, a paper about which we’re increasingly optimistic.

About Mike Buchanan

I'm a men's human rights advocate, writer, and publisher. My primary focus is leading the political party I launched in 2013, Justice for Men & Boys (and the women who love them). I still work actively on two campaigns I launched in early 2012, Campaign for Merit in Business and the Anti-Feminism League. In 2014 I launched The Alternative Sexism Project, aiming to raise public understanding that the sexism faced by men and boys has far more grievous consequences than the sexism faced by women and girls.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Have you heard the argument against any anonymity? I thought it was compelling. First there is this whole principle that trials shouldn’t be conducted behind closed doors, and media shouldn’t be forced to censor themselves about public information about what has gone down in the court. Second, there is the potential for abuse. Being anonymous can be nice sometimes, but who knows, the state might use it to make men disappear. Sometimes publicity is more protective.
    Of course, all those arguments imply the accuser is not anonymous either.

    • Thanks Emma. Reasonable cases can be made for anonymity for both parties, or neither. The current invidious position clearly invites women to make false rape allegations. They have nothing to lose, and potentially a lot to gain, from the ideologically-motivated CPS bringing charges and using taxpayers’ money to drive the cases in the full light of the media glare – ruining men they want to ruin, whilst possibly benefitting from financial compensation. This is all the perfect hysteria-driven backdrop to the series of show trials of old men we’ve seen, some of them found innocent on all charges, yet ruined reputationally (‘there’s no smoke without fire…’) and often financially.

      • I hope you don’t mind if I repost the argument how it was originally presented to me. Quotes are by Eivind Berge, just so you know. I think they explain things better than I can.

        “When a man is accused of rape, the state will usually attempt to have him locked up in pretrial detention for months or years until trial, and courts often agree to this (at least here in Norway, where the concept of bail is also nonexistent). Are these court hearings now supposed to be conducted in secrecy? How do you reconcile anonymity with remand custody? Think about it — men will simply disappear into the prison system and no one is allowed to know what happened to them. To me, at least, simply disappearing is a lot more scary than having my reputation ruined by a rape accusation.”

        “The first thing you learn when you have anything to do with cops is not to trust them. These are the slimeballs who are behind stings, remember, and lies and deceptive interrogation practices is how they operate. Relaying on them to keep your identity secret on your terms is putting way too much trust in your government. I would never trust a cop to do anything at all on my terms and I would be extremely suspicious if they kept a man’s identity secret by his choice or not. Indeed I expect them to push for secrecy by coercion or deception when it servers them, which is often, judging by how much they request closed doors in trials against the wishes of the defendant. I suppose you intend to rely on your lawyer to publicize your name or not, but even so, when anonymity is permitted it can easily be abused. And fundamentally it is a hallmark of a fascist state to prohibit anyone from reporting what they see in court including the names of defendants and accusers. I guess if you live in the UK you are already accustomed to anonymity for accusers, so you are inured to the idea and it doesn’t seem so outlandish to you, but to me it is utterly abhorrent to grant either party anonymity.”

  • Again, I disagree wholly with the MRA’s about this. More anonymity *WILL NOT* get rid of kangaroo court systems. YOU WANT MORE TRANSPARENCY, NOT MORE ANONYMITY.

    It’s the rape accusers who must give up their bullshit legal protections. IF you you want to bring legal charges against someone, you MUST step forward and make a valid accusation. IF you are not strong enough to do this, then frankly it’s not the fault of the legal system when rapists walk because you’re not strong enough to stand up for yourself under the law.

    • Jeremy, thank you. Reasonable arguments can be made for anonymity for both parties, or neither. Our inclination is to favour the former, and almost everyone who’s provided feedback on our public consultation document has agreed with this position. But thank you for arguing for the alternative, we invite dissenting voices on this website.

      • I’m sure we agree on many things, but introducing more anonymity into the worlds legal systems is simply another step on the path to significant worldwide sorrow later on down the road.