men 'me to' ?

Not quite sure what your post title means ??

We have been swamped in the media with women claiming they have been sexually abused . I think it fair to discuss not all claims are true , women can and do lie just as men do.

I see what you mean Annie. The many recent revelations about women being abused in the past, they now have a hashtag, “me too”. The link refers to an article about a young man accused of rape and how the police apparently held on to texts from the woman accusee which show it was all fabrication. The young man has been to hell and back for no reason. It isn’t just women who can play the “me too” card.

Yes Alima , he went through two years of hell and the police withheld thousands of texts the woman sent him , she fantised about being raped and rough sex. They only gave this eveidence to his legal team when he was about to be tried for rape . He and his mother gave interviews to Victoria Derbyshire this morning. He was going through university during this ordeal.

I see what you mean now.
Yes, an awful thing for him to go through.I hope those who kept back evidence are held to account and the woman should be named and charged.

What is so wrong is still the police investigate their errors etc themselves

This naming of men as soon as they are accused is wrong,

The real disgrace here is the behaviour of the police and the CPS. If there is a case against the woman, she will be charged I would have thought. Why is there an argument for those men charged with rape not be named - why only them when there is a whole range of charges that bring worry, disgrace, shame on those charged? Naming the charged is part of our system of open justice and also in some cases has resulted in more cases coming forward - John Warboys is a recent example.

The men are NOT named when accused,only when charged. If the police and CPS had done their job properly, he would not have been charged almost certainly as the texts would probably have provided sufficient doubt. It’s ridiculous to want to change the law because the very authorities who should be its guardians haven’t done their job. Now there might be a issue about the adequacy of resources but that’s another issue

We have been ‘swamped’ have we? Perhaps you meant to say that there have been many many women ( and some men) coming forward with allegations of a variety of types of sexual assault, abuse and harassment - behaviour that for far too long has been tolerated. But no many on GN tend to believe that many of these women ‘asked for it’ or made it up.

The men are not named when accused , only when charged . Realy ?

www.theguardian.com/music/2016/sep/27/sir-cliff-richard-will-face-no-charges-as-accusers-appeal-is-rejected

That was leaked by the police and it wasn’t supposed to happen - yet again if the police had done their job properly and the media hadn ‘t collude with them, this wouldn’t have happen. You can’t change the law on the naming of charged men because of failings in the police - that would be the tail wagging the dog.

But it did happen

Agree with you, Anniebach.

Yes, the case of Liam Allan is outrageous. I think the woman who falsely accused him should be charged with a criminal offence. She was not a victim but she and police incompetence made him one.

And the police are the bloody law , they keep getting away with destroying people's lives and this is so wrong. No officer will be charged, just as at hillsborough their little note books will all say the same.

A difficult balance, isn't it? In this particular instance, this young man was shamefully served by the authorities. However in the case of Savile, Weinstein, Spacey et al, naming (and shaming) has brought out people who might never have come forward had they not realised they weren't the only ones.

Savile was never tried, Weinstein has not been tried, Spacey has not been tried .

So should their names have been kept out of the media?

Agree Annie this case was awful, poor young man.

Weinstein and Spacey have not denied all the allegations - they may not be guilty of everything but they are not themselves saying they are innocent of everything either. Savile of course is a different matter in he’s dead but no one seems to argue that he was innocent.

Baggs we don’t know yet the full facts of the case against the woman. The texts provided enough for the case to be dropped but at the moment we don’t know the context or the content of all the relevant texts. Has she given evidence already? In that case if she repeated the allegations under oath it would be perjury IF they can be shown to be lies. Or has she ‘just’ wasted police time in accusing him? I’m not saying FOR ONE MINUTE that he did rape her OR that she is lying. The rules of evidence and how that works in the CJS are extremely complex. Cases are frequently dropped on the ‘realistic prospect’ test but that is not equal to the arrested/accused person being innocent. These are general points I’m making that should be considered.

The article I read about it this morning quoted one of her texts and referred to some others which made it perfectly clear that the sex they had was not against her will. And yet she apparently told police he raped her.

The reason the young man has been on bail for two years is because the police would not release her phone with evidence that destroyed the case against him. In the end it was the prosecuting barrister who threw the case out after insisting on seeing her phone messages.

I understand that the young man's phone was lost or that would have proved his innocence.

It is a shocking case of injustice.

I’ve read exactly the same Baggs but that’s all it is at the moment - selected texts with no context. I know why he was on bail for two years - it was the discs with the downloaded messages that they had decided weren’t relevant/ too personal ( depending on what paper you read) and so marked as not for disclosure. The prosecuting barrister did not throw the case out only a judge can do that, he offered no evidence ( which is barrister speak for we haven’t got a hope in hell given what we know now). It’s a shocking case of police and CPS sheer incompetence which has caused much suffering to the young man and his family. If you want real injustice I give you the Bham 6, the Guildford 4, Stefan Kiszko all of whom rotted in jail for years and all of the cases involved to a greater or lesser degree evidence undisclosed to the defence and police corruption and lying.

There's a QC arguing in a letter to the Times today for defendants to be allowed anonymity at least until conviction in such cases as well as the accusers. Accusers of serious assaults should of course be listened to and their accusations thoroughly investigated but this case shows that just blindly believing them is a recipe for injustice.

It is a travesty Anniebach and sadly this is not the first nor will it be the last case of it's kind.

I don't think your point is lost on many that whether it be male or female it is worth remembering both sexes can fall victim to being tainted by being judged before trial or being named . Both sexes can lie and deceive .

We all know of the political, celebrity cases that have been highlighted and found wanting (to be polite) then there was the recent case of Jemma Beale.

As for a poster saying "If you want real injustice -". I would say this, it is fair to say on the evidence Liam Allen was a case of real injustice too and lucky not to have served time but he must have gone through hell .