Those favouring anonymity for "rape" defendants could reflect on the bigger picture. There are loads of different kinds of sexual offences including rape all committed in different kinds of ways against different kinds of victims (including children), all ultimately being degrading, humiliating ways to abuse people with or without additional force or violence. Few cries were heard when "Jon Venables" was charged with child porn offences, "oh the poor chap, this accusation could ruin his reputation", on the contrary the public demanded to know more information than the Court was prepared to be released. In some non sexual offence cases, some witnesses are granted anonymity also (informers, witnesses vulnerable to intimidation, reprisals etc) because the principle remains that in some cases (especially and particularly in sexual offences but not exclusively), witnesses will not come forward or be prepared to give evidence in Court if their identity is known to the public (or sometimes even to the Defendant). If you go down the route of giving anonymity to defendants, where does it stop? One highly regarded individual could be devastated by accusations of fraud or assaulting a child, another could be crushed by accusations of harassment or street violence, the list goes on. The only defendants to get guaranteed anonymity for any offence before conviction are under 18s for very specific reasons. Thinking back to Jon Venables, remember Boy A and Boy B. There is no case unique to those accused of sexual offences that stands out compared to other adult accused. There are however very specific reasons why some witnesses, including, but not exclusively, victims of sexual offences, warrant anonymity. If one looks specifically at victims of sexual offences, then the case is overwhelming for anonymity to encourage them to come forward and provide evidence in a court case. Those that are proven to have made false accusations are in fact named. Those are the ones who are prosecuted like any other defendant (without anonymity) and where ultimately their guilt will need to be "proven" to the standard of the criminal law like any other conviction. Prosecutions against "false accusers" are vigorous, perhaps even moreso than against "sexual offenders", leaving the question remaining, why would we want to change the law to make coming forward as a genuine victim of any sexual offence (including rape) more difficult than it is already. Soundings from survivors and from throughout the community of organisations supporting and campaigning for survivors, tell us resoundingly, this short-lived proposal would have certainly done enormous damage to victims, sending out the message that the only difference between one particular accused and another, was that he, or she, the accused of sexual offences, has a particularly and especially unbelievable accuser.

Now that anonymity for men accused is not to be granted, I take it that names of unsuccessful accusers will be published after the event?

Don't hold your breath Steve .....

Innocent until proven guilty....unless it suits.

WTF I thought The New Statesmen was progressive? Why are you against the principle of Innocent til proven guilty, regardless of gender?? What next? Fascism you right wing idiots??

Publishing names of potentially innocent men is a step away from mob law.