Katie Price withholding rapist’s name leads to blog attacks

Does Katie Price deserve to be criticised for not naming her rapist, or does her public bashing only discourage more rape victims from coming forward?

The arguments raging around Katie Price's revelation that she was raped and her refusal to name the ‘celebrity' rapist (has there ever been a more grotesque tag?) have shifted from the tabloids - Colleen Nolan in the Mirror -  to the blog-eats-blog world of websites.

Perhaps surprisingly, some of the most damning attacks have come from self-proclaimed feminist blogs and feminist websites. The F Word posted the following:

"While Price now feels able to speak about what happened to her, making the claim in a national publication, maintaining the anonymity of her attacker is not only inconsistent, but also downright irresponsible. It perpetuates the idea that rape is part of the male privilege, positioning guilty men above punishment, and suggests that female victims should consider their attacks something that they must just quietly accept."

They see her refusal to name the rapist and her apparent manipulation of the media as corrosive. However, the attacks seem to be based on a general loathing of what Katie/Jordan represents and how she sells herself (and her current beau Alex Reid's films).

On 20 September, the Observer's Barbara Ellen put forward a cogent defence of Katie's withholding of the name.  "If anything, with her fear of involving the police and the courts, Price was behaving like a typical rape victim... Not only did the incident occur so long ago it would be impossible to prove, but she would have had her character and sexual history trashed, the whole process most probably resulting in a failed court case and ersatz ‘proof' that she'd ‘lied'."

But this apparently enraged one particular blogger. She posted a cutting critique of Katie Price's silence and got ‘flamed' for her efforts. Blogger adjustthesails remains unrepentant, arguing in her latest post that Katie Price isn't the same as other women.  "...not all other rape victims have the world press on tenterhooks for their next ‘revelation'. Not all other rape victims choose to talk about their rape as a means to endorse rape-based pornography. [Killer Bitch, the film Katie Price was defending, hasn't even finished filming yet. Make of that what you will.] Not all other rape victims reveal purposefully tantalising details about their attacker to everyone other than the police, and maybe help stop the same thing happening to someone else."

In other words, different standards apply when it comes to women in the media.

Some American websites have gone even further. Hollywood gossip takes no prisoners. "Way to make light of and demean women who are actually the victims of sexual violence, Katie. Class move."

When you look again at what Katie Price actually said and how she said it, a different picture emerges. The first mention came in defence of her new man's movies. "I was appalled by the headlines claiming he'd taken part in something which glorifies rape. This is completely untrue. Rape is a subject very close to my own heart. I was raped when I was younger, more than once. Needless to say, I'd never be associated with anyone or anything so sick. I've never talked about this before, but I feel I have to now because I was so hurt by those accusations that I would not take a subject which affects many women seriously."

Then she gave away more details - hints - that one of the rapists was a celebrity. At worst this was media-attention-grabbing stuff, but at best it was just the truth. Maybe it was both. NOW magazine insists it's true "after research."

When Katie Price rang Five's The Wright Stuff, she told host Matthew Wright, "I haven't just come out and said I got raped, I was sticking up for Alex... I would never do something like that for sympathy. I think it's really out of order to say I would do it for sympathy."

You may hate the way Katie/Jordan looks and carries on. You may feel sorry for Peter Andre, hate the way she's treated him, loathe Price's new fella and his laughably knuckle-headed blood, boobs and gangster movie Killer Bitch.  You may think she's a lousy role model. (Maybe you hate Katie's use of the media, but then who's worse: Jordan or the media that uses her to boost sales and ratings?) But why should that make her guilty by default, either of lying or covering up? Why would it be better, as nanny Nolan suggests, if she hadn't mentioned it at all?

When you look at the statistics on rape reporting and prosecution, it puts it all into perspective - and explains why this argument is so heated.

The government estimates that as many as 95% of rapes are never reported to the police at all. Of the rapes that were reported from 2007 to 2008, only 6.5% resulted in a conviction, compared with 34% of criminal cases in general. The majority of convictions for rape resulted from an admission of guilt by the defendant, whereas less than one quarter of all those charged with rape were convicted following a successful trial. (The Guardian.)

Katie Price has already said she's frightened of being attacked by the public:
"Kate is terrified by the strength of feeling against her. Her antics since the split from Pete have made her a hate figure and her rape claims have made it even worse," a source explained. "The mood has turned so ugly towards her that she really thinks someone could try to hurt her, so she is looking twice at her security."

It's also worth mentioning the legal standpoint regarding anonymity in the press for both those accused of rape and the complainant.

It is a criminal offence for the press to print the name or any identifying details of a rape complainant, unless they choose not to remain anonymous (like Katie Price).

The anonymity provision is important because it enables women to report a sexual attack without being publicly named, which some may find humiliating and stigmatising (Katie Price's very public experience, whether she put herself in it or not, has only furthered this argument). Anonymity therefore enables more women to safely report rape.

Alleged perpetrators of rape do not enjoy press anonymity. This was debated in 2001 when Conservative MP Neil Hamilton and his wife were questioned by police in relation to a rape investigation (although they were not suspects).

However the Police and human rights lawyers argue that it is not in the public interest for the accused to remain anonymous. Lawyer Barbara Hewson has said, "If the police were after someone who they suspected of being a serial attacker, and they could not name him when he was being prosecuted, it would actually have a negative effect."

"People who may well have been victims of this assailant would not know that he had been charged with an offence and could not come forward to help the police with their own experiences."

The truth is that thousands of women are raped and don't report it. Of course it would be helpful if everyone, whether in the public eye or not, who has been a victim of rape came forward. Let's encourage that rather than villify those who say they just can't.

Are people right to have a go at Katie Price again? Are feminist sites hypocritical when they say she's ‘irresponsible'? Are you in agreement with Barbara Ellen? Or like some of the ‘hater' blogs, do you think she's letting the side down and making light of rape?

Tell us what you think below.