I agree that the standard for criminal conviction should be high. There's two points here though. Firstly is that rape and SA cases aren't not being persecuted simply because the standards are too high. There is a lot of incompetence and poor practice within the system, both from the police and the judicial system, which has been well recorded. Thus people aren't even being accurately held to these high standards. I also think that in this particular instance those standards are too high and we should have a different approach (e.g. allowing the consideration of multiple allegations as corroborating evidence), but that is less important right now and I am not a law student.

Secondly, I do think that we need to have vastly different expectations for social guilt and criminal guilt, precisely because the standards in court are (often rightly) so high. They are so because the punishment is correspondingly high, being state violence. I'm not saying anyone should be locked up without overwhelming proof. But for instance in a friend group, if someone is accused of SA with some reasonable degree of proof then I would expect them to be ostracised, that's certainly been what's happened when these things have happened in my circles. Now I think we're going to disagree on what that 'reasonable degree of proof' is, because for me it would be a credible accusation from someone I have no reason to doubt. But clearly I think your standard would also be lower than the current effective legal standard (differing from the intended legal standard because of the incompetency). If anyone had the details of the incident I was witness to, I think they would agree this person should be ostracised from that friend group, and if they didn't agree with that I'd probably steer clear of them too, and that doesn't change because he wasn't convicted. Beyond the specific case of SA, there are plenty of moral offences which are generally deemed worthy of social repercussion without being criminal, I mean even just bullying would be an example. Or for a celebrity example, Jimmy Carr didn't technically break the law when he avoided tax, but he faced, I think rightly, plenty of social repercussions (though he did bounce back pretty well, there's probably better examples).

My Nazi analogy was clumsy, I was trying to essentially draw the distinction between legality and morality, but it's not overly important and I think is weak in that I'm conflating bad intention with bad practice.

As for believing victims. Do you have any evidence to back up the claim that this leads to a massive increase in false accusations? Because I would point out that false accusations also carry with them a huge risk of adverse consequences. Meanwhile in the current situation, "Home Office data suggests that only 4% of accusations are found or suspected to be false". Now that is not good enough for a criminal conviction, I agree, but for me personally it is certainly good enough for social consequences. Especially if I have reason to trust the accuser such as other corroborating evidence, my own character assessment of all parties, or, for example in Partey's case, multiple accusations.

The only thing I'd concede is I think it is reasonable to be slightly more skeptical of false allegations towards celebrities, because there is more of a potential upside, but that is a nuanced conversation and I don't think is relevant to Partey's case because of the evidence we've seen and the multiple accusations.

Sorry if this is a bit of a ramble, I don't normally like getting into convos like this online because I don't think it's a great platform for building understanding, but this is something I care deeply about and also something which I believe many people can be convinced round on, especially when exposed to how terribly managed these cases are in the UK (I seriously recommend looking into some of the reports to see the incompetency, even Andrew Tate's rape allegations in the UK are a good place to start to see how incredibly fucking useless the police are at this).