The Truth About IPP Sentences

After Savile, every British man should worry about his past

The Pandora's Box of HistoricSexual Abuse Cases

The Pandora’s Box of Historic Sexual Abuse Cases

As the Jimmy Savile affair rumbles on, the question of whether so called “historic” offences should be subject to some form of Statute of Limitation has again been raised, not just because police, the CPS, courts and politicians seem to be applying today’s modern thinking to life as it was 40 years ago but also because the authorities are successfully bringing prosecutions that were not pursued at the time based on little or no evidence.

This week saw another “historic” case end with the jailing for 11 years of a 78 year old man for sex offences alleged to have taken place some 63 years ago from 1949-1973; the longest delay ever in bringing charges before a British court. should point out that the recent sudden surge of accusers from the past is no accident either. The police and the CPS are openly inviting anyone who “thinks they may have been abused, no matter how long ago” to come forward and make a complaint, regardless of whether or not there is any evidence.

In other words, police are using the high profile Savile case in order to “trawl” for cases that they know full well will end in easy convictions.

Any man therefore who has ever had a fight with an ex-girlfriend or partner, who in his childhood happened to go “behind the byke sheds” or who perhaps was a scout master or something similar years ago now needs to worry about the fact that police and the CPS are encouraging anyone who fancies their chances to make an accusation of abuse.

A classic example presented itself this week in the above case of Reginald Davies, a 78 year old man who has lived in Australia for most of his life after leaving Wales as a teenager.

As the female judge handed down an 11 year sentence based on nothing more than the word and memory of the alleged victims, defending counsel made the point that the length of the jail term meant it was effectively a life sentence.

The Defence also raised the absurdity of relying only on the word of the alleged victims, suggesting that the lengthy delay in the women coming forward – and the lack of almost any evidence beyond their own accounts – made their testimony unreliable:

“I ask you: 60 years of silence?” barrister Mark Kimsey had asked the jury. “Sixty years without a single word in that whole time?”

One of the affected women that had apparently been raped couldn’t even remember when the alleged offence took place.

The jury however were either simply too scared or to biased to apply such logic. Juries are always the least honest element of any trial, as any barrister will tell you if he is telling the truth.

In fact, both the jury and the judge chose to ignore the obvious logic in the defence counsel’s words.

In describing the alleged victims as “women of total integrity: they were compelling witnesses telling the distressing truth“, the female Judge, Susan Tapping was obviously intent on impressing the women’s support groups who attended the court whilst gaining a little stardom for herself and dreaming about the long defunct British Empire:

Addressing Davies, she said:

“You are the one who must now face your day of reckoning. Maybe you thought you were safe from justice halfway around the world, but you were not.”

The judge did not care that Davies has a wife of some 50 years who will now have to return to Australia alone and may never see her husband again.

Meanwhile, it transpired that the old ladies (the alleged victims), who had tracked Davies to Australia and “confronted him”, were delighted with the outcome, as of course were the police and CPS who as usual went on about the “bravery” of the victims in coming forward.

On that particular point, can only say that there is very little “bravery” in anything if you know that the cards will always be stacked in your favour and that whatever the lack of evidence, you cannot lose.

As has been made clear before, Britain is almost unique in Europe and the Western world in not having a Statute of Limitations on the prosecutions of criminal offences.

This absence of a critical limitation on spurious “historic” accusations applies not only to sexual offences but to ALL criminal offences in that the concept of a Statute of Limitations simply does not exist in British Law.

If such a limitation did exist, genuine victims would be encouraged to come forward sooner and within the period set; perhaps within 10 years or so of the alleged offence or within 10 years of a person’s 18th birthday.

There can be no excuse for anyone who has a genuine grievance waiting 30, 40 or 50 years to come forward, no matter how “difficult” it may be for them to do so.

One has to say that if an idividual suffers a serious physical or psychological trauma, it is not unreasonable to expect them to tell someone about it, especially if they have 10 years to do so.

So why then does Britain not follow the example of Europe and even America in having  such a Statute:

The simple answer is that all modern UK governments are terrified of the political fallout that would come their way if they even hinted at such a change in the Law.

The children’s charities, anti-rape groups and tabloids would – as they always do – rally against any change that would be bound to affect the income and even the existence of such organisations.

The police and CPS would certainly be against such a change because historic sexual offences, especially those alleged to have affected children, offer an almost 100% guaranteed conviction rate as there is now not a jury in the country that would dare not to convict a “paedophile”, “sexual predator” or whatever the buzz-word of the day happens to be.

As this article is being written, the news has just come through that Garry Glitter has again been arrested by police investigating the Savile affair. Yet only a few days ago it was made clear that there is little or no concrete evidence against him.

This illustrates the fact that lack of evidence doesn’t matter anymore, just so long as the police and CPS can somehow get more than one person to say more or less the same thing; not so difficult when you know how to ask the right questions and with most witnesses, the police usually write the statements using their own special language and then ask the witness to approve and sign it.

Every adult, whoever they may be, has things in their past that they would rather stayed there. There are no exceptions; it applies to everyone.

If last week’s reported figures from the charities are anything to go by, the Savile affair has resulted in thousands of disaffected individuals not connected with Savile making contact about alleged sexual abuse, often from many years ago. now predicts that this modern day witch hunt will continue. While families are ruined and society tears itself apart with the weapons that the zealots have so confidently handed to anyone who has a grudge against anyone else, those who could put things right will do nothing.

On the subject of evidence, Cmr Peter Spindler who heads the Savile investigation said that “ We have to believe them because they are all saying the same thing independently.”

In his self-indulgence, Mr Spindler seems to have completely missed the rather obvious fact that thanks to the coverage, quotes and anecdotes published in every major newspaper for the last 3 weeks, anyone who wants to be “believed” only has to copy what has already been said and published.

Then, like the old ladies above who clearly had an intent to bring down Reginald Davies, guilty or not, all these new “victims” will doubtless also be described by judges up and down the country as “women [or men I suppose] of total integrity: they were compelling witnesses telling the distressing truth.”

Frankly, does not believe that “truth” – distressing or otherwise – has much to do with these cases any longer; it has been replaced instead by a blood lust for vengeance, vindictiveness, money and power.

Power for the police, the CPS and our weak, pathetic, feeble-minded politicians who would rather see hundreds of possibly innocent men go to jail rather than do what they should do and put a stop to this historical – and hysterical – abuse of power by those in authority against those who cannot defend themselves.

And we talk about those who cannot defend themselves, for once we do not mean allegedly abused children.

Now, those “who cannot defend themselves” are the accused; those who are judged guilty before any “evidence” has ever been produced; those who are guilty not because of what did or did not happen but because of what is “believed” to have happened; those who are guilty until proven innocent and whom our justice system is supposed to protect.

We are talking about those who – despite the lack of any real evidence – will never be declared innocent by any jury in Britain because juries are now too afraid to do so.

After all, if the police, the CPS and a multitude of protection organisations are to be believed, Britain is a nation of perverts; a nation of child molesters and rapists; a nation of people engaged in “unnatural” practises and a nation where there is a paedophile in every family, every school, every church – and now it would seem, in every television studio as well.

(Discuss this in our Forum)

Tags: , ,

18 Responses to After Savile, every British man should worry about his past

  1. Mike
    December 23, 2012 at 12:21 pm

    With the current bias toward complainants, and convictions based on nothing more than uncorroborated statements of a complainer, backed-up by the uncorroborated statements of other complainants, with no material evidence whatsoever, is it not time that an enterprising firm of lawyers took up a case with the ECHR? Perhaps claiming that article 6, the right to a fair trial, is being abused?
    How CAN it be a “Fair trial” when no actual evidence is being presented.
    Surely there is a case to answer?

    • Raymond Peytors -
      December 23, 2012 at 12:29 pm

      It is, rather depressingly, explained here:

      British justice, it would seem, has nothing to do with fairness but everything to do with politics. – Editor

      • Mike
        December 27, 2012 at 10:38 am

        Thank you, Raymond. If anything, your link to Richard Webster’s site shows just how much of a MESS the judicial system is in. Patently it is in need of an update, and I see from a link on that site, that a draft review was carried out in 2002, by the Home Office, which shows that recommendations for the police to get court permission to carry out an investigation of a crime more than ten years old, was noted, but not brought into law. I stand by my original post, that a firm of enterprising lawyers should bring an action under article 6 of the ECHR., to see whether allowing uncorroborated statements by complainants as “Evidence” is really a “Fair trial”.
        We have been reading of many alleged abusers being harassed by very early morning calls (ie: 6:30am) at their house by police searching for evidence.
        This may leads to the accused person being assaulted, or their property being damaged, by a lynch-mob, purely on the word of an accuser with a bad memory relating events 30-40 years previously.
        It maybe the case that the accused person will never be able to return to their property because of those allegations.
        Being robbed of one’s home is surely another infringement of ECHR Article 8 “the right to a home life” and a life free from intimidation & harassment.
        Why is nobody looking at this possible infringements?

  2. Jenny Richards
    October 31, 2012 at 4:53 pm

    Yes, I agree, this article and comments should be read by the government and the public, but it won’t be unless we put it right in front of them. I have already sent the link to my own MP, and also to Kate Hoey MP who earlier this year was hoping to get together a parliamentary group to look at the problem of miscarriages of justice.

    Everyone who has read this article should send it to their own MP, and encourage their families and friends to do the same. It’s no good grumbling amongst ourselves – let’s speak out!

  3. Stephen
    October 29, 2012 at 3:48 pm

    It is such a shame that the articles on this website and the very relevant comments are not being read by the government and the wider public. Although perhaps they are? As is repeated often in comments on this site, no one will dare stand up for a person accused of crimes of a sexual nature nor will they do anything about changing the law to allow us a statute of limitations on all crimes together with a massive and sensible reduction of the huge number of laws we have in the UK. Other European countries have done this, we again lag behind.

    Rather than respond to the detail of this article or the comments, I should like to add a “fact” that I heard today being spouted by a spokesman for the NSPCC. The man stated categorically that “one in four children” in this country are abused. He did not explain what form that abuse is, whether it was sexual, physical or mental, but I believe we can accept that he was declared one quarter of children are abused.

    Given that we have around 64 million people living in this country, and all were or are children, the NSPCC are telling us that around 16 million are either being abused or have been the subject of abuse during childhood. The CPS appear to dance with delight if they can get 3 statements confirming a person has committed abuse, given the NSPCC figures, there are around 5.33 million people in this country who are sex offenders with crimes against children under 16 years of age (you can add to that figure enormously if you count sex offences alleged to have been committed on persons over 16 years of age).

    As the article state, many people receive vast salaries from dealing with the misery of others, the NSPCC included. Both they and the police are calling for anyone who even thinks they have been abused as a child to come forward and give a statement.

    If the NSPCC are correct, does this mean we can expect more than 5 million prosecutions now, both of an historic nature and of abuse happening today? Clearly, they seem to believe that.

    5 million new prosecutions, just on child sex offences, with almost all of them ending in a prison sentence. Our prisons are already massively overcrowded. We are seeing benefits cut for people who are genuinely ill and cannot work. We are seeing jobs in the public sector cut because the country cannot pay for them. So who is going to pay for the prosecutions of these “invisible” 5 million people? Probably they will mostly be men, so who is going to pay the benefits for their wives and children whilst they are in prison? Who is going to pay the extra taxes to make up for 5 million men being taken out of society and locked up? It is ludicrous.

    The comment was correctly made that many people are making a lot of money from this, and not just those who claim compensation but also the charities and even the police. Over time, large departments have been set up by the police force, staffed with people whose job it is to “monitor” sex offenders released from prison, and often “monitor” them for life. Yes, and begrudgingly, this government is going to allow those on the sex offender register to apply to be removed following 15 years in the community after discharge from prison when they have not committed another crime. Some areas of the country are already targetting men on their lists who have been out of prison for 10 years and hinting they should next year apply to come of the register. Other areas, like Gwent, are not going to support any application, nor are they going to speak to anyone on the register who they feel could succeed with such an application, adding that they prefer to keep monitoring all person convicted of sex crimes. This is blatantly wrong on many levels but, again, shows that some people are making an easy living from sex crimes.

    We imprison more people in this country as it is than any other European country, often for crimes that are quite petty. Archbold, that beloved collection of scriptures carried by judges and barristers, stated that a prison sentence should be given if it is decided that the public needed to be protected (by virtue of the defendant being found guilty and if he is locked up then he will not commit other crimes during his term of imprisonment). In ALL cases of an historic crime, the trial should be focused around the law that was in force at the time the crime was alleged to have been committed – to do otherwise would be incorrect since what was illegal in one decade may be legal in another (the changes in the laws relating to homosexuality is a case in point). Sentencing should also be related to what would have been given as a punishment had the defendant been brought to the courts in a reasonable time following the offence. But this is not explained to the jury, this is not explained to anyone. And, perhaps of more importance, the life of the defendant following the alleged crime seems to have little bearing on the court.

    Government websites still say that a prison sentence should be considered firstly as a means of protecting the public with punishment coming second. If a man has lived 10, 15, 20, 50 years without committing an offence, surely it can be clear that even if he did commit a sex offence all those years ago it is not in the public interest nor is it protecting the public for him to be imprisoned. Indeed, it can never be in the public interest for a person to be imprisoned since the public purse is being stretched far too thinly already. Therefore, a sentence that will protect the public must be the paramount reason for any court to decree such a sentence is necessary. However, the life of the defendant following the alleged crime must be considered. If he has lived 10 or 20 years without committing a crime, then the public do not need to be protected from him.

    The sad thing about the Jimmy Savile case is not the vast number of alleged victims who have come forward, some suddenly remembering they were “abused”, most saying they were afraid to come forward earlier in case no one believed them, is that they are preventing the very real victims of abuse, those who are suffering now or have suffered in the recent past, from coming forward and being given the full weight of support they need. The word “compensation” is mentioned frequently on this website and I must agree with a respondent of a previous article who said that no compensation should be paid to victims direct, it should be used to pay for medical treatment and counselling to enable them to come to terms with what happened to them. And, to further a point made on this page, a complainant will receive compensation now simply for making a statement to the police and being prepared to see the matter through the courts, even if the case is dropped or the defendant is found not guilty. Yes, a few hours of tears, memorising trite replies read from reports in the tabloids of other cases, insisting their lives have been ruined, that is all it takes to receive life-changing sums of money – again from the public purse, from tax payers who cannot even afford to live themselves now with the way our economy is being handled.

    If abuse happened, complain to the police in time for vital dna and other evidence to be compiled. Following a trial the complainant should have to undergo counselling. If abuse happened in the past, unless it is child sex abuse, allow the person to complain when they reach 18 years, when they become adults. For all other incidences of historical abuse, whether they be 5 years in the past or 60 years, it is gone, over, the alleged victims had their chance to complain if they wished to, move on.

    Was I “abused” as a child? No, I most definitely was not. Did I have sex when I was under 16 years of age with one or more people who should not have done it? Yes. Was that abuse? No it damned well was not abuse. I was under 16 and in law I was not able to make up my own mind. I could have complained but I chose not to, and I allowed the abuse to continue. But I did not regard it as abuse then and nor will I ever be convinced that it was abuse. It happened, it has always happened and it always will happen. I want no sympathy, I want no court case, I want no compensation. It was a part of my life and it did absolutely no harm to me at all – the same way being caned in school did absolutely no harm to me at all, the same way being spanked by my parents did absolutely no harm to me at all. I came from a working-class family with no money, raised in a working-class council neighbourhood, and all children were respectful to adults. I chose to study and gained a first class honours university degree. “I”, “I”, “I” – deliberately stating the “I” because it is my life and “I” made decisions and “I” lived my life in the way I felt was best for me.

    By modern standards I was abused, but 50 years ago that was not abuse, it happened, big deal! I do not dwell on it, it did not affect my psychologically, it did not turn me into a quivering wreck afraid that every man was a paedophile and every woman a child-battering maniac. I was abused, but I prefer to consider that I had sex. It did not adversely affect my sexual performance in later life nor did it make me want to turn to children to gratify my desires. I had sex, that word which has become a term of disgust for the British who are too ashamed even to get naked in a public changing room. I had sex, pure and simple, and not one of my abusers wanted to hurt me and nor did they hurt me – unless you count the red weals on my body following canings in school. Ok, I was too young to have sex, too young to give my consent freely and too young to be introduced to those things but it did not endanger my mental health and nor did it take away my childhood.

    What does affect me now? The gangs of youths, male and female, who patrol the area where I live, the noise they make, the abuse the hurl at one another and at others, their total and absolute disregard for other people and their property, their total belief that they can do anything and everything and no one will stop them, their absolute lack of respect for adults and for authority. What has changed? The nanny state insisting that children must never be harmed, where “harm” even includes punishment that they deserve. Spare the rod and spoil child is a phrase I heard a lot when I was younger and I had no idea what it meant. Now I do understand it and wonder just how many of these will run to the nearest police station to give a witness statement of abuse simply because a man has dared to brush passed them in the street.

    Maybe the NSPCC are correct that one quarter of children are abused – we are all abusing them by not treating them as children and ensuring they remain on the right path to becoming respectful, honest, law-abiding citizens who care about themselves, their families and their communities. The abuse of a child is not simply sexual, physical or mental, a child is abused through neglect and our society is guilty of that neglect and has even enshrined it in law. In the meantime, we will continue to see men dragged to court on trumped-up charges or inaccurate witness statements proclaiming historical sexual abuse, and no one will do anything to prevent it.

  4. stiggy
    October 29, 2012 at 2:37 pm

    How long before the pps ads on the tv are replaced with no win no fee ads for historic / childhood “sexual” cases? I spotted a toddler peeing behind a tree last week with his parents help. Should I be worried? The way this country is headed, I’m expecting a knock on the door!

  5. Neal
    October 29, 2012 at 2:22 am

    It is fair to describe all this as a new type of Fascism and the “naming and shaming” of so-called sex offenders is little different to the various classes of stars the Nazis imposed upon the hated of their society.

    Perhaps I should be informed if drug addicts live near me as to date I have suffered 2 stolen cars and 3 burglaries, all drug related.

    This is a witch hunt and all the elements are there. there will be many unintended victims until (unlikely to happen in today’s atmosphere) someone with power says, as Ed Murrow did to Sen McCarthy :”have you no sense of shame?”.

    Like the McCarthy anti-communist witch hunts, the chief inquisitors may rue the day when they become a victim of the ‘hunt’. That includes lawyers, judges, police and anyone in the public eye.

    Like the Nazis who pursuit of power was a more heinous perversion of anything they accused others of, it must be noted that those driving it: tabloids like The Sun, Daily Mail etc played their own part in promoting the sexualizing of young teens as in The Sun’s infamous Page 3 topless teens.

    I believe many will fall in the coming months but I also see that the very insanity of how a nation claims to have been so deluded by a man in a silly suit, supposedly all powerful who was a star and celebrity for 50 years, that can in the space of a month become as the police now judge and convict :”the biggest sexual deviate of all time” a sort of mass hypnotic psychosis and evidence of a sick society.

    Trust my words : I believe the very self proclaimed protectors of children: the CEOPS and so on will also fall as will the ex-cop self proclaimed “child protection expert”. It is the nature of the beast that it must be fed endless victims , just as the Nazis turned on each other in pursuit of power so will the hunters end up being hunted. As the writer says : everyone has a skeleton in the closet and as The Sun could one day promote topless teens, a few years later is pursues those who do the same.

    No-one, no-one is safe.

    ps : yes my loving Grandmother, the epitome of kindness would often say after a day caring fro us toddlers to my mother with a laugh ” thing about other people’s children is you can give them back”…after we had run her ragged all day.

  6. uaruman
    October 28, 2012 at 7:36 pm

    Having just looked at a recent article in relation to Jimmy Savile I came across this fscinating sentence; She also chillingly claimed that Savile said ” the best thing about about other peoples children is that you can give them back”. (Mail On Sunday 28/10/12)

    Oh dear. That saying must be as old as the hills and yet I personally never saw it as anything other than a bad joke. Where is the sexual context in that statement?

    Last week Savile was described as a Necrophiliac by a certain aquaintance of his. Why? No rational explanation was ever given.

    Just where does all this madness end?

    With Blue Peter, its pets and allegations of beastiality?

  7. pete
    October 28, 2012 at 7:30 pm

    It’s difficult to avoid noticing the disturbing similarities between the British Establishment’s demonising fantasies about paedophilia and the Nazis’ equally ferocious demonizing fantasies about the Jewish people. Both share more than the use of dehumanising language and the deliberate orchestration of venomous hatred; they are both also malignant lies. The lies of the Nazis made the word “Jew” mean devious predator, ruthless exploiter, social pollutant, and menace to the purity and innocence the young. Sound familiar? It should; for those inclined to fascist sensibilities, “paedo” tops the poll for latest social scapegoat. In this malignant fashion for manufacturing a contemporary whipping boy to unite “society” against a commonly despised bogeyman, “paedo” is the new black.

    It beggars belief that, in a supposedly enlightened era, we have reached a position in which a judge and a jury could consider it progressive to impose an eleven year jail sentence on a 78-year-old man – a death penalty in effect – for alleged offences he committed when he was just fifteen years of age. The monstering of sexual offences (and the concomitant impulse to purge and eradicate all so identified from the social body) belongs more to the Third Reich than to a liberal democracy.

    When I was a boy, one of my teachers (an elderly Latin master) was in the habit of slipping his hand inside your school blazer and pinching your nipple really hard if you came up with the wrong answer or weren’t paying attention (there were rather a lot of inflamed nipples after his lessons, as I recall). I’m sure he did derive some kind of obscene erotic kick out of this; but it paled into significance to another incident I witnessed.

    A quiet and rather spotty boy once had the great misfortune to develop a rather spectacular erection in the boys’ changing rooms at shower time. Instantly branded a “bum bandit”, he met with spiteful mockery from some of the other boys (to this day, I feel deeply ashamed of my cowardice – I did nothing to assist him or defend him even though he looked as though he wanted to die). For the militant homo-bashers in our midst, he was the perfect target: nonviolent, timid and solitary. One lunchtime, a few goons from the “Get the faggots!” brigade held his right hand, palm downwards, on the table and began stabbing it with the tip of a sharp pencil. He had around ten puncture wounds by the end of it and was crying in pain as they assaulted him (sadistic thugs will use any pretext to vent their unfathomable malice). This to me was infinitely worse than a tweaked tit or even a surreptitiously groped willie. But if an historic abuse case were to be brought decades later, the eccentric Latin teacher (if we were still alive) would be ruined, while the violently sadistic thugs who tortured a defenceless boy might well be amongst the beneficiaries of generous CICA handouts, if they made the right accusing noises, of course. A massively publicised police trawling operation would doubtless help sharpen their memories.

    When it’s no longer possible in law to adequately defend oneself from an accusation; when the twisted zealots of victims’ advocacy and child protection have eroded the presumption of innocence into the tyranny of presumed guilt, the cornerstone of liberty – the rule of law – has been subverted in favour of the rule of opportunistic accusers and sour-faced misanthropes.

    Freud put his finger on the pulse of the problem early in the last century: the meaning of an event rarely (if ever) resides in the incident itself. The meaning of the past always comes from the future, especially the ruling ideologies of the future. If I am a jealous, spiteful, narcissistic monster today, or a drug addict or a burglar, so long as I can imagine or identify an incident in which my childhood penis was fondled by someone else decades ago, the dominant ideology of the present ordains that I am absolved of all personal responsibility for the course my life has taken. My bad and stupid decisions, my spiteful suspicions which have systematically poisoned all my relationships, my habit of lashing out at people who don’t deserve my irrational wrath, all of the above weren’t my fault after all: everything bad was all “caused” by my “abuser.”

    It’s time for this primitive and pernicious pseudo-psychology, so deeply cherished by our self-appointed child protection inquisitors, to go. It takes no bravery at all to conform to the bigotry of the dominant ideology of our times, which insists that we must all suspect a predatory paedo lurking in every home, every school and every sports club in the country, as Raymond Peytors so perspicuously observes in his genuinely courageous, defiant article.

    Only the vindictive nutters of the Child Protection Inquisition can benefit from such misanthropy and paranoia, at least in the short term. But they may also find themselves consumed by the flames of their own paranoid rage. Freud argued that when we fail (or refuse) to remember, we are condemned to repeat. His argument is equally true of ideologies. Unless a statute of limitations comes into effect in the UK, we can expect many more of these heinous mockeries of justice to arise.

    When a similar witchunt, also fuelled by accusation, paranoia and actively encouraged malevolence, engulfed the American village of Salem in the seventeenth century, it only stopped when it became clear that no one – not even the accusers and prosecutors themselves – was safe from lethal accusation. We appear to be forgetting and repeating that tragic process again in the twenty-first century.

  8. verity
    October 28, 2012 at 7:28 pm

    As I have said for some time, No male in this country is safe or immune against an allegation of sexual abuse being made against him and that all males are considered to be guilty until they prove their innocence and even when they do they are still considered to be guilty.

    They have just been lucky in the eyes of government agencies and continue to be considered guilty for the rest of their lives and for perpetuity courtesy of the PNC.
    The only protection males can afford themselves is to ensure they do not go within an arm’s length of any child, regardless of gender and at no time ever touch or be in the presence of a female alone.
    It’s not females that need chaperones, it’s males!

    This witch hunt is taking on tones of Nazi Germany pre WW11 where a word to an authority could result in the arrest and conviction of an innocent neighbour, work colleague, spouse etc as an act of vengeance or as a way for the accuser to ingratiate themselves into the ‘party’.
    God help every man in this country.

  9. Daphne
    October 28, 2012 at 6:48 pm

    Without any evidence. Forensics etc there is only the words of the alleged victims. How can a man prove that the incident did not happen. I cant remembet where i was at a certain time last month. For women with a grudge this is an easy way to destroy a mans life. It should not be allowed to happen. Easy detections for the police. How many men are innocent in jail because of a woman scorned. People arr afraid to speak out. Innocent men are released and too scared to speak out for fear of threats and biolence to him and his home and family. It is a taboo subject but clearly something needs to be done to change ghe law and stop these women.

  10. Clive Richards
    October 28, 2012 at 4:30 pm

    Extremely valid points being made by everyone and the article is absolutely right. It is time for a balanced debate in this area and not a systemised witch hunt!

  11. Helga
    October 28, 2012 at 4:06 pm

    It is soooo easy to make a false allegation of sexual abuse either recent or historic.

    Juries tend to believe what they read in the papers or hear on the news – that paedophilia is rife and that there is a paedophile lurking in every shop doorway and on every street corner.

    They go into their deliberations with preconceived ideas (regardless of the trial judge’s direction not to do so).

    I know of several cases where the complainant has alleged vaginal and anal rape from age 6 to 16 several times a week, every week and in one case I recently reviewed the complainant was found to be a virgin and had no injuries. Her allegations were that this was full penetration – not partial. In another case the defendant was accused of similar crimes – none of his alleged victims had any injuries. The only evidence that convicted these men were words. Word of the complainant to the police and to her supporters, who repeated them.

    The jury hears this evidence, but having been told by the Expert that the fact there are no injuries does not mean that no abuse took place (taking their statistics from cases where defendants have been FOUND guilty as well as those who admitted guilt) – and the defendant has been convicted. Because the jury heard the evidence, the common-sense approach does not apply at appeal.

    If evidence that can prove innocence is not put at trial even though it would have been available at the time of trial, 99.999% of the time this will not be admissible at appeal. Often trial barristers/solicitors will ignore that evidence and when privilege is waived invariably the barrister will say ‘the client expressly instructed me not to use that evidence’ – with no signature on the notes to prove that. Who will the Court of Appeal believe?

    It costs the tax payer hundreds of thousands of pounds to bring an innocent person to trial. It costs hundreds of thousands of pounds (and more) to keep an innocent person in prison. It costs billions of pounds a year for the family of the falsely accused to live on benefits with the main breadwinner in prison.

    The biggest disgrace of all is that a false accuser can make thousands of pounds in ‘compensation’ sometimes thousands, tens of thousands and in some cases hundreds of thousands – all courtesy of the tax payer – for a couple of hours snivelling in interview in the police station and a few hours similarly on the stand at trial.

    Some of these false accusers get paid out even though the accused is not charged or is found not guilty. This is because the CICA apparently goes on the balance of probability. The false accuser says it happened so it probably did. And off these liars trot to the bank laughing all the way.

  12. Jenny Richards
    October 28, 2012 at 3:45 pm

    Thank you! I’ve been waiting so long for someone to say this publicly. I’ve tried myself, but newspapers won’t print such opinions and MPs don’t want to know, even though there are so many similar cases. It’s worth mentioning that the women making the accusations are further encouraged by the prospect of a generous payout by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, which is probably why the ‘old ladies’ were so ‘delighted with the outcome’!

    This story is very similar to my husband’s: swap Australia for England, and ’60 years of silence’ to ’40 years of silence’ and there is virtually no difference. At the age of 69, my husband was sentenced to 15 years. Our lives have been ruined.

    There can be no appeal without ‘new evidence’ but how do you find evidence that you DIDN’T do something 40 years ago? And why should you have to? When these allegations are made, there is no presumption of innocence. As far as the police, CPS and jury are concerned, you are ‘guilty until proved innocent’, and that’s why there are so many similar convictions. Things will never change without a prominent figure to lead the fight and that, regrettably, is unlikely to happen.

  13. Patricia
    October 28, 2012 at 3:20 pm

    I am sure I speak for thousands of women, expecially in my age group – mid 60s – who had bad experiences when young. It was commonplace to be ‘groped’. Everyone just laughed it off. That is how it was. You just slapped the perpetrator, or didn’t go near him again. It was just part of growing up. No way would I even think of trying to pursue a case.

  14. Mike
    October 28, 2012 at 3:11 pm

    Looking at the CPS website, it says that there are guidelines as to whether a prosecution takes place:
    Is there sufficient evidence, and is prosecution in the public interest.
    It seems that neither of these guidelines apply now.
    Time to ask them, I think, and that can be done via their website.
    One question that needs to be asked is exactly HOW is it in the “public interest” to jail an old man of 78 for 11 years?

    All in all, it really looks as if there should be action to bring in a statute of limitations to bring our “Justice” system into line with most of the rest of the civilised world

  15. Paul
    October 28, 2012 at 2:53 pm

    So glad you are pointing all this out. Nobody else is prepared to say it.

    • Martina
      October 28, 2012 at 8:05 pm

      It’s a shambles how historical cases are brought before the courts. What happened to proof and evidence, if the person is found guilty by word of mouth? This could open floodgates for all sorts of malicious accusations.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

SPAM protection: Please fill in the missing number... Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.