After the report into the apparent sexual offending of Jimmy Savile, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Kier Starmer, has effectively announced that the prosecution of those accused of sexual offences against children is to be made even easier by further lowering the bar – or ’level of proof’ – required before police can be authorised to charge alleged offenders.
If the charities are to be believed, Britain seems to be a nation of perverts – but rather than the British really being pre-disposed to sexual offending, is it actually the law which is wrong?
The DPP, deeply embarrassed at failings within the Crown Prosecution Service’s handling of allegations against Savile, has been forced to respond to the joint investigation by police and the statutorily gifted NSPCC into the now dead BBC presenter.
However, neither Starmer or the NSPCC are prepared to address the issue that TheOpinionSite.org believes really matters:
“Why are there apparently so many sex offenders in Britain?”
Perhaps the first question to be asked however, is whether or not so many people really are guilty of sexual offending – particularly against children – or whether, as one barrister recently told us:
“It is now so easy to make allegations without the need for any corroborating evidence, that it is impossible to defend anyone from an accusation of sexual offending, particularly accusations involving children.“
For the last 30 years, successive UK governments have jumped on the child protection band wagon, seeing it as an easy route to cheap, populist-driven votes; always conscious of pressure from the tabloid media and feminist-driven lobby groups.
The House of Lords removed the need for corroboration of evidence in child sex offence cases in the 1980s and did the same for offences against adults in the early 90s.
It is no coincidence that it was at about that time when the “protection industry” took off in the UK, largely driven by American public opinion and the realisation that most people and politicians are much too afraid to speak out against possibly false allegations of abuse for fear of being criticised.
The police and CPS were next to join the band wagon, cashing in on the fact that in child sex abuse cases in particular, juries were far more likely to convict than acquit, mainly on the basis that it was better to “err on the side of caution”.
Child protection groups in particular have consistently made it clear that in their view, it is of no consequence if innocent people, mainly men, are convicted if it means that the guilty never go free.
Huge numbers of UK jobs – and a not insignificant amount of income – are dependent on the public being encouraged to report sexual offending, real or not, whether that be current offending or offences from 60 years ago.
Reading a few published stories is more than sufficient to come to the conclusion that as all children “must now be believed”, even if there is no evidence, anyone in Britain who is accused of sexual abuse is likely to end up in jail.
If on the other hand all the accusations really are true, one has to ask why so many men and women in Britain are prone to sexual offending, especially against children?
The first thing to consider is whether or not someone over 16 years of age but under 18 should in fact be described as a ‘child’. After all, at 16 one can leave school, have sex, have children, get married, join the armed forces, pay tax and get a full time job.
In other EU countries, where for example the age of consent can be as low as 13 but the age of criminal responsibility is higher than the 10 years of age in the UK, those under 18 are regarded as “minors”; mainly for the purposes of tax, benefits, cigarette and alcohol consumption.
The second question asked by TheOpinionSite.org is whether there is something in the repression visited upon the British people for the last 500 years that causes them to take it out on children.
We exclude ‘women’ from this question as they are only ‘women’ once they have attained the age of 18 years; until then, they are regarded as ‘children’.
Mr Starmer, the police, the CPS and the NSPCC are only interested in protecting those under 18 it would seem.
The British ‘Public School’ system is often cited as a breeding ground of depravity; but that would surely result in half the MPs in the Commons and peers in the Lords having been arrested and charged by now.
The Catholic Church has similarly been accused of producing perverts – but so has the Church of England and the Army.
Could it be then – dare one even suggest such a thing – that in reality, there are no more sexual predators in the UK than in any other country; just more benefit available to those who make and enforce the law and who run the multi-million pound organisations that purport to protect us all?
Although neither the current government or its predecessors have openly said so, the fact that any child making any accusation must now automatically be believed to be telling the truth also means that by definition, any adult charged with a sexual offence against someone under 18 years of age must now be presumed guilty; something that is totally against not only the principles of British law but also against the very law itself.
In the same way, anyone making an accusation that they were sexually assaulted 60 years ago – even if there is no evidence – must also be automatically believed to be telling the truth.
The fact that many of these accusers – often young and coerced by their opportunistic family or even the authorities and who may logically expect the inevitable monetary reward that will almost certainly be forthcoming from the state or the accused individual – may not be telling the truth, seems to play no part in the reasoning of those allegedly only interested in their ‘protection’.
Police officers giving statements from the steps of a court after (not too difficult) successful prosecutions have been instructed to always praise the ‘brave’ victims and to encourage others to come forward.
Parents are warned that even their own children could be sexually abusing their siblings and that all men are a threat to their offspring.
In schools, all children are now taught that there is a paedophile on every corner; the NSPCC continues to claim that 25% of all children are abused and the police maintain that hundreds of children have ‘been protected’ when in fact, there was neither evidence nor charges brought against individuals in the first place.
TheOpinionSite.org does not believe that Britain is in fact a nation full of perverts seeking to attack children.
We are certain however that Britain believes that it is such a country and society.
This is hardly surprising when one considers the endless, fear producing drip-feeding of the population that is encouraged by opportunistic politicians, charities and newspaper editors alike.
Now that Britain’s chief prosecutor has publicly announced that he too has signed up to the same diatribe, it is a safe bet that any man accused of any offence against a child will end up in jail; guilty or not.
Juries are too afraid not to convict, trial judges are too weak and afraid to properly direct, defence barristers have given up, policemen think they are more powerful than God himself and prosecutors need only to sign the papers in order to attain a conviction.
The response from the DPP is to make it even easier to convict more men without evidence, even for offences from 60 years ago.
As stated, Britain is not – in the view of TheOpinionSite.org at least, a nation of child molesting sexual perverts but it does have a serious problem when it comes to being conned and misled by powerful organisations and manipulative authorities.
The NSPCC and other charities have said today:
“We must stop putting the interests of adults first and instead concentrate on children.”
The man who said that on the BBC is a particular kind of self-serving fool. A dangerous fool who fails to realise that the logical conclusion of his reasoning will be that no adult – parents included – will ever feel safe in the presence of their own or other children again.
Where, without the confidence of adults, will his precious “child protection” be then one may ask?
(To discuss this further, join our Members Forum. Click Here)