The Truth About IPP Sentences

Savile affair: Questions over historic abuse, charities and profiteering ‘experts’

Is the prosecution of 'historic abuse' ever justified?

Is the prosecution of ‘historic abuse’ ever justified?

The current madness surrounding the late Jimmy Savile is likely to be very profitable indeed for some involved in the law, child protection and the press; alleged ‘victims’ may also benefit – though one should remember that it is yet to be proved that there are actually any in the first place.

Despite the very real fact that Savile undoubtedly did raise millions for charity, believes that many greedy, opportunistic people and organisations will be rubbing their hands together with glee at the prospect of making considerable amounts of money from fees, donations, sales and compensation as they forget the proven good done by the man, preferring instead to focus on the bad things he might have done.

Nothing has been proved; rumour is the only evidence; yet – and this is so British – Jimmy Savile is being systematically erased from history (just as Gary Glitter was and Oscar Wilde before him) in a feeding frenzy of greed, revenge and venting of personal frustration and dissatisfaction.

Those who are dissatisfied with their lives, those with no money and those who see a chance to make some will all be queuing up to jump on what could be a very lucrative bandwagon.

The self-styled “child protection expert” who started it all, Mark Williams-Thomas has already done very nicely out of it thank you very much through his television work and his liaison with the Daily Mirror.

People forget that, like so many other ‘experts’ in child protection, he is merely an ex-policeman who claims to have some magical insight that nobody else could possibly have. His claim to be an ‘expert’, along with those of some others, may therefore not be as well founded as some would have us believe.

Esther Rantzen, herself a critic of the child protection paranoia that now stalks this country and which she helped to create, was desperately trying to defend herself in a recent interview for the BBC whilst equally desperately trying not to mention the fact that there are no ‘victims’ at present as nothing has yet been proved.

She must have felt quite dizzy trying to look in so many directions at once like some out of control Janus figure.

The NSPCC treasurer is probably celebrating too, his organisation having been asked to carry out an investigation. Clearly, the NSPCC is now part of the Metropolitan Police Service; if it is not, it should not be involved in any investigation of any kind.

The NSPCC should be helping children – not playing policemen.

…and then of course, there are the newspapers. was not remotely surprised when the Sun newspaper launched an appeal for Sir Jimmy Savile to be ‘stripped of his knighthood’ – before anything has been proved. Who would expect anything else given that several of the newspaper’s former editors and senior reporters are facing prosecution for lying?

The Sun – like its now (thankfully) dead sister, the News of the World – is of course a newspaper known for its honesty and integrity, particularly in regard to anything to do with sex offenders or child abuse. That at least is what the proprietor and staff would like you to believe; rather than the truth exposed in the Leveson Inquiry and police investigations which showed the Sun and the News of the World to be nothing more than a greedy collection of liars, law-breakers and exploitative profiteers.

It is therefore both a tragedy and an indictment that so many people seem to believe the nonsense that so often spews forth from what is undoubtedly the king of the gutter press; the Mirror though is giving the Sun a run for its money as it seeks to sink as low as possible.

This latest affair over Savile is a gift on a silver platter for all the tabloids – including it would seem BBC News which seems to have become a tabloid in its own right recently.

As for the alleged victims – if it is eventually proved that there are any – one must sympathise but, at the same time point out that at least some of Savile’s alleged victims will merely be individuals who are after a quick profit, 15 minutes of fame or simply want to offload their dissatisfaction with and responsibility for their own lives onto someone else.

If this view sounds rather heartless, it probably is to those with a vested interest in maintaining the constant fear of child abuse in the minds of the public. Realistically though, what Savile did or did not do is irrelevant; he’s dead.

Maybe, the police and other apparent ‘experts’ want to dig him up like Oliver Cromwell and put him on trial; maybe the NSPCC would like to sell tickets for the event (they could have a raffle of his personal effects as well) and no doubt Sky TV will bid for the rights to broadcast the proceedings.

Meanwhile, the world goes on turning; unemployment keeps rising, energy bills increase and more and more people have less and less money to spend. The things that really matter are relegated to page 37 while Savile hysteria fills the first seven.

Should ‘historic abuse’ be investigated at all? believes that it is wrong in principle to try and investigate so called ‘historic’ abuse cases. The reasons for this view are very straight forward:

  • Most people cannot remember the details of what they were doing last month, let alone 30 years ago
  • It is only the fact that no real evidence is required other than the word of an alleged ‘victim’ that allows these cases to go forward. (Corroboration of evidence is not required)
  • Jurors are likely to return a guilty verdict to ‘be on the safe side’ and to avoid criticism
  • Most ’historic’ cases tend to be based around either compensation or revenge, not justice
  • The law has been changed so that such cases are almost impossible to defend

How can an individual juror be expected to take the decision to jail an elderly man, possibly for many years, on the basis of uncorroborated evidence, a person’s memory of events that took place 35 years ago or the word of an individual who may be a real victim but could also be some opportunist hoping for a cash handout?

The answer is: they cannot.

Most jurors in historic cases are afraid of being criticised if they return anything other than a guilty verdict or, as one leading barrister put it:

“When it comes to any abuse case, historic or more recent, British juries would rather see a wholly innocent person locked up for years rather than allow any possibility of a guilty person going free.

In abuse cases, truth and evidence have very little to do with the eventual outcome, not least because successive governments have given the prosecution every advantage and have made it almost impossible to defend any case involving child abuse. This is made worse by the fact that most people believe that an accusation of abuse must always lead to a conviction.”

According to CPS figures, more than 85% of child abuse cases put before a Crown Court result in a conviction; an unrealistically high percentage when compared with cases involving other crimes.

However unjust this apparent prejudice may be, it’s great for those in the system.

The police get an easy score and make themselves feel worthwhile, probation officers remain employed, the prisons do pretty well, the lawyers make a fortune and the alleged ‘victim’ ends up with some money in their pocket; money which, in our opinion, they should not be paid directly in any case.

If the money went directly to a therapist or psychologist and nowhere near the alleged victim’s bank account, it may be justified. But then again, were that the case, for most people there would be little point in bringing an historic case in the first place and there would be very few of them.

Meanwhile, in this latest bout of hysteria we have the BBC, the NHS, the police and numerous other organisations in the compensation firing line…and there will be more as people spot new varieties of cash cow.

Some individuals – abused or not – stand to make quite a lot of money; money which you and I will ultimately end up paying through our taxes, licence fees and medical charges.

Once again, must point out that nothing has yet been proved. There is so far no real evidence and the rumoured incidents allegedly took place so long ago that any evidence that may eventually surface will mostly be unreliable; few people can honestly remember that far back with any accuracy.

When the hysteria over Savile finally calms down – if it is allowed to – and when the campaigners and profiteering ‘experts’ have learnt that the louder they shout, the less credibility they actually have, there is a chance that some brave person of influence will call for the whole matter of historic abuse cases to be reviewed.

There is little point in taking someone in their 60s or 70s, locking them in jail for years and paying significant amounts of compensation – all at public expense – if the only benefit is to make money for the tabloids, protection charities and so called ‘experts’ whilst simultaneously attempting to satisfy the prurient lust of a mainly poorly educated public.

The real problem is that MPs and others that do have the power to change things have, in the view of, worked their way so far up the anal cavity of the child protection industry that no number of flashlights or emergency exit signs will ever help them to escape.

Britain has throughout its history always had a problem with anything to do with sex, be that sex legitimate or otherwise. In truth, it may be that it is already too late to change things and that thanks to the over-indulgence of crusading fanatics shown by successive governments, this country will now be destined to drown in its own vomit of hypocrisy, lies and weakness as society slowly but inexorably tears itself apart.

(Discuss this in our Forum)

Tags: , , ,

15 Responses to Savile affair: Questions over historic abuse, charities and profiteering ‘experts’

  1. Dylan Morgan
    March 13, 2013 at 12:09 am

    Excellent article! The only person that has profited from this scaremongering is Mark-Williams Thomas. Mark is a fake, his history as a serving Police Officer is fake.

    He was a Constable and Constables cannot lead murder enquiries as Mark claims to have done. Inspectors and above lead murder enquiries. He could not possibly have had the experience he claims he has had.

    Once he got into one newspaper all the others assumed it was true and contacted him too, so did the police and no one checked his background and so the legend was born. He has found a niche i the child protection market and built this ‘hero saving the world from paedo’s’ a persona for himself.
    And he has done very nicely for himself financially. In the dangerous territory of historic child abuse allegations, how many of the allegations are true and how many have been manufactured by the likes of Williams-Thomas to make him look good. How many of the celebrities who stand accused today, are merely pawns for the likes of Thomas to make money and a reputation out of. It’s time people woke up and looked at this man for what he really is, and its no hero.

  2. Colin
    October 17, 2012 at 10:55 am

    This is a fabulous article, well written, and draws focus clearly on the real issues at play here.

    As a victim myself…not of abuse, but of a false, malicious allegation, my view on these issues has been skewed a lot. I have also worked in jobs and volunteering where Child Protection is at the forefront of the work…and I can say that police, political and media grandstanding going on here has nothing to do with protecting children: it never does, never has, and never will. In fact, quite the opposite.

    Right now, children are being abused – neglected, sexually abused, physically abused, not to mention the emotional suffering. Statistically speaking, since this media whirlwind began, a number of children have died or even committed suicide – and some could have been saved had it not been for the sheer resources being spent on this case against a dead man.

    There is an uncomfortable relationship between the police, the media, politics, experts, and the above all the “truth”. I highly recommend Dave Jone’s autobiography “No Smoke, No Fire”…

    Currently I am working on my own new play about exactly these issues. It sickens me completely!

  3. M
    October 16, 2012 at 3:25 am

    I have a lot of sympathy with the main view here, but also many concerns.
    Firstly, yes, the ‘public’ response to sexual abuse is more harmful than helpful for many reasons.
    The victim has no voice in the process of law. Every individual in the system is now primarily concerned not with the victim, but with not being at fault for underestimating a danger, so they each over-estimate it ‘just in case’. As any case proceeds ‘perceived danger’ is thus inflated over and over until things are entirely out of proportion. Meanwhile the needs of the victim have been forgotten.
    Legal responses to abuse have no relationship to abuse itself. Prison does not offer a cure for abusers, compensation offers no cure for victims. Often the process of law is traumatic for abuser, victim and families of both, exacerbating the harm rather than alleviating it. Abuse is a human issue requiring compassion, dialogue and care – not things the law is famous for.
    However – responding with an attitude which is equally extreme, if opposite, is not the answer.
    As a ‘victim’ of abuse I can understand how the memories stay vivid, even years after the event. I can also understand how the effects of abuse can last for decades – it’s not a kind world even for lucky and well-adjusted people and recovery can be difficult and slow.
    On the other hand I don’t think the police – or any legal system – can help. The ‘victims’ recovery is a process of regaining their sense of control, self-belief, sense of worth and faith in the world. This is often about letting go of blame and moving forward. One may still be angry with ones abuser, but also realise that now it is time to take responsibility for oneself and ones future. The legal system is entirely backward looking, holding the victim in patterns and memories they actually need to move away from.
    The law takes power from the victim, it does not give it. While it pretends to be acting for the victim it is only acting in its own interests, and the victim can end up feeling that things are out of their control.
    Worst of all, because the press, the law and ‘care’ services have a vested interest in making the victim as ‘traumatised’ as possible (to maximise sentences, funding, their own worthiness, sales of papers), there has grown a myth that abuse lasts forever – one never recovers. Actually the main reason abuse is slow to recover is because it is so poorly understood, so hard to talk about and get help. The attitude of services that abuse is ‘a life sentence’ is hugely damaging to the victims they feed this myth to.
    It is insensitive and lacking in compassion for you to dismiss those who have undergone abuse, and unnecessary. It is not them who are at fault.
    What is important, as you have stated, is to show how historic abuse cases FAIL TO HELP victims. Sadly the ‘victim bashing’ in your article will only detract from your other good points.
    Similarly, it is dangerous to rely on a failure of evidence for your arguments. If Saville is found to have committed offences your argument collapses.
    Once again, we must not swing the pendulum – we must hold the middle and remain reasoned in our arguments if we are to change things.
    Regardless of Saville’s guilt or innocence, the entire affair is corrupt. Our legal system is a tool to protect monied interests and the power of the state – it is nothing to do with justice. We can see this by how easy it is to escape the law if you have power or money.
    Genuine research demonstrates that present approaches are ineffective or even harmful to both the abused and the abuser. The problem is that the media have a vested interest in sustaining the ‘monster myth’. The government has an interest in pleasing the public and so commissions research which will give the required ‘evidence’, or simply acts without any evidence at all.
    The finger of blame has become hysterical and the BBC, NSPCC and others are being asked stupid questions and to perform far out of their remit. It is the police’s job to investigate, as you point out. Yet the BBC, NSPCC and others are ‘launching inquiries’. Is it because they care? No. Not even slightly.
    The BBC simply don’t want to be blamed. The NSPCC want to ensure funding. Celeb’s dragged in want to keep their ‘market value’ and clean images. Frankly the victims are almost irrelevant.
    Yet even here people are rarely bad. This backgrounding of the victim is an effect of policy and financial pressure, not individual culpability. systems of ‘care’ are being mutated by the cancers of funding pressure, targets and litigiousness.
    These are the problems we must address, calmly and without falling into hysteria of our own.
    The Saville affair may actually help. The reason it is creating such hysteria is because it proves what many people have been trying to point out. Abusers are not necessarily one-dimensional monsters. Saville did a lot of good, and abused children (allegedly). This is too much for the public. They want saints or villains, one or the other. So they must now tear Saville down, because the alternative is to accept that things are complicated, life is grey, not black and white, and, God forbid, that abusers are just people too.
    The real horror which may arise from the Saville affair is that the public will become even more paranoid. If a ‘nice man’ like Saville can abuse, everyone can. The law will become even tighter, the register more punitive, the police given more powers – none of which will prevent a single victim.
    97% of victims of abuse are abused by someone who HAS NO CRIMINAL RECORD, someone they know and mostly someone at home. None of these abuses will be stopped by any of the measures of the last ten years, or very likely any measures taken in future.
    To genuinely tackle abuse will take cultural change. Children need to be effectively educated, without being made scared. People concerned about their feelings need to be able to seek help before they abuse – without then being ostracised by society. Abuse cases should focus on therapeutic models not punitive measures, and on restorative frameworks which support the victim and give them a say in the measures taken.
    To reach genuine justice will take years of patient argument. As one of the few voices of sense, it is vital that you remain also a voice of strict reason, quiet intelligence and carefully considered opinion.

    • Raymond Peytors -
      October 16, 2012 at 10:21 am

      Editor’s Note: Thank you for your valuable analysis. Savile can never be convicted of an offence as he is dead. It is the method by which that conviction would be achieved were he alive that concerns me. In most historic cases, the “evidence” is based on failing memory and the hope that if enough people tell a similar story, “similar fact” evidence can prove the case. It is the lack of real evidence which is the problem for me.

      As for “victim bashing”, I don’t really think that is fair. Like it or not, many “victims” really are opportunists seeking some cash. Evidence from past cases shows again and again that accounts of alleged abuse are inflated and exaggerated, sometimes on the instructions of official agencies or the police who usually write the statements and always carry out the video interviews, often using leading questions in order to illicit the “correct” response.

      Unfortunately, experience shows that many people cannot handle real life and when “experts” and “professionals” throw them a lifeline and effectively “teach” the individual that they are a “victim”, even if they didn’t feel like one before, that person will grab that excuse with both hands in an attempt to shift the responsibility for their failures and disappointments onto someone else.

      I went to a famous public school in the 60s and 70s. Beatings, sexual and psychological abuse were the norm and trust me when I say that by today’s standards, every boy was abused in one form or another on a daily basis. It was part of boarding school life. Did we all go running to the cops or charities 40 years later, of course not. We did what most people do; we dealt with it, got over it and put it in the past where it belongs. We also became immensely strong when it comes to dealing with the ups and downs of life.

      Before the UK Child Protection Industry was created, people used to deal with the various traumas of life and get over them. Now, they are simply not allowed to. – Editor

    • Margaret
      April 9, 2013 at 8:41 pm

      To say that Savile ‘did a lot of good’ is empty.
      Charities MAY have originally been based on a desire to help but nowadays they are big business and very little of the money raised reaches the needy. They are self-perpetuating organisations.

      The ‘giving’ is mainly an embarrassed response to emotional blackmail and therfore extortion.
      Fundraisers, (of a famous nature, and not the paid personnel who receive £35,000 per annum),appear to be either deluded or smugly self-righteous.
      Fundraising may keep the unemployment figures down but what a dirty business to be in.

  4. Neal
    October 16, 2012 at 1:06 am

    Let us nor forget that whatever is the truth about Jimmy Savile, every British tabloid promoted him on a weekly basis yet now claim that his ‘abuse’ was common knowledge. Yet they choose the BBC as a target for not screening a progranm after his death. Sheer insanity.
    Just google Savile’s name along with ‘death’ and you will find The Sun eulogising the man and in the front row at his funeral.

    Yet politicians have not learnt a thing from the distasteful illegality of the gutter tabloids and still jump when commanded to.

    As for ex-cop Williams-Thomas, don;t forget he claimed to be involved in the McCann case (possibly after some of that donated cash) until told to bugger off.

  5. margaret gardener
    October 15, 2012 at 11:14 pm

    Well done for this article. I wonder how many will jump on the bandwagon and shout abuse as there is money in being a victim. The law has not ben followed and no trial held into whether JS is innocent or guilty. There are many people in the UK both in prison and had cases dropped who have been tainted by false allegations of a sexual nature – it is they who are the victims, but there is no redress for them once they have been either cleared or managed to get their convictions overturned. Sad that the friends of JS have not been heard – one is innocent until proven guilty (supposedly) – FASO are used to ‘witch hunts’ and try and help those who have been falsely accused as well as their families who also include children – Keep up your opinions we need them Margaret FASO helpline

  6. uaruman
    October 15, 2012 at 8:33 pm

    A well scripted and honest appraisal of a totally bizarre and insane situation.

    Anybody with any serious doubts only needs to look at the 1990 satanic ritual abuse case in Rochdale. There was never any hard evidence in this particular case (as there appears to be none in the case of Jimmy Savile).

    A totally insane scenario with individuals recalling incidents, in some instances, over 50 years ago with staggering clarity.

    The first honest and constructive article I have read since these allegations appeared

    Thank You

  7. pete
    October 15, 2012 at 8:33 pm

    What strikes me as truly scandalous about the Savile panic is the imbecilic reasoning of our official child protection loons: if something bad happened to you a long time ago, that must be the “cause” of your abject failure to flourish as a well-rounded human being decades later.

    Encouraging embittered (or opportunistic) plonkers to lay the blame for their life’s errors and miseries at the feet of an “abuser” encountered a quarter of a century (or more) ago really is evil. The headbangers in the NSPCC may well believe their own misanthropic propaganda about the life-blighting horrors of childhood sexual “abuse”, a term so insanely over-inclusive in that it now means any form of sexual expression, no matter how pleasurable, between youngsters below an officially designated age. But how many others will swallow this claptrap when these assertions are exposed to intelligent scepticism, such as Raymond Peytors’ refreshingly iconoclastic (and urgently necessary) article?

    This illiberal and paranoid panic amongst our cultural elite may ultimately be the undoing of the child protection Stasi, as ordinary people grow more mistrusting of their swivel-eyed insistence that unhappiness (i.e., living life badly) is always someone else’s fault. Encouraging people to “bravely” come forward so that they can trouser some generous compensation monies by accusing others of wronging decades ago is intrinsically ugly and inherently mendacious.

    After Freud, it’s impossible to adhere to a primitive model of psychological causality which says “X always leads to Y.” When Freud introduced the notion of “nachträglichkeit” – deferred action or retroactive causality – he dynamited idiotic positivist notions like this. Meaning doesn’t lie in an event that occurred years ago, it always resides in current systems of interpretation. We make things from long ago “mean” what they do now according to the ideologies we embrace today, or are ‘groomed’ into embracing by the State’s official victim fetishizers.

    None of this is to imply any callous indifference to those who suffered from the misdeeds or empathic blindness of others when they were children or adolescents. I know all too vividly how that feels.

    But then, who doesn’t? Who gets through childhood and adolescence without feeling belittled, humiliated, shamed or misinterpreted every so often? Who gets through without some encounter, some wounding confrontation, with power and violence and coercive orthodoxy? If everyone who has suffered some form of “trauma” decades ago came forward seeking retribution, a huge prison building investment would be necessary. We can, I suggest, remain committed to toppling the structures which once oppressed and subjugated us without becoming victims, which I consider a total abdication of progressive change.

    Victimhood appeals to the existing structure of power to deliver individual vengeance, a manoeuvre which leaves that structure wholly intact: the State is completely at home with meting out emotion-fuelled vindictiveness at the expense of true justice, which is actually the only concept that protects defendants from the whims of the State’s latest preoccupations and fads.

    The odd, eccentric and rare case of Jimmy Savile will, as is already happening, be shamelessly exploited by the architects of misanthropy and paranoia in our midst – the spuriously militant and near-psychotic advocates of official child protection – to further their punitive and intrinsically unappeasable agenda. It’s just the tip of iceberg, in their minds, although they fail to mention that the obscene and massive base of this iceberg, where children are being rogered into oblivion en masse, is indeed confined to their minds. Coercive moralists are always tormented by whatever they feel driven to condemn; attributing their warped fantasies to others is truly malignant. Most adults are at root kind and protective toward the young.

    When Freud wrote “Those who cannot remember are condemned to repeat”, he meant: if you can’t honestly integrate an upsetting experience into your personal history, you will keep recycling it as though it was still happening, and you will draw hidden (obscene) enjoyment from your deliberately repeated victimhood.

    The true psychoanalytic answer would lead the child salvationists in our midst to go out of business, so they suppress and ignore it. Put bluntly, it is this:

    “Get over it. Let it go. Express sorrow for what might have been, of course, but don’t cling to an imaginary and probably impossible ideal of how life “should” be if “that” hadn’t happened. Look forward, let the past recede into history, and realise your full creative potential in the here and now. Victimhood is a dead end, no matter how much financial compensation you might temporarily benefit from. Taking the punitive State’s tainted shilling is no remedy for unhappiness. The course of your life is your responsibility. Don’t let your former oppressors or your current professional “groomers” persuade you to become a victim. Kindness makes you stronger, not vengeance, which simply makes you bitter, spiteful and unhappy.”

  8. verity
    October 15, 2012 at 7:44 pm

    Everything you all say is absolutely correct but unfortunately anyone who posts in the same vein as you are labelled as a Saville supporter which for the vast majority is untrue and unfair.
    It seems the voice of reason cannot get through to the lynch mob mentality this and the previous government has succeeded in inculcating into a percentage of the population.
    It seems anyone advocating a fair and balanced view is accused of cheerfully condemning children to abuse at the hands of paedophiles and some have been accused of being paedophiles themselves for not towing the hysteria and police and media judge, jury and executioner line.
    This is a very dangerous country for decent, regular, working family men.
    I speak as an adult survivor who strives to have a balanced rational and reasonable view capable at looking at both sides, disagreeing with some views, expressing why I disagree without resorting to personal verbal abuse or vilification of a poster for not having the same view as me.

    Financial compensation does not bring closure.
    Financial compensation does not bring justice.
    Financial compensation does not atone for damage done.
    Having a holiday, a new car or whatever paid for by compensation does not suddenly cure someone who has genuinely been abused.

    Had one of JS’s accusers said they do not want money but wanted psychiatric counselling and treatment I would be much more inclined believe that person’s allegation prima facie.
    It is high time compensation was stopped for these alleged ‘victims’, instead they should be offered psychiatric help to assist them in coming to terms with their trauma.

    How many would use their compensation to obtain psychiatric help?
    Call me cynical but I have genuine doubts that is what any compensation would go towards.
    Have these accusers had psychiatric help in the past? Not one has said they had.

    I asked for psychiatric help as soon as I was able and to an extent it helped me to come to terms with the physical and psychological fall out of what was inflicted upon me.
    No amount of money will undo what was done to me.

    The defence of the defendants at the Nuremburg trials was that ‘they were following orders’.
    Their defence has some credence as had they not followed orders they and probably their families would have been shot.

    The defence for not reporting the allegedly widespread and known concerns whilst Saville was alive by those who claim they knew what was going on in regard to the alleged activities of Saville is weak at best.
    Fear of losing jobs, having to pay the mortgage etc, is not a defence.

    In a civilised society, the simple word alone of an accuser should never be enough to find someone guilty and have him forever branded a pervert.
    In this country the simple uncorroborated, unsubstantiated, inconsistent and discrepancy filled word is more than sufficient to have a man arrested, charged, brought to trial and convicted.
    Men are having to prove their innocence against such unsubstantiated, uncorroborated allegations that are full of inconsistencies and discrepancies in courts across this land daily.

    This and the previous administrations have succeeded in stripping an accused of his rights and protections in law as far as allegations of a sexual nature is concerned by moving the goal posts to fulfil their agenda of making it easier to convict an accused of this particular offence.

    Prosecuting counsel in their opening speech claims it is for the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant’s guilt. This is a terminological inexactitude.
    For this offence and this offence only the burden of proof is for the defendant to discharge.
    Thus on the simple word alone and in many cases in the face of exculpatory evidence proving the defendant’s actual and factual innocence, which in too many cases is suppressed by the police and or the CPS an innocent victim falsely accused is wrongfully convicted of a crime he did not commit and in way to many cases, of an offence that never occurred in fact or actuality.

    I do wonder what has to happen before common sense puts a stop to the Government, child protection, media and police feeding frenzy that is ‘child protection’.
    Never have children been at so much risk from those who perport to protect them.
    As for Esther Rantzen…………….

  9. M
    October 15, 2012 at 4:37 pm

    What a superb article, well done again Mr Peytors.

    Interesting to read some of the comments. I know others who work in child protection who have similar opinions to those of Peter.

  10. Mike
    October 15, 2012 at 2:54 pm

    Just who is going to defend him in a court of law? How can there be a trial with a dead defendant? This whole thing is a complete joke. If there was any evidence why did it take so long to come out? The whole affair is a rather sick joke.

  11. Peter
    October 15, 2012 at 2:10 pm

    As a person involved in child protection, it may come as a surprise that I agree completely with this article.

    In fact, I am so disillusioned with the work I now expected to do and with the hypocritical and hysterical attitude of my colleagues, an attitude that is evil in many respects, that I am seriously considering leaving the job.

    It is so far away from what it once was before we created an industry bent only on its own survival.

  12. Stephen
    October 15, 2012 at 2:10 pm

    Your article has covered every salient point that any sane and rational person will already have considered – yet we know how few sane and rational people are actually in the UK!

    Your point regarding cases of historical abuses not being allowed to proceed to court. The UK still does not have anything resembling a statute of limitations on sex offences allegedly committed against children or women. At one time I did come across an ostensible statue of limitations in a law book, an edition of Archbolds, I believe, but this was around a decade ago and might well have been changed since. This paragraph stated that an adult male must lodge a complaint with the police with 12 months of being sexually abused by another adult male. A little bit of discrimination there, I felt at the time.

    Yet why can’t we have a statute of limitations, there is even one in America which might actually seem surprising when we consider the whole American picture. It is fully reasonable that an abused child might be afraid or not be in a position to complain, especially if the abuse is being done by a family member or a teacher, for instance. I am sure we can all accept this and fully sympathise with such a position. However, once a child reaches the age of 18 years, they do not have to live in an abusive situation nor do they have to have contact with an abusive person in any other position of authority over them. They can smoke, they can drink alcohol, they can vote, therefore they can walk to the nearest solicitor and lodge a complaint. As for those over the legal age of consent, there is absolutely no reason for them not to lodge a complaint if any abuse has been done to them.

    We have all read the reasons people give for waiting 2 years, 5 years, 10 years, 50 years before making a complaint. They all use the same type of phrases such as I didn’t think anyone would believe me or I was afraid of what might happen to me. That, I suggest, is not the true reason, nor are they the actual words. They are now platitudes in law, used by barristers to sway a jury who, conveniently, manage to forget that they have read those same phrases many times over recent years.

    Rather than discussing these so-called reasons for delaying making a complaint about a person, perhaps just two points needs to be made now.

    The first, Sir James Saville, is dead. End of subject, gone for ever, no case to make and no case to answer. Dead. Case closed.

    The second, I would like to mention the recent court hearings regarding the abuses made against the Mau Mau. Although this might not have an immediate bearing on child sex offence cases in the UK, it should be remembered that many of those abuses were sexual in nature and carried out by those acting on behalf of the British government.

    These people have been trying for decades to get their case heard in courts here and, finally, this has been allowed. Some months ago, the UK government actually accepted that abuses had taken place and they gave an apology for it. Damn! They actually believed that saying sorry was sufficient and that this would all go away! If that is the case, any offender in the UK only has to apologise and the slate should be wiped clean. However, of even more importantance, and as recorded on the BBC News website (amongst others) of 17th July 2012, it is stated clearly that during the legal hearings the UK government stated that too much time has elapsed for a fair hearing to be conducted.

    It appears, therefore, that the government itself does not believe historic cases should go to court, that they are unfair, yet when it comes to sex offences, they conveniently ignore this.

  13. Max
    October 15, 2012 at 1:41 pm

    The truth of this insanity exposed. I have not seen this honesty expressed anywhere else.

    Everyone should read this and face up to the truth of what is now national paranoia over child abuse. It’s a paranoia that is out of control, utterly destructive and shreds the good out of society.

    Brilliant article. Thank you.

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.