King of Hits.co.uk - Your Views Messageboard

IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.

Home

Forums

	Messageboards	Categories Show latest posts

Welcome, Guest
Please Login or Register. Lost Password?

Messageboards

King of Hits

Your Views Messageboard

Post a new message in "Your Views Messageboard"

Name:

Subject:

Boardcode:

Message:
(+) / (-)

Emoticons





More Smilies

[b]trollexposure wrote:[/b]
[quote]This paints that 2008 Saunders incident in a different light:

http://www.nickryan.net/exhibition/survivor.html

For all the posturing and tv interviews of Peter Saunders, he knew that this was in his "closet", he helped to create this whole debacle of VIP abuse.
In a parallel to Carl Beech's CSA offending one does now wonder about some of the other "players" involved and whether their motives were to cover up their own crimes.

One thing that is a fact: Mark Watts' article is very inaccurate, full of misleading information regarding Beech's trial and should not be regarded as genuine criticism of the criminal justice system. Watts was nowhere to be seen on the issues of disclosure, false allegations etc when those failures of the criminal justice system suited Beech, Baker etc in fact Watts was actively seeking false allegations to occur. That's why his attempt to flip sides now is so offensive to many who saw what was going on.

All he is now interested in is attempting to claim that Carl Beech was innocent. Beech isn't. Clearly isn't either. Beech's offending was calculated, manipulative, devious and planned for a long time imo.

The fact that Beech only started disclosing in 2012 after two events occurred suggests that in no uncertain terms: 1) he had employed a private investigator to check that his stepfather Ray was dead 2) he waited until a big case broke [Savile] to use his allegations. That is all before Exaro's involvement. Here's what I think happened: Beech was gay, he struggled with his own sexuality throughout his life, his obsession with young boys being part of that problem. He also had a sham of a marriage because his doting mother was deeply religious and later a vicar (and the diocese safeguarding officer!). He only started with the stories of "abuse" after receiving initial counselling in the late 1980s/early 1990s at the behest of NHS occupational health. He received such around the same time as the fateful counselling of Carol Felstead, also a NHS nurse. It is entirely possible that counselling introduced the concept into Carl's head.

As for Ray Beech, Carl only lived with Ray as a child for 8 months. Carl retained Ray's surname, if he wanted to escape from "Beech" as he claimed why didn't he simply change his surname? 
I also believe that Carl was a difficult child whilst he lived with his stepsiblings and Ray. He was likely, because Ray was in the army on the receiving end of some 1970s style child management but that doesn't mean that he was sexually abused. I think Carl used all of this as an excuse, he couldn't cope with Ray having hit him as a child, [I'm not saying Ray was right to hit Carl if he did so] and was a mummy's boy through and through.

Watts' article misinforms on so many things but here are the bullet points:

1 - It was agreed between prosecution and defence that Beech had been researching the likes of Dolphin Square PRIOR to the Exaro articles appearing but that research possibly happened very shortly after Beech initially met with Mark Conrad and/or Peter McKelvie. That research including in May 2014 Dolphin Square. The dates were clear from Beech's computing devices. Watts would have everyone believe that Beech only looked at Dolphin Square material AFTER reports on Exaro.

2 - Beech was the one on trial not Harvey Proctor or the other prosecution witnesses. There was no material in the searches of the properties which could've been entered into evidence in the trial anyway as it is clear to the public now that those searches were most likely illegal based on falsehoods presented to a judge.

3 - Third party evidence in Operation Conifer was not relevant to Beech's defence as he was not PERSONALLY involved in the same allegations made by others. It was inadmissible for that reason. Furthermore Operation Conifer had rejected Beech's allegations.

4 - The jury were not misled on 1,2,3 above.

5 - Beech's CSA convictions [although he was yet to be sentenced at the time] were highly relevant to his offending of PCJ/Fraud. At the same time as him making allegations of CSA against others, he was committing very gross, very serious acts of child abuse via his images and voyeurism offences. His mens rea was therefore partially to cover up his own offending, to make that point to the jury for consideration of their verdicts the convictions had to be revealed to the trial.

6 - Beech ran away. When faced with multiple CSA charges he ran away to Sweden, created new identities for himself and tried to escape justice. When he knew his CSA trial was coming up he stayed in Sweden instead of returning for it. At that point he made himself LOOK guilty not only of the CSA offences but other crimes. He did himself no favours and only has himself to blame ultimately, however there were others who had remained in contact with him throughout. Quite clearly Watts' article is to deflect attention away from some of those too.

In summary Watts is therefore clutching at some very broken straws. His stance that Beech suffered a miscarriage of justice is, in my view, completely misleading, inaccurate and dishonest. There are many cases in legal history of miscarriages of justice, however based on what was heard at Newcastle Crown Court I personally believe that Carl Beech was given the correct verdict, around about the correct sentence [bearing in mind Jemma Beale's sentence]. His case was not one which fits into the disclosure crisis either, the material that wasn't given to the defence was clearly already known about by Beech prior to the trial and the defence could've requested it much sooner.

There was a great deal of grandstanding by his defence team, as well as some by the prosecution, however that grandstanding was dealt with in the correct way by the judge in my view. Whether there are other loopholes that justify Beech's appeal application remains to be seen.

Whether Beech believes his stories or not, they were false. He took them to the extremes of reporting them to the media, the police and as such allowed himself to be put in the position where his own perversions turned into crimes of perverting the course of justice etc. There was no evidence supporting his claims of physical injuries, therefore no evidence supporting his original claims to Wiltshire Police either. Thus his fraud charge stood up as well. As those injuries don't exist and clearly don't exist, any attempt to introduce the material that Watts has claimed should also have been introduced is also a moot point because the counter to that line of defence was clearly going to be "but those injuries don't exist".

Watts also tried to silence any critics of the people actually making the false allegations,with the assistance of many including malicious complaints to the police to have critics arrested/charged on trumped up allegations. He further that part of the problem, wanted to promote the falsehoods, I know as I personally fell foul of some of his own conduct in early 2017. So I have some personal insight into his methods and also his motivations.

People like Watts are only interested in their own agendas, not justice or truth and his mirroring of that to blame others is part and parcel of his own games. The fact that he was able to spend 2 months in Newcastle yet seemingly isn't professionally employed as a journalist should be raising questions in itself. I'll be very surprised if the police spotlight hasn't now turned on him and his friends, because you can bank on something: the police don't like being shown to be fools. His article is designed in some ways, in my view, to deflect that attention.

Various posters above are correct that facts should trump belief in police investigations always, however that also applies to journalists and the public too. We need a free press to report truths, what we don't need is a free press which takes the likes of Beech's stories simply at face value. Watts and Exaro were not in the truth camp. Never were, never will be in my view because instead of their mantra of "holding power to account" they ended up only "holding themselves to account", they broke the 1st rule of journalism: don't become the story. Watts' article and his disinformation are further attempts to do precisely that, he's an attention seeking journalist who cannot stand being corrected. We [as a society] need less of those and more of those who ask more searching, difficult questions rather than simply believing.

Those who assisted Beech and others should now have to face the music, the "enablers" as JK calls them, however that's only going to happen if we stop believing everything those "enablers" continue to say too.[/quote]

Enter code here

Topic History of: Enablers - Part Three and Charity. Or "charities".
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)

Author	Message
Randall	Anonymous wrote: What I am really trying to get back to here is the concept of due process in all cases. I believe that the notion that all allegations must be believed no matter what is leading to a situation where the police/courts become paralysed. This will either lead to the decriminalisation of abuse or a very authoritarian system where the need for evidence is dispensed with. Yet another good post from Anonymous, thanks. We now have Salem-style trials in the majority of the work that UK criminal courts do. Alarm bells should be ringing, but most people just cannot believe how bad the situation really is - until it happens to them or someone they know. However, the Carl Beech trial and now the situation with Peter Saunders telling us to believe all accusers (except his own) could help. They highlight the irreconcilability of #believethevictim with fundamental legal principles of fair trial and presumption of innocence. There's a simple, 2-step fix for the whole sorry mess. 1) Create a requirement that the occurrence of a crime must be established as a matter of fact. If there is no more than an accuser's assertion that a crime occurred, then there is no case to answer. 2) Create a requirement for evidence indicating that a defendant committed the crime thus established. If there is no more than an accuser's assertion, there is no case to answer.
trollexposure	This paints that 2008 Saunders incident in a different light: www.nickryan.net/exhibition/survivor.html For all the posturing and tv interviews of Peter Saunders, he knew that this was in his "closet", he helped to create this whole debacle of VIP abuse. In a parallel to Carl Beech's CSA offending one does now wonder about some of the other "players" involved and whether their motives were to cover up their own crimes. One thing that is a fact: Mark Watts' article is very inaccurate, full of misleading information regarding Beech's trial and should not be regarded as genuine criticism of the criminal justice system. Watts was nowhere to be seen on the issues of disclosure, false allegations etc when those failures of the criminal justice system suited Beech, Baker etc in fact Watts was actively seeking false allegations to occur. That's why his attempt to flip sides now is so offensive to many who saw what was going on. All he is now interested in is attempting to claim that Carl Beech was innocent. Beech isn't. Clearly isn't either. Beech's offending was calculated, manipulative, devious and planned for a long time imo. The fact that Beech only started disclosing in 2012 after two events occurred suggests that in no uncertain terms: 1) he had employed a private investigator to check that his stepfather Ray was dead 2) he waited until a big case broke [Savile] to use his allegations. That is all before Exaro's involvement. Here's what I think happened: Beech was gay, he struggled with his own sexuality throughout his life, his obsession with young boys being part of that problem. He also had a sham of a marriage because his doting mother was deeply religious and later a vicar (and the diocese safeguarding officer!). He only started with the stories of "abuse" after receiving initial counselling in the late 1980s/early 1990s at the behest of NHS occupational health. He received such around the same time as the fateful counselling of Carol Felstead, also a NHS nurse. It is entirely possible that counselling introduced the concept into Carl's head. As for Ray Beech, Carl only lived with Ray as a child for 8 months. Carl retained Ray's surname, if he wanted to escape from "Beech" as he claimed why didn't he simply change his surname? I also believe that Carl was a difficult child whilst he lived with his stepsiblings and Ray. He was likely, because Ray was in the army on the receiving end of some 1970s style child management but that doesn't mean that he was sexually abused. I think Carl used all of this as an excuse, he couldn't cope with Ray having hit him as a child, [I'm not saying Ray was right to hit Carl if he did so] and was a mummy's boy through and through. Watts' article misinforms on so many things but here are the bullet points: 1 - It was agreed between prosecution and defence that Beech had been researching the likes of Dolphin Square PRIOR to the Exaro articles appearing but that research possibly happened very shortly after Beech initially met with Mark Conrad and/or Peter McKelvie. That research including in May 2014 Dolphin Square. The dates were clear from Beech's computing devices. Watts would have everyone believe that Beech only looked at Dolphin Square material AFTER reports on Exaro. 2 - Beech was the one on trial not Harvey Proctor or the other prosecution witnesses. There was no material in the searches of the properties which could've been entered into evidence in the trial anyway as it is clear to the public now that those searches were most likely illegal based on falsehoods presented to a judge. 3 - Third party evidence in Operation Conifer was not relevant to Beech's defence as he was not PERSONALLY involved in the same allegations made by others. It was inadmissible for that reason. Furthermore Operation Conifer had rejected Beech's allegations. 4 - The jury were not misled on 1,2,3 above. 5 - Beech's CSA convictions [although he was yet to be sentenced at the time] were highly relevant to his offending of PCJ/Fraud. At the same time as him making allegations of CSA against others, he was committing very gross, very serious acts of child abuse via his images and voyeurism offences. His mens rea was therefore partially to cover up his own offending, to make that point to the jury for consideration of their verdicts the convictions had to be revealed to the trial. 6 - Beech ran away. When faced with multiple CSA charges he ran away to Sweden, created new identities for himself and tried to escape justice. When he knew his CSA trial was coming up he stayed in Sweden instead of returning for it. At that point he made himself LOOK guilty not only of the CSA offences but other crimes. He did himself no favours and only has himself to blame ultimately, however there were others who had remained in contact with him throughout. Quite clearly Watts' article is to deflect attention away from some of those too. In summary Watts is therefore clutching at some very broken straws. His stance that Beech suffered a miscarriage of justice is, in my view, completely misleading, inaccurate and dishonest. There are many cases in legal history of miscarriages of justice, however based on what was heard at Newcastle Crown Court I personally believe that Carl Beech was given the correct verdict, around about the correct sentence [bearing in mind Jemma Beale's sentence]. His case was not one which fits into the disclosure crisis either, the material that wasn't given to the defence was clearly already known about by Beech prior to the trial and the defence could've requested it much sooner. There was a great deal of grandstanding by his defence team, as well as some by the prosecution, however that grandstanding was dealt with in the correct way by the judge in my view. Whether there are other loopholes that justify Beech's appeal application remains to be seen. Whether Beech believes his stories or not, they were false. He took them to the extremes of reporting them to the media, the police and as such allowed himself to be put in the position where his own perversions turned into crimes of perverting the course of justice etc. There was no evidence supporting his claims of physical injuries, therefore no evidence supporting his original claims to Wiltshire Police either. Thus his fraud charge stood up as well. As those injuries don't exist and clearly don't exist, any attempt to introduce the material that Watts has claimed should also have been introduced is also a moot point because the counter to that line of defence was clearly going to be "but those injuries don't exist". Watts also tried to silence any critics of the people actually making the false allegations,with the assistance of many including malicious complaints to the police to have critics arrested/charged on trumped up allegations. He further that part of the problem, wanted to promote the falsehoods, I know as I personally fell foul of some of his own conduct in early 2017. So I have some personal insight into his methods and also his motivations. People like Watts are only interested in their own agendas, not justice or truth and his mirroring of that to blame others is part and parcel of his own games. The fact that he was able to spend 2 months in Newcastle yet seemingly isn't professionally employed as a journalist should be raising questions in itself. I'll be very surprised if the police spotlight hasn't now turned on him and his friends, because you can bank on something: the police don't like being shown to be fools. His article is designed in some ways, in my view, to deflect that attention. Various posters above are correct that facts should trump belief in police investigations always, however that also applies to journalists and the public too. We need a free press to report truths, what we don't need is a free press which takes the likes of Beech's stories simply at face value. Watts and Exaro were not in the truth camp. Never were, never will be in my view because instead of their mantra of "holding power to account" they ended up only "holding themselves to account", they broke the 1st rule of journalism: don't become the story. Watts' article and his disinformation are further attempts to do precisely that, he's an attention seeking journalist who cannot stand being corrected. We [as a society] need less of those and more of those who ask more searching, difficult questions rather than simply believing. Those who assisted Beech and others should now have to face the music, the "enablers" as JK calls them, however that's only going to happen if we stop believing everything those "enablers" continue to say too.
JK2006	Dear Anonymous - you are quite right; we all feel the "you will be believed" mantra is appalling and has lead to numerous wrongful convictions. We all also believe in Innocent Until Proven Guilty (and, in my 2001 case, even after). The point is - Saunders has made a career out of saying false allegations are rare and helping accusers (be they false, true or in between) make money from this. He now admits to quite disgraceful behaviour, taking advantage of a vulnerable abuse victim (or so she claimed) and not admitting in his numerous appearances on TV, radio and committee that he has had as many false allegations against him as he had (claimed) abusers. And perhaps worse is that police and CPS, with as much "evidence" as they have had against numerous other, now convicted, men, decided "not to prosecute". The entire situation is appalling and helps us reveal just some of the anomalies in the current system.
Anonymous	What I am really trying to get back to here is the concept of due process in all cases. I believe that the notion that all allegations must be believed no matter what is leading to a situation where the police/courts become paralysed. This will either lead to the decriminalisation of abuse or a very authoritarian system where the need for evidence is dispensed with. The facts seem to be that both Saunders and the alleged victim were drunk. If drink can undermine a female's ability to consent, surely the same can be said for a man. It would be absurd to argue they both 'raped' each other. In actual fact Saunders has implied he is a victim of sexual misconduct in this case too. So we have an allegation and counter-allegation, neither of which has been proved. Also and most importantly, Saunders was never convicted of rape and the alleged victim was not convicted of sexual misconduct either. Therefore, both are innocent. If NAPAC want to continue employing him now, it is up to them. It is a charity and if donors decide his conduct should not be forgiven, they can stop donating. Caveat emptor, no need for a witch hunt. If juries, judges and journalists were foolish enough to be influenced by the demagoguery of Saunders then, again, caveat emptor. The only solution to this problem is people learning to assess evidence rather than deciding what they want to 'believe' for emotional reasons. There will be more innocent victims of false allegations, and more actual abuse victims who get ignored due to the backlash before we get to that point. I don't like Cardinal Pell much either, but there's insufficient evidence that he is a child abuser. Maybe, though, while he is sitting in prison he could reflect about how sexually repressive religions/ideologies tend to lead fanatical inquisitions and false allegations...
JK2006	Dear Anonymous (why?) - there are many aspects of this I cannot reveal; it may endanger other innocent people. I can only hint or suggest though I may well have solid proof including admissions. And there are some parts I can only suspect - example: I have no proof or evidence that Saunders "assisted" the Pell False Accusers (I use that term carefully as the majority were thrown out or retracted claims and can therefore be described as False Accusers). But I have had several people tell me that he did, that he wanted to "get" Pell and many other priests and bishops. I think I am attempting to move the spotlight onto the Enablers - those who, for a variety of reasons, assist False Accusers. It is about time people understood that the vast majority of allegations are either exaggerated or invented.