A New Year thought - anyone arrested and questioned about false allegations should immediately file a counter claim and accuse the false accuser of committing the crime of false allegations, wasting police time and perverting the course of justice.

The police would be duty bound to arrest the other person and investigate the charges. Thoroughly. Remember - YOU WILL BE BELIEVED.

As a recent tragic case illustrated, even a civil case can be picked up and pursued by the CPS. If it's in the public interest - and surely it WOULD be in the public interest to convict and lock up someone making malicious claims and ruining lives?

I wish I'd thought of this and suggested it to Paul Gambaccini, Jim Davidson, Freddy Starr, William Roach, Michael Le Vel, Andrew Lancel and all those others arrested, questioned and sometimes prosecuted.

Excellent idea. Unfortunately the Police will accuse you of wasting their time and fail to do anything. Remember: The accusation is the evidence; victims never lie.

if you read the law on private prosecutions it seems the CPS are obligated to takeover the case if it deems it winnable.

I'd go further- i would sue for defamation. Now this cowardly Labour MP John Mann who made absurd claims about Leon Brittan in Coward's Castle (this will warm ITK's heart- using gossip in it's vilest manner to score cheap political points) claims he has a list of names given to him by the public.

If I were an innocent MP Or Lord who is questioned because of this I would sue both the accuser for attempting to pervert the course of justice and defamation.

And I think you'd find, Opus, that police would HAVE to investigate and arrest and question the person accused of false witness, perverting the CofJ and Wasting PT, as they must do for any crime.

JK2006 wrote:
And I think you'd find, Opus, that police would HAVE to investigate and arrest and question the person accused of false witness, perverting the CofJ and Wasting PT, as they must do for any crime.


But they don't, do they? Most of the time they reluctantly take a statement and then you have to track down the criminal yourself!

Indeed. But the charge would mean they would have to confiscate computers (to see if the perpetrator had frequent access to sites giving details of his/her victim, that he/she mentions in the allegation) and go through the normal process of investigating a crime. Duty bound. Or there would be hell to pay.

JK2006 wrote:
Indeed. But the charge would mean they would have to confiscate computers (to see if the perpetrator had frequent access to sites giving details of his/her victim, that he/she mentions in the allegation) and go through the normal process of investigating a crime. Duty bound. Or there would be hell to pay.


There is never hell to pay. There is targets to meet and budgets to stick to.

It would be lovely if all allegations were treated equally, but some are more "worthy" than others, some take less work than others and some are easier to fiddle.
I do agree that all falsely accused should make a complaint if they have the means to do so, and eventually attitudes might change.

One of the top solicitors in the field and a top barrister are examining the premise Honey and will let me (and you) know in due course. Individual accountability has arrived, as we can see with all the cops jailed over the phone hacking scandal (and several "leaks" are still being examined).

JK2006 wrote:
One of the top solicitors in the field and a top barrister are examining the premise Honey and will let me (and you) know in due course. Individual accountability has arrived, as we can see with all the cops jailed over the phone hacking scandal (and several "leaks" are still being examined).

I will be thrilled if it happens. I have lost all faith in the justice system after the recent farces.

JK2006 wrote:
And I think you'd find, Opus, that police would HAVE to investigate and arrest and question the person accused of false witness, perverting the CofJ and Wasting PT, as they must do for any crime.

Largely agree, BUT ... you have to put into perspective that IF an allegation is made PURELY as a result of a previous (cross) allegation, its quite likely that the second allegation was made in mallice (becasuse if it weren't they would have complained earlier, wouldn't they?)

No ITK, the second allegation is of perverting the course of justice and wasting police time prompted by the MAKING of the first, false allegation. No malice at all. Simply complaining after the crime had been committed.

In The Know (as always) wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
And I think you'd find, Opus, that police would HAVE to investigate and arrest and question the person accused of false witness, perverting the CofJ and Wasting PT, as they must do for any crime.

Largely agree, BUT ... you have to put into perspective that IF an allegation is made PURELY as a result of a previous (cross) allegation, its quite likely that the second allegation was made in mallice (becasuse if it weren't they would have complained earlier, wouldn't they?)


But they wouldn't have been defamed before the allegation, would they?

Exactly Honey. For example, the lies told about Matthew Kelly (who I had and have never met) in order to damage my appeal chances. Once the false allegations had been dropped he could have sued. But if he'd laid charges the moment he was accused, police would have had to investigate both sides for both claims instead of doing (as they tend to do) and just looking to find proof of the one claim.