I see a sports coach has pleaded Not Guilty to several charges of historical sex abuse. Question is a hypothetical one - is someone in that position allowed to make a formal complaint against their accusers of Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice (which I assume they should only do if he/she IS innocent)?

If he does, do police then have to investigate these allegations?

Are they legally obliged to do so?

And if they do, is the Media entitled to carry the names of those accused of that crime? They do not, of course, get anonymity as accused perpetrators of the crimes. Likewise, since the crime is not in any way technically a sex crime, all names can be carried and all details published?

I would assume charges and/or trials would only kick in after the other trial, and the coach would be in a far stronger position if he (or she) were to be found Not Guilty at his (or her) trial.

And in that situation, would he or she be able to add any overly helpful (to the false accusers) other people to the charge?

Looking back, for example, could someone like Jim Davidson do this? Are they not entitled to Justice? Or is the kind of behaviour, whilst seeming like a modern version of Blackmail, not considered a serious crime?

JK2006 wrote:
I see a sports coach has pleaded Not Guilty to several charges of historical sex abuse. Question is a hypothetical one - is someone in that position allowed to make a formal complaint against their accusers of Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice (which I assume they should only do if he/she IS innocent)?

If he does, do police then have to investigate these allegations?

Are they legally obliged to do so?

And if they do, is the Media entitled to carry the names of those accused of that crime? They do not, of course, get anonymity as accused perpetrators of the crimes. Likewise, since the crime is not in any way technically a sex crime, all names can be carried and all details published?

I would assume charges and/or trials would only kick in after the other trial, and the coach would be in a far stronger position if he (or she) were to be found Not Guilty at his (or her) trial.

And in that situation, would he or she be able to add any overly helpful (to the false accusers) other people to the charge?

Looking back, for example, could someone like Jim Davidson do this? Are they not entitled to Justice? Or is the kind of behaviour, whilst seeming like a modern version of Blackmail, not considered a serious crime?

Brilliant. Surprised that hasn't been thought of before. Perhaps these fantastic minds in the legal profession aren't quite all they're cracked up to be.

Where legal laws are in conflict with themselves appears to be an issue deliberately avoided by the whole UK justice system (Thus Human Rights law is disregarded when making and applying the law if there is a conflict).

The statements made by various senior police officers that “they had to investigate the allegations...” as currently used as an excuse for malpractice is just nonsense within the context of the various investigations carried out with phenomenial incompetence.. Yet as you have pointed out if the allegation is made that various people including the complainant are lying and/or manipulating the system thus committing the crime of “perverting the course of justice”.... well, for some reason those grounds do not count for the “must be investigated” mantra.

It is exactly the same issue with many laws and practices such as the statute law that the court can accept one person's word alone to allow the jury to convict at the "level of beyond all reasonable doubt". To get around “the reasonable doubt level” that word only evidence inherently gives rise too the court now uses an undefined word “sure” thus clouding any clarity, in thought, the jury by some miracle may happen to have.

From the Vicky Pryce trial:

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/libera...o-reach-verdict.html

Q4: Can you define what is reasonable doubt?

Answer: “A reasonable doubt is a doubt that is reasonable. These are ordinary English words that the law does not allow me to help you with.”


People in the justice system are not brillant with the law they are brillant at deception with the games they play with the law.

My observation is the UK justice system in many areas (obviously not all) is lawless. They are like creative accountants hoodwiking the stockmarket to maintain the share price. They are like gangsters. And worst they control the whole sytem and are not made to account for their actions or inactions. Just look at the power the appeal judges have.

JK glad you have raised the issue.

An excellent post, as always, John Marsh.

I find myself asking a question raised by Lenin, who as a stupid teenager I once revered: "What is to be done?"

It seems to me, and I know I'm repeating myself, that Spinoza bequeathed us an observation we would do well to enforce: virtuous government (and policing) should not depend on the behaviour of virtuous individuals. It should remain possible for a government (or police investigation) to be run by villains and yet remain virtuous, because clear checks and balances are in place - and are enforced - to ensure groundless demagoguery, politically expedient spin and pernicious lies never become ascendant.

I think we've fallen rather a long way short of Spinoza's most basic standard.

I am basically a fan of much of Communism, Pete, so would not called you Stupid as a teenager. I actually played Trotsky in a Charterhouse School play. A hefty chunk of Communism is well intentioned and I think most would and should agree with it. The problems come because it went to extremes (due to the extreme dictatorship of the monarchy) and it ignored human nature. There is no point building a political philosophy if it ignores basic and natural human nature which cannot and should not be changed, no matter how much we may dislike those aspects. Communism started because people wanted food and freedom. It failed because people also wanted to better themselves and their families. Remove and change the bad parts of communism, combine it with the best parts of capitalism (likewise an excellent philosophy with basic flaws) and we may have the ideal system. Which could be best seen as benign autocracy except for the fact that those leaders tend to become malignant very quickly.

pete wrote:
...
It seems to me, and I know I'm repeating myself, that Spinoza bequeathed us an observation we would do well to enforce: virtuous government (and policing) should not depend on the behaviour of virtuous individuals. It should remain possible for a government (or police investigation) to be run by villains and yet remain virtuous, because clear checks and balances are in place - and are enforced - to ensure groundless demagoguery, politically expedient spin and pernicious lies never become ascendant.

I think we've fallen rather a long way short of Spinoza's most basic standard.

Pete the quote and your comment go to "the heart of the solution" that has already worked historicaly and currently. The ruthless, blood thirsty Roman Empire lasted centuries and did implement many good things plus a certain order. And a key was separation of powers. It was a minimal implementation yet still had some success.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza
Is this the Spinoza you refer to?

I can see that the jury system has some good points. In that where a jury trial takes place, the proceeding is then directed to twelve people who are independent from the justice system. Yet it falls short of, shall we call it the Spincza Standard. I maintain that in all endeavours where openess is a must that the modern words of transparency and accountability must be adhered to in the practices. So if the the jury conclude the presented evidence say at the Rolf Harris original trial, for example, of the alledged molested eight year old at the community centre is correct, he is then convicted, as he was by the original jury. Then we the public should be in no doubt that was the only conclusion that the jury could reach because the evidence and reasonaing is clearly available to demonstrate the conclusion was correct based on the available evidence with it's collection and presentation all supporting the conclusion.

What has become clear as the defence raised the eight year's case (second trial) that the available evidence showed that the alledged incidence, was as near 100% as possible, never happening at all.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/24/rolf...ial-cannot-remember/

I use this example, the defence's conclusion, as it is the public domain and the prosecution never challenged it, nor anyone else for that matter.

And this evidence and it's presentation to the public exist and is not dependent on the characters of defence or prosecution. But that nothing has been done with the publicly disclosed information highlights a great lack in the judiciary.