Is it when claims are provoked by calls from police? "Would you like to make a false allegation against somebody?". Or is it when they imply "there could be cash in it as compensation"? Or when they stand on steps proclaiming false allegations "credible and true" before investigation? Or when they deliberately conceal information (Geoff Long's Pink Sink) in order to gain miscarriages of justice convictions? Or when they slide "helpful" information or advice into interviews "it's not your fault - this blackmail attempt"?

The day will come when a Judge decides this. Mind you, retired Judge Richard Henriques (bless his name) has come pretty far with his Report on Operation Midland. Who would have known, otherwise, that police should NOT lie on oath to a Judge?

JK2006 wrote:
Is it when claims are provoked by calls from police? "Would you like to make a false allegation against somebody?". Or is it when they imply "there could be cash in it as compensation"? Or when they stand on steps proclaiming false allegations "credible and true" before investigation? Or when they deliberately conceal information (Geoff Long's Pink Sink) in order to gain miscarriages of justice convictions? Or when they slide "helpful" information or advice into interviews "it's not your fault - this blackmail attempt"?

The day will come when a Judge decides this. Mind you, retired Judge Richard Henriques (bless his name) has come pretty far with his Report on Operation Midland. Who would have known, otherwise, that police should NOT lie on oath to a Judge?

I think it starts even when they take a statement. I have never once had them write down what I have said,and they get stroppy when I demand they write exactly what I say, and stroppier still when I once took it off the PC and did it myself.
This is just as a witness. I cant imagine how someone accused and distressed would stand up to hours of word twisting.

I think they start before that Honey. I think the practice of trying to provoke false allegations with media publicity (as used against me in 2000) is itself Conspiracy to Pervert The Course of Justice. By hooking in the media as co conspirators. Watching that ghastly cop standing outside Sir Edward Heath's house and begging for false allegations to assist his quest for promotion, increased budgets and favourable press by using the words Credible and True before any investigation is evidence, not just of stunning stupidity, but criminal activity. If living people were falsely accused as a result (as we gather some were) it could provoke trials or even death (stress is a killer).

Wait and watch. It will happen.

I've not posted before but found this thread fascinating. I work for a National paper and we are poised to do a big spread on this. I shall contact you via the Email.

I have always wondered if this was an officially sanctioned fishing expedition:

twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/274181776283406337?lang=en

That could have told anyone anywhere in the world with Internet access all they needed to know to make a Savile-type sex allegation. The ability to tweet the info "currently" suggests good contacts. Retweeted closer to 900 than 800 times when I first saw it.

It went out first thing on the day of publication of the Leveson report, which said:

"I think that it should be made abundantly clear that save in exceptional and clearly identified circumstances (for example, where there may be an immediate risk to the public), the names or identifying details of those who are arrested or suspected of a crime should not be released to the press nor the public."

(appears twice in Volume II of the report: para 2.3 on p. 791, para 3.3 on page 984)
webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140...c07/0780/0780_ii.asp

Alexander wrote:
I've not posted before but found this thread fascinating. I work for a National paper and we are poised to do a big spread on this. I shall contact you via the Email.
You show us yours will show you ours.
If your in the know you will know how to make contact directly

Yes JO; good point - when are other "helpful" people involved in conspiracies? Is it when they tip off a TV station that someone's house is about to be raided? Thinking that modern technology won't pinpoint their name and address even when using a proxy (Doh!)? And how about the Crown Prosecution Service? When does incompetence move into conspiracy? OK - perhaps the CPS should have got the police to check Danny Day's background when he made false allegations about David Bryant. But the lack of doing that could be MISFEASANCE in public office and not Malfeasance or Conspiracy. However, when they read statements with clear lies or contradictions in them and STILL authorise prosecution, it moves from passive activity to active involvement.

Likewise, if they provide a criminal with paper on which to forge official letters. Is that just being helpful or is it contributing to a crime?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2217352...le-BBC-decision.html