But it must give Danny Day hope - isn't it Wiltshire Police who got David Bryant wrongly jailed for crimes that never took place? If these are their "credible and true" set of "victims" - no wonder they get praised by the False Allegations Industry. Now the question is - how long before VEALE gets accused of something even more dreadful?

What big teeth you've got Grandma!

if this is true :

"Last week Mr Veale told a press conference he did not know if any of those seven ‘credible’ complainants were criminals" Veale is an utter disgrace an should be run out of town.

How can a complete ignorant oaf like this possibly be in charge of a police force?

WTF is happening in the UK? Are they employing complete cretins in the police force?

Someone is soon going to examine Police and Crime Commissioners (who almost always "back" their Chief Constable, who they hire and can fire - Kevin Hurley tried to do that in Surrey, being an independent, but the CC moved to a bigger and better job, her Deputy got promoted to CC and Hurley got replaced - by a Conservative).

What a farce.

hedda wrote:
WTF is happening in the UK? Are they employing complete cretins in the police force?
I wonder if whoever released the information about the accuser is someone within the police. But perhaps it came from elsewhere.

That's an interesting article. It's a pity that it's in what I'd assume would be a rather niche publication, though one of its representatives seems to be on Question Time occasionally.

It's crazy that if repressed memory therapy has been essentially discredited it should be revived in claims of historic abuse, as if we're supposed to believe that adults who emerge simultaneously late in the day should all have reacted in the same way to crimes against them by "repressing" the memory and/or failing to report them until they all got the idea together. People are different. Surely if a criminal had been committing crime down the decades, at least one person would have managed to contact police at an earlier stage and reports would have been coming in sporadically down the years and not all at once decades later. Instead, they're praised for their "bravery" in coming forward late in the day, despite this meaning that any actual criminal would have been left to carry out their crimes for years undisturbed against other people, which doesn't seem very brave at all.

Word credible as used is meaningless, as used by the police and CPS often in media releases, as is the use of "sufficient evidence" and other similar statements. Basically an official "cover up" for incompetence in many of these type of cases.

Even Sir Richard Henriques in his report "An independent inquiry into allegations made against Lord Greville Janner" does not provide any reliable evidence to back up his conclusions.

One key word from the code is RELIABLE which is often completely IGNORED.

Extract from "The Code For Crown Prosecutors" January 2013 edition
The Evidential Stage "Have highlighted some keys words and phrases"
4.4 Prosecutors must be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against each suspect on each charge. They must consider what the defence case may be, and how it is likely to affect the prospects of conviction. A case which does not pass the evidential stage must not proceed, no matter how serious or sensitive it may be.
4.5 The finding that there is a realistic prospect of conviction is based on the prosecutor’s objective assessment of the evidence, including the impact of any defence and any other information that the suspect has put forward or on which he or she might rely. It means that an objective, impartial and reasonable jury or bench of magistrates or judge hearing a case alone, properly directed and acting in accordance with the law, is more likely than not to convict the defendant of the charge alleged. This is a different test from the one that the criminal courts themselves must apply. A court may only convict if it is sure that the defendant is guilty.
4.6 When deciding whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute, prosecutors should ask themselves the following:
Can the evidence be used in court?
Prosecutors should consider whether there is any question over the admissibility of certain evidence. In doing so, prosecutors should assess:

a)
the likelihood of that evidence being held as inadmissible by the court; and
b)
the importance of that evidence in relation to the evidence as a whole.
Is the evidence reliable?
Prosecutors should consider whether there are any reasons to question the reliability of the evidence, including its accuracy or integrity.
Is the evidence credible?
Prosecutors should consider whether there are any reasons to doubt the credibility of the evidence.

"objective, impartial and reasonable" is in almost all cases non existent so if the police, CPS and prosecutors were to professionally, with integrity do their job to the expected standard need to learn to create a hypothetical jury or judges who fitted the stated criteria as opposed to knowing that they can use emotional tactics and behind the scence antics to persuade normal judge/s and/or jury to convict.

Credible is ok for an initial assessment. Take for example the train station and the Mark Preston walk past the complainant scenario. As the case ended in court the complainant must of sounded credible. Thus this case demonstrates the utter stupidity, criminal behaviour and so of the police, prosecutors and the CPS in that "belief only" is enough for them to act upon. The "believe anything" that sounds credible approach.

The facts of the Mark Preston case themselves in reality were never credible. And this was of course confirmed by the CCTV. So in Mark's case the reliable evidence in reality always showed his innocence and the credible sounding complainant as totally unreliable, in this case the complainant was lying. Why she lied, of course, is another issue.

At this stage in the Edward Heath Report from media statements about seven credible witnesses and nothing reported to reliability tests of the credible sounding stories is pointing to "a cover up" of police total incompetence.

As to recording of reports as crimes then the complainants obtaining compensation is further incompetence. The recording of a reported crime seems ok but how it is assessed and how the computer programmer has allocated sections for assessment of the complainant and the reported crime may be a key problem or not used correctly. Like a motor accident or a house break in are two situations the complainant may well be the criminal in the case as it a false crime report to obtain insurance money as opposed to a real accident or break in.

The issue of evidence and also of assessing a crime is all BASIC level stuff and the evidenced fact of incompetence in how both are handled would indicate the police and others are employing criminals, people who excel at stupidity and people who cover.

Conclusion at this stage is nothing stated that I know of to confirm that the seven were providing reliable evidence that could be confirmed. And thus there is nothing provided to detract from the likelihood that the seven were individuals who "sounded" very believable like the actor complainant in the Mark Preston case.(Hope I am wrong!)

It's PEARSON - apart from that; very good post!

An article Head of police 'handed Heath report to MP' appeared in last week's Sunday Telegraph (1st Oct) accusing Mike Veale of handing a full copy of the Operation Conifer report to MP Andrew Bridgen, details of which were subsequently leaked to newspapers. I've been trying to find the link to post here but it seems it hasn't been published online.

md wrote:
An article Head of police 'handed Heath report to MP' appeared in last week's Sunday Telegraph (1st Oct) accusing Mike Veale of handing a full copy of the Operation Conifer report to MP Andrew Bridgen, details of which were subsequently leaked to newspapers. I've been trying to find the link to post here but it seems it hasn't been published online.

Here it is under a different title:

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/01/excl...shared-confidential/

Another article appeared in the Telegraph on July 1st stating that Sir Richard Henriques was to review the investigation "to provide some independent scrutiny". Mike Veale had wanted Prof Alexis Jay to do this but she refused. It does look like a major operation has been in progress to try to shift responsibility elsewhere.

www.pressreader.com/uk/the-daily-telegra...0701/281560880811814