Or, of course, they could be true; something smells - but often those alleging sex abuse are abusers shouting too loudly to try to confuse and cover examination of their own behaviour.
I noticed this in prison.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5357951...hild-sex-claims.html

Still protected for legal reasons, and what are they?
JK you are 100% correct the biggest noises have the most to hide because all the time you make the noise nobody looks hard enough.
I can give you a dozen names who in Wandsworth stated they were on 'the numbers' because they owed debts on the main wing, oh know they were trying to hide out in the population as burglars etc but they all got found out.

Clear the landings ready for the new influx

Yes the amount of abusers on VP wings (Vulnerable Prisoners - I called it VIP Wing) who are rude to the sex criminals and later found to be the worst kind of sex offender. It is absolutely mirrored online; Tweets and Instagrams and Facebook posts abusing people are frequently by men and women who are abusers thinking they are deflecting attention. I reckon many "vigilantes" are the same.

Is there not a distinction to be drawn between those claiming to be victims and those making the loudest noise? I appreciate it need not always be the case, but it often appears that these 'victims' have been used by the MWTs and wotsit Hunters of this world - they are the people making the real noise, and most likely to have 'issues' of their own.

One does have to wonder why anyone not obliged by their employer to focus on child abuse would choose to do so unless they were deriving some kind of satisfaction or material gain from it. Bringing this round to the Rolf Harris case yet again, the Australian woman who was one of the four main accusers in his first trial was the subject of a paid pre-trial article by a women's magazine which said that she became "fixated on child sexual assault cases" (source). That seems to suggest online activity - not necessarily anything illegal, but possibly research for a story.

"Nick" must be starting to wonder whether it was a good idea to start this false accusing. Imagine if he had been provoked into doing it and encouraged in his lies by either bent cops or media?

www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-536...dophile-accuser.html

I don't understand why this man charged with sex offences cannot be named? As long as he's not officially linked to any other false claims. Unless the sensible Anonymity Until Conviction cause has won.

JK2006 wrote:
"Nick" must be starting to wonder whether it was a good idea to start this false accusing. Imagine if he had been provoked into doing it and encouraged in his lies by either bent cops or media?

www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-536...dophile-accuser.html

He has pleaded Not Guilty.

Will be a fascinating case to watch if part of his defence involves "encouragement" from police in other matters.

There is one big difference I have noticed between UK & Australian coppers. The UK cops definitely have a partisan dislike of Tories or celebrities as has been shown so many times.

Ah - police behaviour. Employing criminals to get convictions. Topic for another thread.

Matthew Parris comments here:
www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/this-...new-depths-9gvqlmh8v