I have been disturbed for some time regarding the IICSA. It appears to me that, like the official police line of "you will be believed", the Inquiry is examining only the tales told by accusers and is believing much of the stories from such as Carl Beech or his less blatant and more credible counterparts.

In my personal experience over the past twenty years, False Allegations are far more prevalent than genuine ones. At very least the system demands improving and exaggerating claims so consensual sex experiences at 16, years ago, become rape at 15 in the telling (and sometimes even in the minds of the tellers).

The ENABLERS - those who encourage this exaggeration or invention - do so for many reasons; some financial, some to gain convictions and promotion or increased budgets, some to get respect, some to enhance careers.

And the "victims" range from real abuse victims to total fantasists after money or revenge or sympathy or attention or a simple explanation for failure in life.

I reckon 85% of allegations of a sexual nature are exaggerations and many of those are total fiction. I witnessed myself, in prison, several young inmates going through the local paper to get names of convicted people they had never met so they could add fictional claims - always accepted and always getting them compensation and, indeed, prison advantages. Being a victim is a great way to gain benefit.

It may be that I'm wrong in my assumption of your agenda and that you are well aware of the situation and are seeing through many of the fantasies being given to you. I see, from your statement, that Beech was not a valuable witness to the Inquiry.

But Peter Saunders was a huge, trusted part of it. Until revealed as an abuser and predator (at which point he did what he always does - "resigned") he was allowed incredible access and influence. Similar behaviour from the Vatican, before they realised the reality and threw him out, choosing to disguise the real reason, as the IICSA has done. The world finds cover ups easier to cope with, as you must be aware.

All very well; but be honest. Both Saunders and Wolstencroft may well have been "hiding in plain sight" - using the IICSA (like NAPAC) to get contact with real "victims" for their own personal reasons, some of which may have been sexual. It is appropriate that Saunders admits that his disgraceful behaviour was with a vulnerable abuse victim. Not a hooker or a friend or a stranger. He blames drunkenness (one of the oft used excuses of abusers). But how many more are there? How many were acquired through the IICSA? How many, after being sympathetically heard by yourself and the panel, and possibly after being "trained" on when and how to break down and cry and what "credible" details to give, were taken for a drink at a pub by Saunders? And how many other predators are there in the IICSA, "hiding in plain sight"? Far from examining victims, is it providing future victims for members?

You must be aware of the grooming and training given to False Accusers - um, technically "victims". You must be aware of the huge financial benefits, both from the CICA and from the media, if the "accused" is at all notable. You must have acquired copies of packs and brochures given by NAPAC and the NSPCC on "how to convince the authorities".

I am still fighting to get my wrongful conviction from 2001 overturned. Fortunately my 2015 arrest and 2018 trial - described as a "debacle" by HHJ Taylor and resulting in several Not Guilty verdicts, the trial collapsing and HHJ Taylor refusing to allow a retrial - has produced a load of Fresh Evidence, currently being considered by the CCRC. But the immediate result of that debacle has been a fall in conviction rates by Surrey Police - from over 20% to under 4% in the year from April 2018 to April 2019.

Why was that? Was it because Surrey Police are no longer using previous techniques? And could it be that the 20% of the past involved many innocent men, currently in jail?

Which implies that the vast majority of accusers (including the 80% that even, in the past, resulted in no convictions) were false. Or, at least, exaggerated?

Assisted by police, enabled by the law which has rejected the Presumption of Innocence, motivated by large sums in compensation and media fees, egged on by greedy lawyers and others benefitting from scandals (the Jimmy Savile fiasco has made Mark Williams Thomas a fortune from Exposure) - we are seeing a world wide explosion of the False Allegations Industry.

I fear the IICSA may be a part of this. Spending our tax monies, costing us millions, encouraging false accusers and employing people like Peter Saunders who blatantly abuse vulnerable victims, met through their cloak of support. I imagine NAPAC must currently be doing a vast amount of nervous house cleaning. As must be the NSPCC - another of Beech's homes.

If you intend eventually to expose this scandalous situation, I apologise and support you.
If you intend to cover up the truth, I condemn you and strongly urge you to shut down the Inquiry now, before millions more are wasted and further damage is done to innocent men and women, their families and to vulnerable, genuine victims.

If the first is correct and you are intending to reveal the shocking size of the False Allegations Industry, I would be happy to provide you with evidence of it and be interviewed at length. But I suspect my contribution would not fit the agenda which is, I fear, to boost the attractive media story that our country is riddled with vile perverts, and therefore to justify the enormous expense of the IICSA.

I leave it in your hands. And suggest that, at very least, you take a pinch of salt about any evidence provided by past witnesses provided by, coached by or assisted by Peter Saunders, who has been shown to be a liar and a deceiver. And ask them whether they have been the recipients of alcohol bought for them by the IICSA.

I have had a reply from the Chair via Martin Smith but since it is marked Private & Confidential I don't think I should copy it here - below, however, is my reply to it.

Dear Martin Smith and Alexis Jay,

Thank you for your extremely prompt reply to my earlier letter.
As you are aware, the points I made had little to do with the remit of the Inquiry and everything to do with the day to day running of it; it was also, probably, not needed, as I’m sure the possibilities had already struck everyone there.

The discovery of the behaviour of Peter Saunders must have rung alarm bells.
The information gathered regarding “the appalling effects of abuse” may have been compromised if the people organising such interviews had not been behaving as they should do. As may have been the “failure to protect” innocent children and adults. False allegations may not be a key focus but the behaviour and reliability of trusted witnesses must, surely, be vital.

If the panel has published a report inadvertently based on information gathered from witnesses who have been groomed or trained in order to present a certain picture, for whatever reason, that report should, surely, be corrected.

If witnesses have been abused by trusted members of the Inquiry, that, too, must be investigated.
If there are other people still working on the Inquiry with similar hidden breaches of moral behaviour, they should, surely, be weeded out.

I’m sure you are already doing this. My letter was merely intended to alert you, if you had not already considered such possibilities.

Because it is perfectly possible that, since the publicity has now arisen regarding the abusive behaviour of one of your trusted members, there will be other victims of abuse by IICSA staff who will feel able to speak out. Better you reach them now and correct any past mistakes than that they go to the media with their revelations.

In which case your work so far would be even more seriously compromised.

Even if wrongly rejected, the harm done could be immense.

Without any further statement from the Chair, it must be assumed by any victims who have contemplated coming forward to give evidence, that the IICSA condones this kind of behaviour.
Unfair but, like the Catholic Church failing to protect the vulnerable by moving abusers into other dioceses, understandable. “We have nothing more to say” appears a safe strategy.

But valuable witnesses may decide NOT to give evidence if they feel that, as a result, they may be plied with alcohol and used as sex toys by an IICSA member.

At 74 I’d be delighted and honoured to be used as a sex toy by anybody but that event is increasingly unlikely. As previously stated, I am, however, available to give crucial evidence on all aspects of your remit, if asked to do so. Even if, generally, my evidence is regarded as not being “a key focus”. And if the Inquiry is genuinely interested in the level of truth in the project, I suggest my observations should at least be heard.

Best wishes,
Jonathan King

Well, if they gave you short shrift, they can't blame you if it all comes crashing down around their ears.