Finally, faced with the inevitable, NAPAC has kicked him out. He continues to blame alcohol. Whether they will investigate his suspect claims of himself being an abuse victim is unlikely, as results could boost the truth of the reality; there are far more false allegations than real abuse. What better reason to found a charity and make millions from generous supporters than claiming to be a victim yourself? And what more important to declare, every time proof emerges of the False Allegations Industry, than "false allegations are vanishingly rare"? The plump figures of the likes of Beech and Beale (all the B's like Brexit) can be dismissed as anomalies.

napac.org.uk/peter-saunders-review-update/ …

jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.com/2013/06/th...tence-of-memory.html

His IICSA is meant to be looking at "institutions" covering up abuse. Is NAPAC an institution? They knew about the allegations (probably false but so are 85% of the claims they get). And are the IICSA themselves covering up? Have Saunders' "victims" put in claims to the Truth Project? It's not as though the claims were entirely false - Saunders has admitted everything except taking blame. Yet far less provable claims have ended in convictions and jail terms. So why didn't police and CPS pursue them?

NAPAC seems only to have suspended him pending an investigation. Some comments under the suspension announcement on NAPAC's twitter page, including from a couple of people whose own abuse stories I wonder about (one, two).

Moor reveals very interesting flexibility and escalation in Saunders' abuse story. It would make sense for NAPAC to investigate that, but it seems unlikely they'd do so. Far easier and less embarrassing to sweep it under the carpet!

Mind you we all thought Mark Williams Thomas was "toast" when his appalling past behaviour was revealed but he still pops up on TV. Media and police seem to rather like these middle men, providing them with great stories, convictions and promotion. And money, of course; loadacash.

JK2006 wrote:
Yet far less provable claims have ended in convictions and jail terms. So why didn't police and CPS pursue them?

This is what has puzzled me. Could even (just about...) say the same in reference to Carl Beech.

At least a reason has been given for the suspension. No reason was given for Andy Woodward's very early departure from the Offside Trust, the charity he co-founded in Dec 2016.

www.burytimes.co.uk/news/15084585.former...-from-offside-trust/

Nothing tweeted about this by the Intrepid vacant stare at the camera ex cop investigator who was copying in Saunders on emails during his Saviles travels Docu.

Yes I have a gut feeling the links between Saunders and MWT are a key to much bigger things.

they knew about his escapade..basically "forgave" him and even covered up for him and allowed taxpayer donations to pay for his boozy lunch.

So they have suspended him for what reason?

Because they've all been found out?

because they are worried they won't now get funding?

Self appointed "victim advocates" are an anathema and dangerous. They need to be investigated properly. This is a man who got to great heights in a very serious matter and has deceived everyone (as did NAPAC).

# Saunders' inference that it was he who was the victim and taken advantage of given what we know so far is utterly appalling and reeks of a character who believes that he is all powerful and not governed by the rules he imposes on others and for NAPAC to have supported him unconditionally is a sign of corruption.

Williams-Thomas has a knack of looking the other way and again this proves it. Also it would be nice to see him support his partner in crime (stuffing the js corpse) and backing his false allegation tale as those is marks new movement, injustices. (Lots more money than chassing peedos these days)

I'll bet you Saunders failed to mention the second woman's (more serious) allegation - it was also even more ridiculous (at least the oral sex encounter did take place - he could hardly deny it with his teenage son as a witness) - but it only proves that False Allegations are common - I reckon the majority. However he could probably have avoided mentioning it when Police and CPS decided to NFA him (why? money?). Which gives NAPAC an excuse to fire him without pay (not that they will; he virtually owns the charity).