Latest advice to police on the subject of liars making false allegations is still that cops MUST believe the accuser. Despite overwhelming evidence (Carl Beech; Danny Day etc) that the vast majority are false, either malicious, after money, genuine misunderstanding, revenges or insanity.

So the answer seems to be - if you are arrested and questioned about a false allegation of recent or historical sex abuse you must IMMEDIATELY make a counter claim against the person making the false claim, that they are attempting to pervert the course of justice.

It seems unfair to those who really believe they have been raped or whatever but this is the only way to deal with this crime. Do not wait; make your official complaint IMMEDIATELY if you believe you are a victim. Then the police can treat you as a victim for you MUST BE BELIEVED and, if you are speaking the truth, so you should be.

Then the two investigations can take place without fear or favour.

I don't think being believed applies to other crimes.

Complainants SHOULD be believed (unless obviously ridiculous) but so should the accused.

We can easily assume innocence all round unless shown to be otherwise.

The purpose should be to find the truth, not to win the case at any cost.

The current system is unsuitable for a supposedly civilised society in my opinion, and rather childish.

I think what they have done is to try and reassure genuine victims that they will not be doubted or even ridiculed if they come forward, but have bent the language so far to this end, that it sounds presumptive of guilt towards the accused.

The trouble and danger is that language is important and shapes beliefs and so behaviour; hence my other post this morning about unemployment and conflating the outcome of our response to Covid as somehow the outcome of the virus itself.

This lets the Gov off the hook and supports the media "plague terror" agenda.

Language becomes behaviour and there are some awful and obvious examples from history to support this.

We need to respect language and use it carefully.

Saying that a victim (why not complainant at this stage?) will be believed is careless.

"You will be believed" sounds like a silly unimportant point. Of course police must believe someone coming to them on ANY topic from Murder to suspected terrorism to fraud and burglary and yes sex crimes. And of course they must investigate unless they are fairly quickly certain the accuser is mad, deluded, mistaken, after revenge or child custody or divorce or hard cash.

But the investigation then must be honest. Not with an agenda. Because if it has an agenda, police become complicit in that crime.

Example; planting evidence to prove a murder DID take place. Planting drugs to help prove dealing in drugs. Planting money to prove "laundering". Assisting false accusers with details even if only "off camera" by raising eyebrows, playing with a tie, winking.

Then "you will be believed" becomes "even if you are lying for your own reasons especially if it helps us get convictions, promotion, raised budgets, media attention".

That sounds like good advice for people facing false accusations. But it's insane if police are being advised that they must believe accusers. Even now, after Carl Beech and after the Henriques report? Is the advice to police available online or is there a news report about it?

Have just found the info in a tweet from Gurpal Virdi on Simon Warr RIP's Twitter page.

"College of Policing has stuck two fingers up at the recommendations made by Sir Richard Henriques. The term 'victim' is still being used as is the intention that 'victims' are believed.

FALSE ALLEGATIONS WILL CONTINUE @FACTukorg"

College of Policing - Senior investigating officer (SIO) advice: Investigations into allegations of non-recent institutional child sexual abuseor child sexual abuse by people with a high public profile - Operation Hydrant, August 2020

Over 13,000 views to this thread in 10 hours; almost as many as to the Ghislaine Maxwell thread in weeks.

I thought I'd put up this link; I didn't; so here it is (brain going; senility looming; help).

trollexposure.wordpress.com/2020/08/06/c...e-of-prats-policing/

Take the case of David Bryant the fireman. If he had immediately filed a counter complaint against Danny Day, accusing him of attempting to pervert the course of justice and extortion, police would have had to investigate Day at the same time as they investigated Bryant and would have discovered his nefarious past. Likewise - now - Ghislaine Maxwell if she filed (as she must do) a counter claim against the Giuffre woman. Police must then "believe" and investigate Giuffre's motives and past behaviour. Simultaneously.

I think you can only accuse someone of perverting the course of justice if you use a private prosecution?

Maybe someone can explain it further?

JK2006 wrote:
Likewise - now - Ghislaine Maxwell if she filed (as she must do) a counter claim against the Giuffre woman. Police must then "believe" and investigate Giuffre's motives and past behaviour. Simultaneously.
I understand that the three accusers on the basis of whose allegations she's now charged don't include Giuffre and that she settled with Giuffre when Giuffre sued her for defamation in a 2016 civil case.

But it looks as if Giuffre is suing for defamation her again, which I don't understand.

11 August 2020: Ghislaine Maxwell’s claim of ‘critical new information’ just a stall tactic, accuser says

Ghislaine Maxwell’s claim that “critical new information” could impact her criminal and civil court cases is simply a stall tactic that should not delay the unsealing of secret court documents, one of her alleged victims argued in a letter filed Tuesday.

Virginia Giuffre, who is suing the alleged madam for defamation in Manhattan federal court, said Maxwell’s claim “illustrates her disregard for the Court’s time, as well as her willingness to engage in dilatory conduct to thwart the unsealing process,” according to the court papers.