Not a bad look at mad Beech who did us all a favour by being so completely stupid about the way he tried to make money and gain attention that he's shown about 5% of observers what the tip of the iceberg looks like. Sad that the other 95% remains convinced the False Allegations Industry does not exist.

Unfortunate they didn't mention his infiltration of charities - he worked for both NAPAC and the NSPCC. Although other events have brought down Peter Saunders (the NAPAC pervert) - the other Peter (Wanless) remains at the profitable NSPCC. For now. And they only briefly mentioned Tom Watson.

But I went through this 20 years ago. Back then it was completely impossible to think the combination of media, liars and police could destroy people.

And interesting to know that police failures to convict innocent people kicked in after MY acquittal in 2018 and not the Beech scandal. In the year following the collapse of the "debacle" (HHJ Taylor's word) of Surrey Police's Operation Ravine, convictions for sex offences dropped from over 20% to under 4%.

All very well; but how about the thousands of innocent men and women who were wrongly convicted, jailed, committed suicide? What about the reputations of people like Jimmy Savile who was never convicted of anything but clearly suffered from hundreds of lesser Carl Beeches? What about the corrupt lawyers and bent cops still today making millions in fees or promotions or interview fees? What about the ENABLERS?

It could have been worse. It could also have been better.

I agree. How the police interpret the law is totally skewed against anyone that they choose to target. People have received custodial sentences for minor fibs which don't impact anyone (e.g. speeding points) whereas very little action is taken against people who make false allegations or against the people who support them.

Proving an allegation to be false at the earliest opportunity would actually benefit false accusers who have mental health issues. Support could be provided to them (vs. locking them in jail, I'm very against jail except for violent offences) and future allegations could be considered with the background that a past allegation has been proved to be false. This would be all the better if anonymity was provided to the accused and the accuser.

Pretty disturbing that he used to be a paediatric nurse. Presumably (?) he'll be perfectly safe in not having his activities while in that role investigated. How ironic that the authorities should refrain from doing that while happily going along with the tales of everyone else claiming abuse by Jimmy Savile.

James (School bully) O'Brien is also a shit stirrer.

mobile.twitter.com/Fox_Claire/status/1298243106647814144

mobile.twitter.com/Fox_Claire/status/1298243106647814144

Jo wrote:
Pretty disturbing that he used to be a paediatric nurse. Presumably (?) he'll be perfectly safe in not having his activities while in that role investigated. How ironic that the authorities should refrain from doing that while happily going along with the tales of everyone else claiming abuse by Jimmy Savile.

I want to know what his wife saw in him. Carl has a spooky smile, seems to be crap in bed, very overweight even in his younger days and a series of very shit haircuts.

The police probably just saw the pound signs; if they could crack this case with Beech there be millions more in book deals. I'm sure MWT would of been on the bandwagon somewhere.

I have no idea if Beech was abused by his stepfather; but Beech does seem to be a very disturbed person, especially what he Googled and downloaded. 🤮

Beech has certainly fucked it up now for a lot genuine victim's and survivors of sexual abuse what a stupid and cruel 🤬.

Re his wife, I'd been thinking the same thing. I'd assumed that he'd put on weight, but as you say, photos show that he was overweight even when younger. He also apparently had poor personal hygiene (source).

I'm guessing his stepfather didn't abuse him. If he was lying about everyone else, chances are he was lying about him too. As pointed out in the Barthsnotes link above, he had apparently waited until his stepfather was dead before accusing him.

There is also input from Joan Harborne, the ex-wife of Beech’s deceased step-father Raymond Beech, and their daughter Heather, who would have been Carl Beech’s step-sister (Beech was born Carl Gass, but took his step-father’s surname). Ray Beech was the first person whom Carl Beech accused of “historic” sex abuse, and Dawn Beech believes that this allegation at least was genuine. However, Harborne and Heather are adamant that this is not the case, and a PA journalist named Tom Wilkinson adds that Carl had employed a private investigator to find out whether Ray Beech was still alive before he first went to police in 2012 – indicating that he made efforts to ensure Ray was no longer around to defend himself before he made his first allegations.

Just came across this excellent post from Misa, among other interesting posts on the same page:

Beech began with Savile. That is why he was believed.

The Metropolitan police had told us that he – Savile – was guilty, without an investigation (well they couldn't; he'd been dead a year) and, of course, without a trial. The Met allowed the NSPCC to man the phone lines for Operation Yewtree – to record all of Savile's crimes, once his guilt had been announced on television. This is of course is the route to obtaining what's required for a CICA claim – a crime number.

Womble-suit rapes, eyeballs stolen from the morgue to make jewellery, anything goes. The Met tell us his 'every waking moment' was spent thinking about offending...and remind us of the oxymoronic trope 'hiding in plain sight'...not to mention telling us it was the tip of an iceberg. Don't trust your own eyes, your own experience, whatever you do!

An omnivorous predator – infants, teenage boys and girls, young men and women, some in middle-age, old people, and, of course, corpses. Do you believe that? The first human being in history with a sexual preference for absolutely everything.

The police declared him guilty. The courts approved the division of his estate among the compo lawyers (not enough to pay their customers, of course), I suppose CICA (i.e. we) picked up the tab.

As the Mail reported this week, even with the bar to receiving compensation set so pitifully low that Carl Beech could succeed in his claims, the majority of the CICA claims for Savile were rejected. Seriously. More people too thick to claim than actually capable of it. But, of course, this wouldn't have affected their lawyers' fees from the estate.

The BBC and the NHS spent millions on reports commissioned to establish their own innocence – not to consider whether any of the accusations were even plausible – and of course, they happily settled with the grifters and fantasists who applied.

It's not even remotely surprising that Carl Beech was believed. The Met sponsored even more bizarre allegations against Savile. Once you believe those, why not believe such of retired bishops...and the rest of us?

hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2019/07/...ons-for-the-pol.html

Seems that the tossers (James mainly) on LBC pushed the agenda and of course (fake news) Guardian had to bring race to it. www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jul/22/...-he-was-middle-class

Maybe Tom Watson and LBC staffers should be interviewed by the authorities for pushing this agenda. It's not only Carl Beech who put the accuser's in an early grave it's the media.


quillette.com/2019/07/25/the-many-lies-of-carl-beech/

conservativewoman.co.uk/how-to-be-right-...hos-gone-very-wrong/

www.spectator.co.uk/article/james-o-brie...beech-witch-hunt/amp

www.spectator.co.uk/article/james-o-brie...d-sex-abuse-lies/amp

It really does seem that the majority simply cannot see Beech was just the tip of the iceberg. Most accusers exaggerate; some "assisted" by police or lawyers; some invent; some badly (Beech and the loony who claimed Cliff assaulted him at a Billy Graham rally); some deliberately (the Internet has really helped criminals gather facts and details to make false claims seem credible); some for profit, some for attention, sympathy, some out of genuine delusion often caused by drink or drugs or rejection.

Time to wake them up; if only for the thousands who were jailed, killed, had lives ruined, destroyed families yet were totally innocent.

JK2006 wrote:
...the Internet has really helped criminals gather facts and details to make false claims seem credible...
I definitely think that happened in the Rolf Harris case. Tonya Lee, who gave an interview to Woman's Day magazine (one of her pre-trial paid interviews), which reported that she became "fixated on child sexual assault cases", suggesting that she'd been busy online, had a story, given in a paid TV interview in May 2013, uploaded immediately to YouTube, that had numerous points in common with an interview about alleged abuse by Jimmy Savile given seven months earlier to This Morning, uploaded immediately to YouTube, by Jimmy Savile's great niece (who according to the Daily Mail was considered by various family members, including her own daughter, to be lying and was subsequently investigated for fraud).

I think the online activity of accusers should be investigated as a matter of course, not just that of accusees.

When following Rolf Harris's 2014 trial in the media, I also noticed that the prosecution barrister had been using language to describe him that mirrored how Jimmy Savile had been described in media reports published online, e.g. "untouchable", "Jekyll and Hyde", "dark side" (source). RH accusers were also reported to have described him in court as a "dirty old man" and "octopus" with "hands everywhere". Interestingly, all these expressions are euphemisms, not specific but allowing the listener's/reader's imagination to do the work and think the worst.

The delicious proof of this was Ted Heath and Nick's details about his sailing and conducting; all grabbed from online searches. All out of date; wrong periods.

And the really important part which has nothing to do with Bonkers Carl; in their desire to rectify ignoring genuine rapes and abuse, police, media and bent lawyers have crossed the line and become enablers - encouraging & provoking claims in order to get great stories, budget increases, fat newspaper interview fees, promotion and compensation cash.

These are crimes. Not just attempting to pervert the course of justice.