of the MP and if she is convicted of attempting to pervert the course of justice, give her the same 18 years given to Carl Beech. Unless, of course, you subscribe to the morality that considers poisoning someone as less or more serious than stabbing someone.

Can anyone explain why they don't? If, as surely, they won't? Surely the Home Secretary must insist that they do? They have found that the MP, whoever he is, is totally innocent. Now they must investigate the false accuser - her bank account, her diaries, her phone, her friends, her exes. Her medical records. Her past history. And then, if there is evidence, prosecute her. It is a very, very serious crime, attempting to pervert the course of justice. Carl Beech got 18 years (far too much, in my opinion). His victims were, mostly, dead. But ask Harvey Proctor about the effect his lies had on him. It is time police began investigating real crimes. And prosecuted the enablers too; bent lawyers, crooked PR people.

While not an expert, my understanding is that not meeting the "evidential bar" does not necessarily indicate bad faith on the part of the complainant, and as with any other crime there would need to be a reason (or a complaint made) to lead to an investigation.

There are some very stiff penalties for perverting the course of justice. Whether they are in reality used enough, and the crimes investigated enough, I have absolutely no idea.

Good that he wasn't named. Not sure how they come to that decision or not as it seems to vary so much or what it might indicate?

Yes it is a puzzle; whilst being delighted that both Cliff and Gambo were found NFA (No Further Action) it puzzled me that my case had just as little "proof" - only the word of one person against another. This often happens. If possible, police trawl is a success and they find a few others ready to lie on oath (rewards are great especially against celebrities). Often assisting the liars (see my movies). Once in a while the fictions so extraordinary and the spotlight so bright that police cannot assist (Carl Beech - "credible and true"). Rare cases get prosecuted. But if police really cared they could easily find evidence (as I did in the 2018 debacle). It is ALWAYS there if you dig deep enough. Even now I'm constantly finding serious proof of motive and reasons amongst my false accusers. If they wanted to, police already have enough on the MP's false accuser, I'm certain. They should prosecute her.

It is an interesting but difficult dilemma in which to strike the balance between a thorough and transparently fair justice system which takes a proactive investigative approach, and creating an environment that allows genuine victims to come forward.

A genuine, traumatised rape victim is going to find it prohibitively challenging to come forward if they know that they will be investigated as much as the accused should a clear "evidential bar" not be reached. And how often and easily can that be reached in such cases? Investigating the evidence around the alleged crime is one thing, the complainant's life quite another.

It makes more sense to me - and protects genuine victims - if the accused when not prosecuted and where a genuine victim themselves, reports the complainant to the Police. Then the evidence for the originating complaint can be investigated and taken as far as necessary.

Of course this person needs to be very sure themselves of their innocence or they in turn could be prosecuted for the original offence, or perverting the course of justice!