You may have bought and read my book Not A Knee On The Neck (Amazon £1.99) - here is the exact moment from the transcript in court (note spelling mistake) when the False Accuser (W) admitted to Judge and Defence (J & D) that he had been making £500 a week as a 14 year old waiter at Claridges, implying that he had been a "rent boy" or male prostitute.

This was prompted by the remark he made in a statement to police that I had given him £200 once as a birthday present. True - after a huge amount of his begging and cajoling that - as a 16 year old (I only met him when he was 16) he had BORROWED £200 from me for an abortion that "a friend of a friend" needed.

£200 then would be £800 in today's money - the going rate for private abortions in the 1970's and early 1980's.
He never repaid that loan.

www.kingofhits.co.uk/component/option,co...,64/?g2_itemId=10151

Interesting; in 20 minutes 2134 people have read this thread!

I thought you said you always gave, and never lent? I remember it because I do the same. I think a loan prolongs the problem.

You're right Honey and I've stuck by that all my life but there is always the odd exception.

I remember this young man was a charmer. I nicknamed him Curler because of his curly hair. Clearly a minor villain, rent boy and naughty Artful Dodger type. As illustrated during my 2018 trial when, as Prosecutor paused to look at her notes, he looked over, caught my eye, smiled and winked! I could not stop myself smiling back. There was this man (now in his 60s), now without hair, who clearly was only lying to get money from the state, giving me the sign that he had nothing against me in person.
Several jurors saw this and, looking at me, raised their eyes to the sky.

But that charm and twinkle had managed to persuade me, against the habit of a lifetime, to give him £200 back in 1980 or thereabouts. I only forced him to consider it a LOAN because I was sure he'd never give it back (as he didn't) and I was sure the abortion was due to him not "a friend". It wasn't until 2018 that I discovered he'd raped his sister several times when he was 20 and she was 10, probably because his father was raping his other sisters on a regular basis.

JK2006 wrote:
You're right Honey and I've stuck by that all my life but there is always the odd exception.

I remember this young man was a charmer. I nicknamed him Curler because of his curly hair. Clearly a minor villain, rent boy and naughty Artful Dodger type. As illustrated during my 2018 trial when, as Prosecutor paused to look at her notes, he looked over, caught my eye, smiled and winked! I could not stop myself smiling back. There was this man (now in his 60s), now without hair, who clearly was only lying to get money from the state, giving me the sign that he had nothing against me in person.
Several jurors saw this and, looking at me, raised their eyes to the sky.

But that charm and twinkle had managed to persuade me, against the habit of a lifetime, to give him £200 back in 1980 or thereabouts. I only forced him to consider it a LOAN because I was sure he'd never give it back (as he didn't) and I was sure the abortion was due to him not "a friend". It wasn't until 2018 that I discovered he'd raped his sister several times when he was 20 and she was 10, probably because his father was raping his other sisters on a regular basis.

It explains why the poor sod is deranged, like many others, I suspect.

It would be awful to dismiss the claims of vulnerable people, but it is patronising and unhelpful for them to be "encouraged" through the legal process when everybody can see it is all made up right from the start.
I would call it abusive.

JK2006 wrote:
Interesting; in 20 minutes 2134 people have read this thread!

That claim in itself is a false allegation. I will bet as much money as you'd like to put on the table that on New Years day 2,134 people did not read this thread in a 20 minute period.

Let me know how much BB and I'll send you the statistics!

Now over 3000.

Admittedly now almost 5 hours.

Three hours in...

JK2006 wrote:
Three hours in...

Those aren't people they are computer bots. You ask people to use common sense and call out folks for being stupid perhaps you should apply some common sense and think about the claim you are making rather than quote numbers you have read.

Maybe you genuinely believe 2,300 real pepole visited this site this morning to read this thread and it all happened in a 20 minute period. Then again you believe 90% of the hospital beds taken up by Covid-19 patients are really suffering from a media induced increase of symptoms common sense isn't in play .

Ah yes well there you could be right BB; I have no way of checking whether or not readers or visitors are real or "computer bots" (I have no idea what they are). And I may be wrong and the slight increase in bed occupancy from most winters may not be the result of a media campaign (we'll know soon enough when government starts appealing for slightly ill people to stay at home instead of opening up Nightingales and staffing them with the military who, let's face it, have little else to do these days).