Hi JK

After my weeks holiday and reading your court case, I am absoultely staggered at why you never got accquited . If most of the evidence was complete bollox, then why did they not charge the accusers for wasting tax-payers money (contempt of court surely).

When were you aware of these accusations, I vaguely remember that you came on Steve Wright's show on Radio 2 to comment on the Brit Awards in Feb 2001 and the next thing I remember was that you were arrested.

Tell me to mind my own business, but I am just getting more or more amazed by the amount of bullshit that went on in your case. I admire the fact that you have stayed positive and have helped people whilst you were in prison as well.

It is also a shame that you are not back in the public eye as I am fairly sure that you still offer good advise to people regarding music. It's nice as well that in your Eurovision notes that you still keep on good terms with Terry Wogan.

Kind Regards

Mike Willis

Don't worry Mike, I'm still involved in music (possibly more than ever).

Yes the entire court case was a stunning revelation - I would suggest that police tend not to prosecute false accusers because they might JUST have their own behaviour examined.

As an example, one man in my case said he had not visited me or seen my house in 16 years but he clearly remembered my Front Door had been bright blue.

We proved in court that it had only been painted that colour a couple of years ago. Before that, for nearly 40 years it had been white.

Now why would he remember and state that (not green or black or red but "bright blue")?

The police interviewing him had, of course, searched my house a few weeks earlier and the Front Door is now, of course, "bright blue".

The jury clearly failed to believe the implication was important.

To me it was vital because that was the moment (reading the complaints) that I realised I wasn't mad and hadn't forgotten dreadful things.

My assumption was that he had been "assisted". Hard to prove but frightening if true.

Mike Willis wrote:
why did they not charge the accusers for wasting tax-payers money (contempt of court surely).


Try googling the amount of money paid out by the police to informers .... makes interesting reading !

Erm....kind of playing Devil's advocate JK....i'm good with the idea that bundled historical allegations resulting effectively from a Surrey Police PR campaign looking for victims and journalists with pieces of silver for their stories amounts more to collaboration than corroboration.....but......did I not see Chris Denning implicate you in such activities?

I was just trying to check that and it looks like it might have been in Ronson's 'Double life..' programme which i remember watching and having vigourous discussion with my landlady over. I've always thought Ronson underperformed as he's taken on good topics but never really got to the nub...but wasn't Denning interviewed while he was in the Czech Republic or somewhere?

Indeed Uberman, Denning was interviewed by Ronson and was trying to support me (and I agree with you, failing) but going on about my "zany and eccentric" character.

The problem was, of course, that I've always been happily and openly (to my friends) bi sexual and - when I was a teenager - that meant 50% of any activity was totally illegal and after 1967 only legal if both parties were over 21.

So, for my entire adult sex life, 50% of any activity was technically illegal.

However, 18, 19, 20 year olds were clearly not (and are clearly not) children.

Neither, in many peoples' opinion, were or are 17 and 16 year olds.

I felt it was ludicrous that a 16 year old girl could fall in love with me, me with her, and it be both legal and acceptable whereas the same relationships with males were totally illegal.

The Government (pushed by the ECHR) agreed and equalised the age of consent at 16 (two days after my arrest... draw your own conclusions).

A high profile conviction could not go down the "they didn't want it" route since the vast majority of false accusers came to my house dozens of times which any jury would assume meant they were enjoying themselves.

So the only route was to push down the ages of friends and try to persuade a jury they were under 16. Almost impossible for me to prove they weren't (especially if I'd never met them) but we managed to do that in the majority of cases (the car I'd been driving I hadn't owned - DVLA records; the recording of songs - studio diaries; etc) but failed to do that in 5 cases.

EXCEPT - I did manage it in 4 of those cases and, to my astonishment, after my defence completed, the dates were allowed to be changed (to later... always later... but not quite late enough to bring the ages over 16). And the jury sent out to consider verdicts without hearing one word of defence for the NEW time frames.

Since my release I've discovered I have a cast iron alibi that I was in America at the time of the changed dates on one conviction.

That's the basis of the current appeal.