They are the vast majority but most cannot be proved. I reckon 85% of those in prison for sex offences should not be there. Like Al Fayad and others - exaggeration or even invention.

warwick.nub.news/news/local-news/warwick...ears-his-name-243214

At least False Accusers are creeping up in sentences - 3 years is not yet 20 years for an imaginary rape but it's better than nothing. A mild deterrant.

What staggers me is the amount of those convicted where new substantial and corroborated evidence is binned or overlooked. As for high profile cases I believe it's nigh on impossible to have a fair trial. Multiple accusers seems to mean 'guilty' despite often glaring inconsistencies in 'evidence'.

There's also the issue of the defence team at trial being made aware of evidence that suggested an accuser was lying but choosing not to use it and a new defence team putting it forward at the appeal and the appeal judges declining to receive it and give the new defence team a "second bite of the cherry". It happened in the Rolf Harris case. See paras 83 and 84 of the appeal judgment. www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017...-harris-judgment.pdf

I'm convinced the Rolf Harris accuser copied Jimmy Savile's great-niece's story (because the Rolf Harris accuser didn't have a genuine story of her own), as I counted 17 points in common between their two stories AND the Rolf Harris accuser told a women's magazine, in one of her paid pre-trial interviews (still can't fathom how she was allowed to appear in court after that), that she had become "fixated" on child sexual assault cases, which suggested to me that she'd been "researching" the subject online (because she didn't have a genuine story of her own). (And it seems that Jimmy Savile's great-niece's story wasn't even true either, as I seem to remember Amanda saying here that the great-niece hadn't even met Jimmy Savile.)

Downing Street Cat wrote:
What staggers me is the amount of those convicted where new substantial and corroborated evidence is binned or overlooked. As for high profile cases I believe it's nigh on impossible to have a fair trial. Multiple accusers seems to mean 'guilty' despite often glaring inconsistencies in 'evidence'.

This has happened so often over the decades.

The Leslie Moleseed case where police had evidence that that poor man Stefan could never have committed the rape and murder of the poor girl (he was sterile and his semen didn't match what was found) yet still pressed for a conviction. This is so earth shatteringly wrong yet no police officer was ever convicted for this blatant fraud let alone miscarriage of justice.

The police and judiciary were corrupt then and are corrupt now. Nothing has changed.

The Rolf Harris case was a farce. Again people step forward after four decades of silence complaining of abuse. One of his accusers claimed Harris had molested her in Portsmouth in 1973 at a public event. It later transpired I believe that Harris proved beyond doubt he had never visited Portsmouth and the Public event had never taken place. I believe that particular accusation was much later dismissed. It wasn't possible for Harris to have a fair trial from the moment it became daily headline news. Another accuser changed her statement three times, claiming the passing of time had clouded her memory of actual events. She did however recall in graphic detail what he did to her. Odd that isn't it? Once someone changes their original statement it should be immediately thrown out. In my opinion.