Justifying their enormously expensive investigation into mass murder of children the police have charged another person with "Historic Sex Offences".

It's marvellous how this old charge - so easy to make, so impossible to prove, so certain to get a conviction - has become the failsafe backup way of the police justifying spending loads of our tax money.

I predicted this 8 years ago.

When no evidence is needed (like milk teeth?!!) and it is one (soon to be wealthy) person's compensation claim against another ("I didn't do it"), police leap at it every time.

In Australia artist Bill Henson has been called a pornographer by the new Prime Minister as his police justify confiscating his work from an art gallery.

Always a good way to win over the masses - condemn child nudity as filth.

A few of us think it says more about the dirty minds of the repressed perverts making the accusations than the reality of innocence.

You have not even noticed that the person arrested was a RESIDENT ( a Teenage child ) at the time of the alleged offences that took place in the 1970s.

So we are looking at a 45 year old man would have been between the age of 11 and 16 at the time of the alleged Sexual offences for which he has been arrested.....ahem.

Therefore the POLICE are no arresting Retrogressively for consenting under age kids.

The message to all kids who are 11 - 16 years old now is this : Get yourselves in a relationship and make sure you have sex and if possible record this on your phone etc. This is a "nest egg" for 20 years time when you can accuse the other person of assault and then claim the

Yes BR, that extraordinary fact has been avoided by the media - yet the man has been remanded in custody for crimes he may have committed as a 15 year old, 30 years ago.

That is truly frightening. Even if he's totally guilty it is frightening.

And it really does put a huge question mark over the integrity and motives of the police involved.

Anything to get favourable media coverage.

It appears he has pleaded guilty but at that age it can only mean he was in the home as a child himself-not one of the carers. All the children must have been fairly disturbed by their circumstances and activity between each other is very common.

It recalls another one at a rally in Jersey who claims he was abused by 2 older lads-but only says they kept picking on him and occasionally biffed him in the nose and made him do their chores for them. Not very nice but really something one should get over after 25 years. Perhaps he will "remember" they sexually assaulted him-if he can remember their names !!

Not much evidence though of all those children's bodies burnt in the fireplace we are now being told about ! Didn't someone notice they were missing ?