I dont know if this is the right place for this? If its not... move it.

Some years ago I was accused of indecent assault and rape of a minor. Throughout the trial I was unable to speak and had to listen to days and days of so called "evidence". Of course it made all the local papers (me not having as high a profile as JK I avoided the nationals...)anyway to cut to the point I was not charged with any specific offence but several specimen charges??? After two trials I was cleared when my accuser responded to a question from my barrister.."why are you saying these things about Mr.****" her reply "because my mother told me to"

I want to know if the police have a duty to investigate allegations fully and to also look into wether the accuser is lying or making things up ?
It appears that once they have a target they set their sights to "Blinkered" and nothing can put them off their prey, Part of the police "evidence" was computer related, apparently there was a picture file on my pc bearing the name of my accuser yet no picture was produced, there was no evidence of child porn or indeed any type of porn on my pc . . . . yet the police made out that this picture bearing the girls first name was something sinister, its got to the point where we need a police force to police the police.
Finally is there any precedent for someone who is falsely accused of something taking action for compensation etc, bearing in mind that there were inches and inches of type covering the trials and a tiny couple of lines when I was found not guilty. . . Just curious about the last bit I really could not be bothered with the british legal system as it only works for you if you can (or will) pay through the nose for it.

Yes this is exactly the right place and (if you watch my film on www.VilePervert.com you'll see) this was the thing that most horrified me during my case.

I truly believed the police wanted to find the truth.

Oh, I knew there were some corrupt ones and the vast majority were probably lazy or useless (as in most professions) but I found it inconceivable that human beings could go all out to convict someone they KNEW was innocent.

When the scales dropped from my eyes and I saw this was not the case I almost died.

I'd given the police loads of proof that lies were being told. They simply used my information to get the accusers to change their statements.

I've since tried to persuade makers of TV fiction like The Bill to include a story line like this; they simply do not dare do so.

But the public are slowly becoming aware of the truth. It is frightening and sadly there is no real accountability; as you say, why bother to fight under those circumstances?

I'm going through the same thing you did.Just waiting for a court date.
Congrats on getting off,and do your best to hound that low life as much as poss.Not sure how,but of course start here.

www.false-allegations.org.uk/

They're good,so use them.
Also go to the police,make a complaint,use the trial as evidence.Be firm,and mention you'll be making a private prosecution,and need this as evidence.As a result mention your lawyer,and the press will be wanting updates.Put 'em under a bit of pressure.

Good luck.

The short answer is that the police do have a duty to investigate. The unfortunate truth is that they often only investigate from one angle to the point where they think they can make you look guilty. I don't say this lightly. I have no grudge against the police and have never been on the "receiving end" of their actions. I have seen people join the police with the best of intentions but who's attitudes change dramatically after a few months. It is not for a young officer to question procedure or intent. Soon they learn that it's all about results and they lose touch with their original principles. Truth often becomes a hindrance, and evidence which works against their preconceptions is ignored.

There may be a precedent for someone attempting to sue for compensation due to ruined reputation, but I do not think there is a precedent for success. The media are not obliged to report on your case at either end. The fact that Mr Nice Guy really is Mr Nice Guy is seen as boring, so they'll rarely give much space to someone being cleared.

You've hit the nail on the head Francis; it's not a conspiracy nor a deliberate corruption but the creeping, insidious evil that sneaks in.

Not with a bang like an explosion but corrosion of principle, subtle and hard to notice.

It needs to be pointed out and changed very soon.

the police have a statutory obligation to investigate the full facts of a case and the prosecution is obligated to only present the evidence without embellishment.

Of course in the real world this isn't always the case.

Every criminal lawyer will always tell you..never ever talk to the police without a solicitor present and even then just shut up.

Of course-The Bill gives a skewered version and paints a rosy picture of Mr Plod.

Sounds like you would have to prove they knowingly withheld facts from the defence. But that's been happening for years as we see with so many cases overturned or in the infamous IRA cases-detectives lying and planting evidence.

None have been charged with perverting the course of justice but look arond for the right lawyer. If there is one certain in this life there always be a lawyer who wants to take on the police and prove them wrong.

Cheers JK I downloaded the film a while ago but only watched it in full recently.
I have no intention of trying to claim anything as I believe it would not achieve anything and just drag up a lot of painful memories.
I am also concious of genuine cases possibly being affected by any actions. How do we change the way these cases are handled ?

Nobody really cares, it is all about results and numbers with the police, chief constables are nothing more than accountants pressuring officers for results that all too often are wrong, politicians are all on the take and its a general decline in principals that creates the current climate for grabbing what you can when you can (more so in your case JK with the press and other payments your accusers recieved). In my case the family wanted to move into council accomodation from private rented.... they got their way.
You have to forcefully prove your innocence and are not assumed innocent anymore. I get pissed off when the police give you the caution blah blah.. but if you do not mention now, something which you later come to rely on in court... etc, that tells me that you have no choice but to give all your evidence to the police so they can re-interview accusers to make the stories fit... No inferences should be drawn from silence in police interviews, you should be allowed to prove your case in court as the prosecution will have advance disclosure of your evidence anyway... it would just make it difficult for police to try make a jigsaw puzzle from pieces that dont fit. RANT OVER.

The Police are intrinsically lazy JK; they don't care who did the crime, they just want a body - any body - for it to tick the statistics and to make the public feel that they have done a job. Sometimes they get the right person, a lot of times they don't.

It's only 20 or so years later that we realise people in jail simply couldn't have done it (via DNA evidence for example), they are released, given some money, the government then claims some of that money back for board and lodging, and the cycle begins again.

I honestly believe JK that you will be found innocent, properly, but like all the other cases, no one will stand on trial for the crime(s) committed against you and a lot of other people.