I thought it was very well done and makes a rare but vital point.
However - please remember - most false accusers are not barking mad witches. Most are normal, decent human beings prepared to lie or exaggerate for a small amount of money when pushed by police, relatives or greed. Or are genuinely deluded and mildly amoral. Or want sympathy or attention or compensation or to be a "victim".
And will never retract or deny or tell the truth (even to their partners and loved ones).
And most police don't want the truth - they want convictions.
And most media don't like the "they were innocent" story. Society wants fairness and justice.
Despite all this there are dozens and dozens of false allegations leading to quashed convictions or acquittals (see Innocent Accused). And anybody can find them reported if they look hard enough.
There must be hundreds - if not thousands - of innocent men and women whose lives have been destroyed.
They will never ever be able to prove their innocence. Most eventually stop trying.
Until someone brave in the media dares examines this properly and until a media outlet dares publish the facts, we shall be kept happily believing in police honesty and efficiency and in the integrity of the judicial system.

When reality emerges - it will be a massive story.

I truly believe reality is coming - an unmasking of the sinister forces behind such things.

U BE DEAD had me totally mesmerised - it was very true and showed the way in which someone totally innocent can be set up and almost convicted by the system.

In the end he was incredibly lucky that the method of DNA used to trap him also provided his proof of innocence. But note even after this proved it was impossible for him to have raped the women because the DNA was proved to have been from a later date - the system continued to accuse him of raping the women until the TV programme showed visually each date in June 2002 being dismantled until the woman who "could not remember the date" and "had destroyed her diaries ( conveniently ) " was exposed as a liar and Pyscho.

For most people there is no smoking gun either way - allegations made a year after the event or more are impossible to prove either way. They rely on "Performance" and "Character Assassination - from both prosecution and defence" and the "nicest" person wins. Nothing to do with evidence - just a slanging match which someone wins on points.

This gives massive power to the system to decide who and when to prosecute someone. This means our justice system is basically a "Tool" in the hands of an oppressive Police state.

It really is time to reform the Sexual Laws and Terror Laws of the UK and bring them in line with any other crime - evidence is essential. Yes this means some people will escape justice - but it does mean that everyone who goes on trial will have to have bona fide primary evidence to back up the accusations rather than just allegations.

This TV Programme highlighted that a man can be arrested who has never met someone and bailed on a charge which carries a life sentence. His accuser got 9 years ( 4 and half before early release ).......she played high stakes and lost. It could easily have gone the other way - that is how simple it all is to stitch someone up with the UK laws and courts organised in this current way.

Hopefully Ken Clarke saw this - and others in the Ministry of So Called Justice - they could save millions in court cases !!

My letter to the Mail; they won't print it (I suspect there's a journalistic D Notice on my name) but it might make one person on the paper think...

Anyone who watched U Be Dead - the superb ITV drama based on a real life story - must have been horrified that such a series of events can happen in Great Britain today.
But, probably for the sake of greater impact, the programme depicted a mad, lunatic false accuser who dramatically broke down in court.
It did not convey the reality - that there are hundreds of false accusers, the vast majority who collect their compensation without challenge. That some are genuinely deluded, some desire attention or sympathy. Some require revenge on perceived or actual slights or rejection.
There are dozens of eventual quashed convictions rarely given space on national pages. But most never get overturned, leaving ruined lives in their wake.
The relationship between media, police and courts is also rarely covered - understandably - with the odd exception such as the Coulson phone hacking drama.
Why? Because journalists and editors don't bite the hands that feed them.
So false allegations remain generally unexposed.
Very few national newspapers are prepared to expose the miscarriages of justice that may imply they, too, got it wrong.
Very few Editors cover stories illustrating the justice system does not work.
But, as, slowly, evidence of police brutality or corruption emerges, the public is starting to wonder if they are only seeing the tip of the iceberg.
I'm still trying to get my wrongful convictions overturned. It is not easy.
But I'm starting to feel that a large section of society is becoming aware of bad apples in the judicial barrel.
And I'm noticing that some newspapers - specifically the Mail - are beginning to allow our voices to be heard.

Incidentally, Monica Dolan (who played the mad Argentinian false accuser) deserves to win a BAFTA for her stunning performance. One of the best of the year, I reckon.