unless, of course, you agree with Esther Rantzen, Max Clifford and others that people never lie about being the victim of sex offences.

Just saw ET (Esther with the Teeth) on Breakfast TV.
Her suggestions simply do not hold water - all claims MUST be tested.

The simple way to protect children - shock, horror ! - is for parents to actually look after them !

If a child is subsequently abused - is it because the parents have failed in their duty? In the vast majority of cases - YES !

Obviously, having been a victim of false allegations, I tend to veer towards protecting those damaged by lies, exaggeration or misunderstandings.

But I don't try to ignore or deny the fact that there are many genuine cases of abuse and we must protect those vulnerable and punish the abusers.

As usual, the truth is often half way between the two extremes.

The media prefers the extremes. Better stories. Police prefer the extremes. Better chance of lazy convictions. The CPS prefers the extremes and so do judges and jurors. Shades of grey are so confusing.

This new, fresh attitude to solving abuse has been provoked by Jimmy Savile's crimes. Not one of these crimes has been proved in court. But nobody is allowed to doubt the truth of the claimed offences. It's too complicated.

I wonder if attitudes would change if allegations were made against Esther Rantzen or Keir Starmer or David Cameron or a High Court Judge?

The Max Clifford/Mark Williams Thomas/Brian Marjoram method of finding, prosecuting and convicting me involved believing (or discovering) one accuser, trawling through media to get many other claims and then relying on the assumptions of jurors and judges. This approach relied on the power of average people to be influenced by media coverage and assisted in recall by interviews by the same police officers. I believe some guide lines have been changed since my case as a direct result. I cannot fault this method if it reached the truth. Unfortunately, in my case, it did not. But it did achieve the required result.

It was one hell of a good story.

JK2006 wrote:
Obviously, having been a victim of false allegations, I tend to veer towards protecting those damaged by lies, exaggeration or misunderstandings.

But I don't try to ignore or deny the fact that there are many genuine cases of abuse and we must protect those vulnerable and punish the abusers.

As usual, the truth is often half way between the two extremes.

The media prefers the extremes. Better stories. Police prefer the extremes. Better chance of lazy convictions. The CPS prefers the extremes and so do judges and jurors. Shades of grey are so confusing.

This new, fresh attitude to solving abuse has been provoked by Jimmy Savile's crimes. Not one of these crimes has been proved in court. But nobody is allowed to doubt the truth of the claimed offences. It's too complicated.

I wonder if attitudes would change if allegations were made against Esther Rantzen or Keir Starmer or David Cameron or a High Court Judge?

The Max Clifford/Mark Williams Thomas/Brian Marjoram method of finding, prosecuting and convicting me involved believing (or discovering) one accuser, trawling through media to get many other claims and then relying on the assumptions of jurors and judges. This approach relied on the power of average people to be influenced by media coverage and assisted in recall by interviews by the same police officers. I believe some guide lines have been changed since my case as a direct result. I cannot fault this method if it reached the truth. Unfortunately, in my case, it did not. But it did achieve the required result.

It was one hell of a good story.


Totally agree with what you've said here.

Also, though there are many cases of real and horrible abuse that must be delt with, just because these things do go on, doesn't mean that it is not ridiculous to ignore a fairly obvious fact that people lying about such things is also a very big problem - and a crime in itself.

I'd say to base this planned new approach on anything 'Jimmy Savile' is alleged to have done his comical - but then it's not all that funny, the accusations against him haven't even been investigated, they have no proof that those accusations are true...

In The Know wrote:
Just saw ET (Esther with the Teeth) on Breakfast TV.
Her suggestions simply do not hold water - all claims MUST be tested.

The simple way to protect children - shock, horror ! - is for parents to actually look after them !

If a child is subsequently abused - is it because the parents have failed in their duty? In the vast majority of cases - YES !

It would be ridiculous for anyone to try and suggest that any claims shouldn't be tested.

You can't just believe anything any old Tom, Dick or Harry says, just because they said so, without looking for evidence to corroborate or back it up...

I'm on your side

JK2006 wrote:
Obviously, having been a victim of false allegations, I tend to veer towards protecting those damaged by lies, exaggeration or misunderstandings.

But I don't try to ignore or deny the fact that there are many genuine cases of abuse and we must protect those vulnerable and punish the abusers.

As usual, the truth is often half way between the two extremes.

The media prefers the extremes. Better stories. Police prefer the extremes. Better chance of lazy convictions. The CPS prefers the extremes and so do judges and jurors. Shades of grey are so confusing.

This new, fresh attitude to solving abuse has been provoked by Jimmy Savile's crimes. Not one of these crimes has been proved in court. But nobody is allowed to doubt the truth of the claimed offences. It's too complicated.

I wonder if attitudes would change if allegations were made against Esther Rantzen or Keir Starmer or David Cameron or a High Court Judge?

The Max Clifford/Mark Williams Thomas/Brian Marjoram method of finding, prosecuting and convicting me involved believing (or discovering) one accuser, trawling through media to get many other claims and then relying on the assumptions of jurors and judges. This approach relied on the power of average people to be influenced by media coverage and assisted in recall by interviews by the same police officers. I believe some guide lines have been changed since my case as a direct result. I cannot fault this method if it reached the truth. Unfortunately, in my case, it did not. But it did achieve the required result.

It was one hell of a good story.

An injustice to one is an injustice to all.

It is a great shame that such a lot of sex crimes will be very difficult to prove, but I think we have to accept that it is inevitable, as with some other crimes that by their nature leave little evidence.
The idea of altering the requirement of proof for certain crimes is abhorrent, and weakens society in my opinion.

What went wrong with your appeal? And what is the current situation, please? Also, is it true that some of the allegations were laid on file and could be "re-examined" at any time?

I'm still fighting my appeal; most of the false allegations against me were either thrown out by the Judge in Legal Argument before my first trial or ordered "left on file" which meant the prosecution abandoned them (when they were shown to be over 16 or whatever). When I was acquitted in the second trial the judge instructed the CPS to drop all charges in return for sentencing me on the first trial conviction. That's the one I'm still appealing but don't hold your breath.

JK2006 wrote:
I'm still fighting my appeal; most of the false allegations against me were either thrown out by the Judge in Legal Argument before my first trial or ordered "left on file" which meant the prosecution abandoned them (when they were shown to be over 16 or whatever). When I was acquitted in the second trial the judge instructed the CPS to drop all charges in return for sentencing me on the first trial conviction. That's the one I'm still appealing but don't hold your breath.

I believe it will come right in the end.
You have the support of many good people. (And me) x

JK2006 wrote:
I'm still fighting my appeal; most of the false allegations against me were either thrown out by the Judge in Legal Argument before my first trial or ordered "left on file" which meant the prosecution abandoned them (when they were shown to be over 16 or whatever). When I was acquitted in the second trial the judge instructed the CPS to drop all charges in return for sentencing me on the first trial conviction. That's the one I'm still appealing but don't hold your breath.

Good luck, hope it all goes well

I sense a change in the direction of public opinion on this.

and lost in all this bizarre (but very British) obsession with sex is that over 70% of child abuse is non-sexual ie :physical, mental, by neglect etc and in most case, this type of abuse because it so incidious and perpetual will probably have far more damaging results.

but the ETs & MWTs of the world appear to be totally disinterested in these damaged children.