..to all charges.

Trial in May.

Plenty of sleepless nights for the Usual Suspects. You know who they are.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/02/18/nick...T.mc_id=tmg_share_tw

Nick: Man who sparked Westminster child abuse probe pleads not guilty to perverting course of justice

Without being rude, why are so many of the (alleged) false claimants "aesthetically challenged"?

Ooh, interesting, sounds as if it'll be better than panto.

Maybe he wants to tell all about who helped aided and abetted along the way which I think would be a great move.
Who dug him in the ribs, pushing him along, holding his hand and telling him he will be believed.
Still time for him to change pleas.

I am surprised that the Intrepid Investigator has made no mention of this news.

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
Without being rude, why are so many of the (alleged) false claimants "aesthetically challenged"?

He claimed that he was targetted as a boy because he was so attractive.

I must admit that when I first ascertained his real name I googled it and when a photo of him as an adult came up I thought to myself "nah, mate, you're having us on."

I'm confused.

Carl Beech is being prosecuted for - allegedly - making false allegations. He says they're true. Such an assertion, without further evidence, is adequate in law to convict those he accused.

They're false, according to the case against him, because exhaustive investigation found no evidence that any of his allegations happened. But complete lack of supporting evidence seems to be no barrier to prosecuting men. And didn't exhaustive investigation find absolutely no evidence of Rolf Harris ever being at the small community centre where he was said to have groped a girl? Why is this person not also being prosecuted on the same basis as Carl Beech?

Randall wrote:
I'm confused.

Carl Beech is being prosecuted for - allegedly - making false allegations. He says they're true. Such an assertion, without further evidence, is adequate in law to convict those he accused.

They're false, according to the case against him, because exhaustive investigation found no evidence that any of his allegations happened. But complete lack of supporting evidence seems to be no barrier to prosecuting men. And didn't exhaustive investigation find absolutely no evidence of Rolf Harris ever being at the small community centre where he was said to have groped a girl? Why is this person not also being prosecuted on the same basis as Carl Beech?

Because then we might all find out that Rolf Harris not (presumably) a paedophile after all.