This expensive, appalling Inquiry is typical of the way the Establishment likes to shift blame away from the guilty. When I offered to give evidence to the IICSA - after one of their key members was shown to be an abuser himself - they rejected my suggestion. The last thing they want to hear is evidence that people like Carl Beech and Jemma Beale are the majority, not the minority, and that false accusers are in the new, exploding criminal league, not a tiny minority. Not - as Peter Saunders NAPAC said - "vanishingly rare".

This latest report has Peter Saunder's fingers all over it.

twitter.com/napac/status/687995895737102336?lang=bg

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/fury-lord-...-janner-wont-5532811

www.express.co.uk/news/uk/571400/Janner-...cute-child-sex-abuse

I do sometimes wonder if I am mad. Do report writers, media etc believe there are NO false allegations? Or do they feel that Carl Beech, Jemma Beale and the others who end up in jail are just a tiny amount of criminals? In which case, still, why not hear evidence from that side? OK - panels may still find the majority are truthful. But not to examine the possibility implies they have not, either, investigated whether senior police examined claims and found them flawed or invented or exaggerated. Found the motive was money, compensation. Found the claimants untrustworthy?

I can understand when Inquiries decide against the possibility of false allegations. I can't understand when they don't even examine the possibility. It's almost as though they have an agenda.

PS's "believe the victim" approach to Carl Beech, as shown in a 2015 BBC Panorama programme (26.32), is no different to the IICSA Truth project's approach of believing stories without question.

I've had some communication with Nick. I have no issue with believing him. He sounds entirely credible to me. Why would somebody make such... any wild allegations, shall we say, about something so serious because if it was discovered that it was nothing but fantasy then the police would quite rightly and the CPS would would quite rightly throw the book at such people. And the police decided to believe Nick too.

A month after hearing Nick's story the Met announced a triple murder inquiry called Operation Midland and it came to a judgement that would define it from the start. Nick has been interviewed over a long period of time by experienced detectives from a child abuse command and he has also met an investigator from command. They and I believe. So yes we do believe what he is saying is credible and true. And that belief was to be repeated in subsequent interviews.

youtu.be/V4tnwFiUAsA


Allegations brought into the public arena require a more complex approach than simply believing that they are true.

It seems to me that false accusers are hiding behind genuine victims and holding them hostage: believe us or they get it. So if report writers, media, etc. acknowledge the possibility that some claimants might not be telling the truth, they pull the trigger on the genuine victims and call their testimony into question too. The only agenda may be to believe the genuine victims, even if that also means believing any false accusers.

I believe it is part of a broad phenomenon of modern life: identity politics.

Being a victim in the criminal justice system has come to have nearly the same quality as being black or trans. If the quality is not perceived to be given paramouncy at all times it is taken as an attack on the quality itself.

So if it is suggested that a victim not be called this until the guilt of the perpetrator has been established because it is supposition at a stage where impartiality is essential; this is seen as supporting a rapist. Or potential rapist, which is still unconscionable.

It is unconscionable because a good person could never undermine the claim of a rape victim because it might make other victims of rape not come forward - thus encouraging rapists. So the quality of being against rape (who isn't?) is given dominion over principles of individual justice. In the same way the quality of being trans is given dominion over the individual female who may not want a biological man wandering her swimming pool changing rooms.

In the criminal justice system this phenomenon is eroding the principles of blind justice and due process. Qualities take priority over individuals. The trouble for the innocent accused is he or she is attached to the quality of a rapist and the accusor to the quality of a victim.

It takes - by extension - only a passing knowledge of 20th century history to understand the dangers in putting the perceived qualities of people above the rights and realities of individuals.

Well said WYOT - a particularly good post.

I have no idea of the truth but I suspect Janner was bisexual and dabbled with a few lads (of legal age?)..perhaps even cash changed hands but this again re-writes history.

The entire world can get up to these antics but if a powerful man..most especially a British MP does what comes naturally, there is hell To Pay because it's somehow seen as depraved or rape if an older person goes with a much younger even though all Gay Life is practically built around Youth and youths being available.

*reference: Keith vaz, Harvey Proctor)

Still, they'll all be able to claim compensation now for their rooned life.

I was recently arrested and held for eight hours in a cell for asking an organisation called ‘stand up to domestic abuse’ to remove a Tweet about low traffic neighbourhoods that said organisation (SUTDA) had nicked from my feed and reimagined it as coercive control. Asking for a delete led to a brutal arrest. Alleged actor Michael Sheen is a patron of this organisation. I despair. I have no criminal record, want to be left alone but Thames Valley Police love torturing guys