With all the controversy yet again surrounding the payment of witnesses for publication, or payment of informers ? not just provoked by the DAMILOLA TAYLOR case but the Canadian teacher and many other recent abominations ? I wonder whether it might bring home, to those in authority, just how unfair the current British legal system is, if the following were to happen.   Someone could publicise, on line, in print, through media outlets and word of mouth, that he (or she) would pay the sum of TEN THOUSAND POUNDS (£10,000) on conviction of any of the following for historical sex offences.

The key officers in a major Police Force. The CRIME PROSECUTION SERVICE personell.   A high court, Old Bailey judge.   The editor and chief reporters of the DAILY NEWS.

It would be stressed that only genuine, legitimate, honest allegations are sought.   But it would also be pointed out that, in British law, no proof is needed and claims can go back decades.   So, for instance, if a girl was l5 when the person was l7, would they please consider applying. Or if a relationship soured because the person pushed or forced someone of either gender into sex ? that was RAPE.   They can go back 30,40,50 years.   They need no evidence or corroboration whatsoever and their anonymity is guaranteed ? with the advantage that, even if the victim decides not to go through with the allegation, for any reason, they can NEVER be named (so even wives and husbands need never know, and any payments can be concealed in separate bank accounts).

The publicity inspired by any changes?EDITOR ACCUSED OF RAPE?OLD BAILEY JUDGE FACES CHILD ABUSE CHARGES? will inevitably provoke further independent allegations which will strengthen the Prosecution?s case.   And it will raise the profile of the case ? probably leading to further cash payments from the media afterwards.

And, on top of the £10,000 offered and the £30-40,000 which could be earned from media interview sales, the CRIMINAL COMPENSATION BOARD is offering up to £33,000 as well.  

A not unattractive reward for spilling the beans on a few skeletons in closets ? and nearly EVERONE has a couple of those.

As far as I can see, nothing illegal would be taking place. The £10,000 would simply be encouraging the revelation of past wrongdoing ? and British law currently upholds such behaviour and encourages such convictions by allowing one person?s word against another?s once described as HEAR SAY, to be regarded as evidence.

Would you not ? especially if you were the JUDGE or the EDITOR or the JOURNALIST or LAWYER or JUROR involved and named ? regard this as being a total and absolute breach of your right to a FAIR TRIAL?

With as much as £100,000 available to the ?victim?, would you not fear that exaggeration or invention was being encouraged?

It?s almost worth the cost of the experiment, isn?t it?

Because that?s almost exactly what happened to me ? although the £10,000 was never actually offered, as far as I know, or can prove.   But the rest of the money was there ? and paid.   It would be a very interesting game. TONY BLAIR? DAVID BLUNKETT?   Because, unless it happens to YOU, nobody cares very much or believes there?s been an injustice.

STEPHEN DOWNING in prison for 27 years for a murder he did not commit?   Who cares, other than him, his family and one brave, honest, local newshound.   DAVID JONES ? almost in prison, if it had not been for a judge who threw out the allegations?   Who cares, other than him and his family?   Certainly, nobody cares enough to prosecute the lying ?victims?.   We should give thought to offering ?rewards? to people who might ?shop? senior police officers, judges, journalists, lawyers, editors.   Could be fun ? might provoke change.