Duty to tell?

[Mill Wheel]

In the light of recent high profile celebrities and former politicians, I wondered if there is a duty to report suspicions others may have harboured in the past if there is no proof?

Also, the police are acting on the allegations made by individuals, whose names are revealed in the hope that other victims may come forward - but they DON'T reveal the names of those making allegations - and yet some may have information or suspicions that those individuals are not telling the truth.

Historic allegations have a huge difficulty in that time distorts the recollections of timings of events - when asked, many people could not remember the date the National Lottery started, so my view is the standard of evidence should be high enough to justify naming the alleged perpetrators.

Those who worked with ted Heath have expressed the view that his behaviour never gave cause for concern... and Harvey Proctor has challenged people to come forward with any proof of wrong doing on his part - but should we rely on people conscience, or should the police be contacting them anyway?

[Mill Wheel]

TheBear said:

Comparing remembering the start of the National Lottery with remembering a significant sexual abuse event is plainly ridiculous.

And yet the police expect those falsely accused to recall where they were, and who with, to form the basis of their defence - but as you point out if they ARE innocent, expecting them to remember something they had no reason to recall is ridiculous - but the police don't accept this state of affairs.
THAT leaves questioning the validity of the allegations and the accusers motives as their only defence... and yet they are denied the opportunity to publicise their accusers identity to see if somebody with evidence of falsehood comes forward!

In Harvey Proctor's case, I believe the allegation is from just ONE person, and is that not just the accuser, but many others were seen being abused, and by multiple famous abusers - and yet so far, despite ALL the publicity, no other victims appear to have come forward.

This should prompt a look at the accusers allegations and motives, and the statement to the press from the investigating officer at the start, declaring the victims case had strong merit?

[Mill Wheel]

vanordinaire said:

Mill Wheel said:

and Harvey Proctor has challenged people to come forward with any proof of wrong doing on his part -

Harvey Proctor admitted to and was found guilty of having unlawful sex with someone who was (at that time) below the age of consent. I would say that pretty much is proof of wrong doing on his part.

It was not unlawful sex he was charged with, it was gross indecency with two rent boys... which presumably they got paid for and cooperated in committing.

The recent allegations are that he forced himself upon a boy and raped then murdered two others!

Telegraph said:

Harvey Proctor said the claims - which include rape, torture and the murder of two young boys - would be "laughable" if they were not so serious, and called for the resignation of senior police officers who are investigating reports of child abuse by VIPs in the 1970s and 1980s.

He (Harvey Proctor) accuses the police of pre-judging his guilt.

Telegraph said:

He also called for Det Supt Kenny McDonald to resign or be sacked from his position as head of Operation Midland, having publicly declared Nick's evidence to be "credible and true" and that the unit should be wound up.

I saw video of that press conference and have to agree there was no ambiguity in DS McDonald's statement to the media!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-ord...

[Mill Wheel]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3241918/Po...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3241970/Tr...

Ask yourself WHY a person would make allegations of such a serious crime, facing a potential court case, and detailed questioning of a very personal nature about an crime which has apparently caused them so much mental trauma?

I wonder how many man hours have been wasted on wild goose chases at the behest of individuals with dubious motives.
Not just the celebrity ones, but all the ex-wives or kooky girlfriends, or even random strangers who make false allegations for money or attention?
And how many lives have been turned up side down because of these individuals?
Not just the people they accuse, but the families and friends, even work acquaintances who either face questioning themselves as to the actions of the accused, or simply don't know what to make about their close friend or family member in the light of the allegations?

I don't have many answers except for one... STOP PAYING ALLEGED VICTIMS MONEY AS "COMPENSATION".
Money wont fix the pain or anguish of genuine victims, and only serves to encourage fraudsters to try their luck - in much the same way as crash for cash is encouraged by insurance payouts - with no requirement to prove the harm allegedly caused.

[Mill Wheel]

La Liga said:

That's not the police's job and they frankly don't have that expectation. They are there to gather information and evidence and present it to the CPS who decide whether or not there is a realistic prospect of conviction or not.

In 20 and 30 year old cases, where somebody makes an allegation, the accused's only defence is if they can provide credible evidence that they were elsewhere, or throw some sort of doubt on the accusers version of events.
From my experience I know how difficult that can be, and the affect that the investigation has on friends and family who along with the accused are kept in the dark as to the progress of the investigation.
I also found myself having to inform the investigating officer of the significance of some of the evidence, as the officer was not old enough to be aware... she did not know what a Ford Granada was, or why it's size was significant. It doesn't give you much confidence in the investigation!

If the news story linked to above is to be believed, Cliff Richard does not even know who his accuser is, yet he was very publicly exposed, with a news team invited along to film the search of his home.

In the case of Liam Britton and the Dolphin Square fiasco, Det Supt Kenny McDonald the head of Operation Midland, publicly declared "Nick's" evidence to be "credible and true".
All the evidence collected so far seems to indicate that McDonald is at best inept, and at worst, guilty of the worst kind of prejudgment in declaring this publicly before all the facts were known!

[Mill Wheel]

LoonR1 said:

I'm guessing your view is that the money makes the greedy come out of the woodwork and make false allegations, but your solution seems to be the proverbial sledgehammer and punishes genuine people far more than the chancers.

Punish genuine victims? In what way? You answer your own presumption...

LoonR1 said:

How do you propose to compensate them? Unrape them? Unmolest them? Or just give them a sweet and tell them to MTFU / WTFU?

You cannot unrape or unmolest them by paying them money. They will ALWAYS feel the same way - the money at best might pay for something which diverts their attention in the short term, only for something to rake up the old feelings again.

I felt violated by being falsely accused and having my character blackened. My wife felt violated at being asked exceedingly personal questions by a police officer - questions which even our GP never asks... my eldest son felt threatened - that his father might be locked away for something which MIGHT have happened WAY before he was born... or DID IT???
Money will NEVER take away that feeling - the injustice of it all... the thought that somebody would do that to another for some monetary reward or even just attention! Take away the discomfort of finding yourself alone with a woman in a waiting room, or seeing an advertisement for a girls school in a magazine you are reading, and turning over the page quickly in case somebody sees you and thinks you are looking too closely!

And then when you read that police are backing away from an enquiry (or enquiries) that has cost ££ millions and come up with nothing, it awakens all those feelings once more, and you feel moved to try and stop it from happening to others - not look for compensation!
The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority pays out whether or not the perpetrator is found; If found, whether or not they are prosecuted; whether or not they are found guilty and even when evidence is produced that shows the accuser lied, they are rarely pursued for the money or wasting police time, in case it discourages genuine victims from coming forward.
So stop giving them an financial incentive for reporting a crime... it should be your DUTY TO REPORT a true crime, not a means to financial reward, and call it "compensation".

[Mill Wheel]

La Liga said:

eing falsely accused must be an awful experience. That's one of the reasons I support anonymity until conviction in most circumstances.

Unlike you, I am actually OK with an accused person being named, as long as the twardry speculation by the media could be held in check.
The media should NOT be investigating ANYONE once they are identified, that is the job for the police.
I actually contacted my local BBC reporter when I was accused, because I wanted to find all the people I knew 30+ years before whom I had lost contact with.. in the end I was able to give the investigating officer the information she needed to find witnesses my accuser had named - perhaps my accuser was relying on them not being found too - one was a Facebook friend of hers, living in London!

[Mill Wheel]

La Liga said:

e realistic, you'll never stop the media doing that, as it is a reflection of the 'public interest' in the matter. It is also the public and 'no smoke without fire' mentality that dogs people being investigated for sexual offences.

There should be some public interest in what motivates these people to make false allegations... but that of course would require responsible media reporting and exposing of a few individuals whose stories could be investigated.
They obviously don't all just want money - they go on Jeremy Kyle for free!

[Mill Wheel]

LoonR1 said:

You are misunderstanding the whole aspect of the financial piece. For a criminal act their is a long established criminal injuries compensation approach, which is what these people will initially be getting money from, I believe. They may them outside the estate / individual for a separate sum under a civil matter. Insurance payouts are made via the civil,process and is a totally different process. Are you suggesting that a victim who has been crippled by another's poor driving simply has to deal with it, as money won't bring their legs back, so tough st?

The Criminal Injuries Compensation scheme has a time limit for victims to claim.
EXCEPT in the matter of abuse of people under 18 who were abused historically, who can claim whether or not they reported the abuse at the time.
This is tailor made for the Blame and Claim lawyers to coach their clients into claiming large sums, years after the alleged "trauma" has occurred, in the full knowledge that the truth will be difficult to find.

I see that questions ARE being asked as to the competence of the detective heading Operation Midland and his clear assertion that the accuser had told the truth, and he believed him!

Angry over my case? No I am concerned.
Concerned that whilst the allegations made by my accuser were enough to have my life, my family's lives, my friends lives turned upside down, nobody seems to worry that my accuser kept information from the police such as having an older sister, or the whereabouts of witnesses she named, who were on her Facebook friends list, or that her words in her statement were almost a carbon copy of the CICA guidance to qualifying to claim.
Most of all I am concerned that her job as a probation office manager will bring her into contact with other potential victims who may not be as easily cleared as I was.

[Mill Wheel]

LoonR1 said:

Still not sure of your point. It seems to be that because you were falsely accused the whole concept of compensation for genuine victims should be scrapped. A bit extreme I'd suggest.

Compensation 30 years after an alleged event? A bit late I would argue - money isn't going to solve anything, just encourage the false claims.
If a perpetrator is found guilty then fair enough, but CICA often payout before a case comes to court - IF it gets to court.