Westminster peaodophile ring, Nick, guilty of perverting course of justice and fraud

You haven't been "hounded". That's just silly.

My misunderstanding. I thought you were going to stay away from "News and Politics".

Same here growstuff as I object to being hounded.

I clearly said I was staying off the Brexit/Johnson threads.

This thread is news not politics.

Same here growstuff as I object to being hounded.

I clearly said I was staying off the Brexit/Johnson threads.

This thread is news not politics.

Stop what?

Since joining this site, I've only ever posted in "News and Politics" and I usually only ever look at the six or so most recent threads. It's nothing to do with me that you happen to be posting on them too.

You wrote just a short time ago that you were avoiding this part of the site, so I was concerned that your Username should have appeared so quickly. It's not unknown for users of sites to clone other people.

I don't understand your problem, but I object to being threatened and will mull over whether I report you.

Just stop it now growstuff !

Is that a threat? It sounds like one. I'm not following you. Maybe I should report YOU for threatening behaviour.

growstuff....a word to the wise, if you continue to talk of user identity and follow me from thread to thread I shall report you.

I hope some kind person will let lemongrove know that her User ID has been cloned.

It seems the police in this case behaved disgracefully.
I think they were so anxious to get a result on this, because of their poor ( dreadful!) performance concerning Savile, that they were eager to be led down the garden path.

I agree that all accusations of abuse must be investigated, however, until there is sufficient evidence to charge someone their name should not be released - just as the names of accusers must remain confidential.

It has been argued that by releasing the names of those accused would encourage other victims to come forward, but surely once enough evidence has been collected to warrant a charge, further victims would then come forward.

I am very interested in body language - but not an expert - and have to say that watching the videos of Beech it did strike me that he was probably lying.

POGS parlimentry privilege in this case was 100% political
point scoring and Tom Watson should hang his head in shame.

Suppose it was just ‘unfortunate ‘ !

Anniebach

I think there could be a review of the IOPC decisions but I do not understand why others outside of the police force are not having their part in this sad debate questioned also and I refer back to using Parliamentary Privilege to politically point score but in truth it was used to start the ball rolling into spreading lies.

I'm not so sure the public care, perhaps because they were politicians?

Not arguing with you Iam , to me ‘unfortunate ‘ was a brutal dismissal of the suffering of the families . No more
to say on it. The police , as usual will not face prosecution and they should

Anniebach, you may dislike the way I express myself but I don't see I've said anything that suggests I disregard the impact of false allegations on innocent people.
I'm also aware of the impact on genuine victims/survivors of the dreadful allegations Beech made and the way in which they were investigated.

Iam how can you accept that innocent people accused of these crimes are ‘unfortunate ‘ and it’s ‘unfair their reputations are ruined ?

Unfair ?

I don't see any real disagreement here about the damage caused by the poor police practice when investigating Beech's allegations.
I support the views expressed by ilovecheese in relation to false allegations. One of the biggest dangers as a result of poor police practice in the investigation of the fantastical allegations made by Carl Beech, is that genuine victims will be even more reluctant to come forward.
Anyone who has been involved in criminal justice can confirm that too few cases are reported and far too few ever reach the Courts. That's one of the reasons I remain puzzled that senior officers found this man believable when it now seems clear that the lower ranks making various applications, weren't convinced.
I can only assume that the lower ranks had more recent and direct involvement in the investigation of child sexual abuse/historical allegations.

Thank you POGS

Seems it was just’ unfortunate’ for those accused, I still can’t
believe such suffering can be dismissed as such.

Extracts

Sir Richard Henriques, a former High Court judge, says warrants to raid senior figures' homes were wrongly issued.

Henriques’s 2016 review of the Metropolitan police’s Operation Midland, which shut after 16 months without making a single arrest, highlighted 43 separate failings in the force’s investigation.

His review found that senior detectives fell for Beech’s “false allegations” and then misled a judge to get warrants to search the homes of innocent members of the establishment, distressing them and their loved ones.

Henriques said he stood by his findings, writing: “I concluded in my review – and maintain the opinion – that the three search warrants authorising the searches of the homes of Lord Bramall, Lady Brittan and Harvey Proctor were obtained unlawfully.”

The applications, he said, stated that Beech had remained consistent in his allegations. “Beech had not been consistent,” he wrote.

He said he was “unable to conclude that every officer acted with due diligence and in good faith” and claimed officers leading the inquiry were “fully aware” of six matters that undermined Beech’s credibility but that they were not disclosed to the district judge who granted the warrants."

“I concluded in 2016 – and I remain of the view – that the officers responsible for the three applications did not in fact fully believe that there were reasonable grounds to believe Beech’s allegations,”.

“the course of justice was perverted with shocking consequences”, adding: “A criminal investigation must surely follow.”

Knowingly misleading a district judge is far more serious than mere misconduct. The IOPC should in my judgment have investigated whether a criminal act had been committed, and if so by whom,” he wrote.

He also said there was “no explanation” from the IOPC “as to why the two most senior officers were exonerated without interview”.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jul/30/police-may-have-broken-law-during-carl-beech-investigation-ex-judge
--

The point of who / what influenced Carl Beech is too often either not understood or is not considered worthy of much comment. To me it is key as to how/why Carl Beech was able to manipulate the police who were at best gullable / unprofessional or at worst ' possibly ' willing players and politically motivated. I am sure there are Police Officers who rue the day they trusted those who were on the face of it ' possibly ' manipulating them too.

The no longer news site EXARO, Tom Watson using Parliamentary Privilege, Police Officers also stating the lies of Carl Beech were ' CREDIBLE and TRUE ' could be viewed as a form of conspiracy and the media/social media were sucked in by it all too.

The ' victims ' of Carl Beech did not stand a chance, there lives were ruined.

My problem is if the law has been broken by police officers, albeit those police officers have been found not guilty of misconduct, could Beech now cost the public more money by having a retrial somewhere along the lines on a technicality or some such issue. I have no idea just musing.

No smoke without fire !

Unfortunate !

Well, yes they could. It is unfortunate and unfair that innocent people can have their reputation ruined, but it is also unfair to assume that 2 out of 3 accusations are lies.
I thought Iam64 made a very good post about how to proceed.

A post by ilovecheese

‘The fact that two out of three accusations of abuse do not result in anyone being found guilty by a court, does not, however, mean that the other two accusations were not true or were malicious. Historical accusations in particular are very difficult to investigate, and even harder to prove.
Just because this Carl Beech person made things up, we should not automatically go on to think or assert that therefore two out of three accusations are false.’

So mud sticks , if allegations are made, the case dropped or
a not guilty verdict , they could still be guilty?

I agree Iam64 That sounds a sensible way to proceed, rather than the reflex action of thinking that just because this man made things up that therefore two out of three accusations are made up.

There was a stage in the investigation of allegations of child sexual abuse where the mantra was 'believe the child'. That changed to listen carefully to the chid and take seriously what s/he says.
That was a significant change. I've never understood why the same guidance isn't used in allegations made by adults. I understand the need to support those making allegations but when fantastical allegations are being made, surely the person making those allegations should agree to their medical records being examined by an independent expert. If that had happened in this case, it would have stopped this investigation before further damage was done.

I don't agree that the accused should be named at the early stage. The courage it takes as an adult to go to the Police can't be under estimated. Inevitably, it means re-living abuse experiences, may re-trigger post traumatic stress disorder. Not every case needs an expert outsider to asses medical records, evidence etc but this one certainly did. anyone who is familiar with these kind of investigations will be aware that this level of abuse is rarely alleged.

Ellenvannin what makes you believe that many accusers have an axe to grind rather than they might be telling the truth? Does it depend on the sort of person they are accusing?