As the nation’s Inquiry into child sexual abuse gets underway, Chair Lowell Goddard has released a statement clarifying the Inquiry’s working methods and the strands of its current investigations, as well as confirming that the Inquiry will not only be looking at the impact of child sexual abuse on its victims, but also the effect of false allegations on those accused of abusing children.
In the wake of former MP Harvey Proctor’s very public outburst at having been investigated over allegations relating to an alleged VIP paedophile ring in Westminster, and conflicting evidence surrounding the late Lord Janner’s involvement in past child sexual abuse, we can see that the issues surrounding false allegations are complex.
But what constitutes a false allegation? Should a lack of evidence automatically allow us to say that the accused is innocent, and if so, should that accused then have the right to compensation? Should we have higher standards of proof when it comes to false allegations, and should we extend those standards to any allegation, including child sexual abuse?
Are our burdens of proof simply out of date and out of touch with modern advances in science and a progressive ethical code which forces us to question the difference between hard evidence and a lack of it?
Another difficult area lies in both how we treat allegations and how we deal with them once proved. Public figures since cleared of abuse, through lack of evidence rather than hard evidence disproving their involvement in many cases, have been very vocal about the way they felt the police treated them during their investigation despite the fact that they would have been treated in much the same way as non high profile members of the public (perhaps treated worse, even). Should we then also be looking at how ‘celebrity’ psychology impacts the effectiveness of police investigations and also, how police handling of suspects in general, whether high profile or not, needs updating?
What do you think? Which issues surrounding false allegations do you think are important and how do you think the Inquiry should approach them?
Researching Reform 
This is exactly what happened in The Franklin Scandal!
Victims accused of perjury! He who has the money has the power! Nick is no a fantasist IMHO.
We are up against dark forces…
LikeLike
you are correct it is the money power and the cover up so do we really think Goddard will allow truth to be told the victims are the plebs and the Goddards are the powers that be and F—- the kids let them rot in hell
LikeLike
it all comes back to giving a child in care a voice to speak out not when they are adults as we have seen they are not believed, when I worked with Dr John Reed he once said to me never lie to a child as children know truth, but all kids are gagged there is not one parents of the 100s I have spoken to who has not said should they have contact their child says very little it is as if they are in fear and in fear believe me they are, even if a child is allowed to speak to the judge unless that child is strong minded they have to say what their COURT LAWYER tells them to say, can any one tell me who can a child speak to when they are in care and who can they trust they are all alone and here lies the truth with the children as for the advocates they are mostly working for the charities so do you think they will allow a kid to speak out don’t be silly the charity will lose money, take into account what I have written and the closed family court along with people such as Mcar and Goddard and the rest you don’t need the brains of Einstein to know truth.
LikeLike
Just one case of a child reported to the help line and this I believe speaks for most kids in care and the fear they live in, that child as many kids could have telephoned their family from a friends phone when they were at the friends house but only did so once in many years, it was a very quick hello I love you and miss you bye bye, kids are even afraid to call their families so what does that tell you, and it is not hear say its a fact. Believe me I could write more of the truth of kids and the telephone but sadly I cannot. And Goddard and the rest of the army really think the victims will be heard yea on another planet.
LikeLike
In a recent case a woman accused of sexually abusing children was fitted up by her own defence counsel as none of the points below were even mentioned let alone argued either in the case or in a pathetic initial appeal
Luckily the mother concerned had two weeks (from when her defence team abandoned her and told her to confess) to make a last appeal.I believe she has a barrister I recommended to take up these points and the fact that the children she was accused of abusing were her own children (a fact that never came out in court)., and the the pedophile ring that got so much publicity was reduced to her and her two exes as they alone were found guilty !
Hopefully she will get a fair hearing before three appeal judges instead of the one district judge who turned her down previously…………
1:-My principal witness Professor C…… was not allowed to testify on false memory syndrome contrary to Article 6 (human rights act) that gives anyone accused of a crime the right to call witnesses.
2:- Despite repeated requests to my Counsel that I should give evidence to deny the charges they did not call me so I had no chance to speak contrary to article 6 that gives anyone accused of a crime the right to defend themselves in person.
3:- The judge did not warn me of the implications that the jury might make if I did not give evidence myself.
4:- 268 alterations were made illegally to court documents prior to the case .Police evidence on oath established that the purpose of these (admitted to them by the guilty social worker) was to eliminate any leading questions that might have been put to the children and to remove anything that might have incriminated the Foster carers.The man who made the alterations was not called to give evidence and noone was prosecuted despite the fact that if an effort had been made to find out the significance of the alterations it might well have shown that leading questions had been put by Foster carers( who were very well paid while the children remained in their charge) to the children with rewards for the correct answers. Similarly they might have revealed coaching by Foster carers and social workers who could even have been the abusers of the children themselves and hence ordered alterations in the children’s statements that might have incriminated them!
The learned judge made no reference to the possible importance of these illegal alterations to documents.
5:The judge stated categorically to the jury that the children had been abused and that they only needed to decide who had done it.Apart from one accused who admitted under pressure that “she supposed some abuse had happened” the statements by the children were protected by the judge who forbade the Counsel to ask any questions as to their veracity.There was no conclusive evidence of abuse and medical examinations of the children showed nothing untoward.The judge never mentioned the possibility of the Foster carers committing any abuse that had happened or the possibility that no abuse had happened at all.He should have mentioned all possibilities to the jury rather than draw his own conclusions and put them to the jury as facts.
LikeLike
|This inquiry smells more like a whitewash every day.
LikeLike
Pingback: Inquiry To Examine Effects Of False Sexual Abuse Allegations | World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum.
Allegations of abuse are a double edge sword. Whilst the victims must be heard so must those who have been wrongly accused. The problem is the majority of abuses being investigated is historical and time changes memories and any reports done at the time go “missing.”. I hate to say it but verdicts are based on opinions and the credibility of the person alleged to have been abused or alleged to have been the abuser with little or no tangible evidence. This is unfortunatly how the family courts operate so I don’t think that a higher threshold is required. A higher threshold of what?
Also looking at the past through the lens of today is fraught too. From the 60’s there was a permissive, free love and drugs attitude that was promoted through the media. Nowadays a whistle from a man, once deemed to be flattering, is likely to get the man arrested.
Of course today is different. We have moved away from the Swinging 60s, travelled and changed our attitudes throughout all the eras and evolved to today. The population of Britain has changed too. Their cultures and value systems cannot help but shape what is acceptable to the British now but no matter what changes or era it has never been acceptable to abuse children. Most of these children were in the care system where those abusers had no regard for them and never thought they would be found out. The abused deserve their day in court.
LikeLike
Dana, what you say of the 60s is correct but has nothing to do with the child abuse in the care system same as cultures changing, kids are to this day still being abused and they have no voice it all goes back to KIDS SHOULD BE SEEN AND NOT HEARD, so as adults they are out of time and where is your evidence OH SORRY ITS ALL HEAR SAY, OPEN THE BLOODY COURTS and let the kids speak NOW, but it will never happen they are little dollies to play with and worth a fortune, I think the latest news says it all 10.000 refuges from over the boarder have gone missing within 2 years, I wonder who’s bedroom or toy shed they are being held, well the big wigs with their white wigs on know and continue to send kids into the unknown
LikeLike
I am speaking from personal experience: to be treated as a ‘criminal suspect’ for supposed / alleged HARASSMENT is bad enough in terms of TRAUMA exercised by Police. It doesn’t even need to be ‘sexual’ whether false or not.
I’ve also discovered that and how the sequence from harassment to ‘malicious communication’ and ‘witness intimidation’ is being used to CRIMINALISE me (and others before me), when in Germany it would never be a crime.
‘False sexual allegations’? Mon oeil, as I’d say in French… Where there is smoke, there is fire!
LikeLike
Hi Sabine, I disagree with your blanket statement, if you meant “No smoke without fire.”
People can accuse others of all sorts of crimes, sexual or otherwise and they may not be true. There can be many reasons for making an accusation. Lives have been trashed when accusations are made and when the innocent are unable to “prove” they didn’t do it.
The family courts are abound with accusations and kids taken into care because the Judge believes the social workers above the parents. The professionals are deemed more credible. That’s wrong too. There should be evidence, not hear say, so why should it be any different when the accuser points the finger! It’s just that its more difficult when it’s historic abuse.
LikeLike
In the late 1990’s a campaign was launched to stop the police investigating historic sexual crimes against children and this culminated in the recommendations of the Chris Mullin Sunderland South MP Home Affairs Select Committee of the House of Commons.
Prime Minister David Cameron was a member of the committee and signatory to the report as was the present deputy Leader of the Labour Party Tom Watson together with David Winnick who has remained on the committee to this day.
The full report is available on line together with the 70 plus written witness statements and these are as important as the report itself. Amon those supporting the moves to curb action all Party Parliamentary Interest group in the subject, one of the 500 or so special interest groups which keep their activities secret.
The committee wanted a halt to continuing historical investigations unless authorised by a judge and a stop to civil damage claims unless they were part of a changed criminal injuries compensation board system. The recommendations were roundly rejected by the government of the day but my understanding is that the establishments did close the ongoing work of the police down as happened in relation to Hillsborough and we will see now a closing of ranks to stop all forms of wealthy and powerful people paying their due tax… watch the public relations at work posing to be members of the public or BBCC and other media phone ins letters and such like
The interesting aspect of the statement by justice Goddard that an examination of the issue will highlight the successful effort in the past.
PS It is also important to appreciate that some individuals have attempting and no doubt are attempting to use the situation to make money. But just like the issue of tax non payment where criminal and other interested parties are pretending that being secretive about ones financial affairs and finding legal ways to prevent paying any or little tax is not only immortal but should be regarded as an act of treason against the majority of the people… and should not be classes in the same way as someone on the minimum benefits or reduced benefits who works without declaring earnings.
Colin Smart
LikeLike
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3524929/Scale-historical-child-abuse-examined-time-official-crime-figures-nationwide-survey-ask-adult-country-victims.html
here we go again the money train £100.000 million set aside for talks of child abuse I wonder where they are getting the millions from for all the investigations to include the Goddard Macar and so many more, oh sorry its from the MULTIBILLION POUND CHILD INDUSTRY
LikeLike