Carl Beech trial: 'VIP abuse' accuser guilty of false claims

[JohnM]

I expect  a number of people who were only too willingly to believe his stories will now retract.

A convicted paedophile has been found guilty of making false allegations of murder and child sexual abuse against a string of public figures.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49074879

[bazzzz65]

I think it was fairly obvious that his claims were rubbish.

I m no fan of Edward Heath but the police chief who said he was guilty should now face charges.

[ckn]

1 hour ago, JohnM said:

I expect  a number of people who were only too willingly to believe his stories will now retract.

A convicted paedophile has been found guilty of making false allegations of murder and child sexual abuse against a string of public figures.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49074879

I genuinely hope that you mean people outside of this forum in your first sentence.  If you mean anyone on this forum then I expect you to provide evidence to back it up as I certainly hadn't seen any such statement on here and would have jumped in if I had.

Please be more precise in future if it's the first interpretation.

[Graham]

Surely it is the first interpretation. Why think otherwise? JohnM said a number of people, not a number of people on here. Still JohnM’s the one to clarify if you think it necessary.

[JohnM]

If one now has to provide evidence to support contentions made on this forum, then its going to be pretty quiet on many of the threads

However, in this new spirit, I'll go back through zillions of post in the hope that I get there before anyone else.

[gingerjon]

10 minutes ago, JohnM said:

If one now has to provide evidence to support contentions made on this forum, then its going to be pretty quiet on many of the threads

However, in this new spirit, I'll go back through zillions of post in the hope that I get there before anyone else.

If you're going to start a thread in the way you have, it's not unreasonable to expect you to be able to say who you're talking about and why.

[ckn]

15 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

If you're going to start a thread in the way you have, it's not unreasonable to expect you to be able to say who you're talking about and why.

Absolutely. This is one of the things that got a number of threads locked and seriously pruned last night. 

We’re not asking for much. If you accuse a forum member of something serious then prove it, or risk getting banned. 

I can only assume John meant people off this forum and would happily see him clarify as such. 

[JohnM]

Searching but  its a slow process. May take days.

Sorry, there is a problem

Please wait 5 seconds before attempting another search

Error code: 1C205/3

[graveyard johnny]

this is a high profile case but I have a couple of friends lets say "in the law business" and this sort of thing is becoming common place - the willingness to ruin innocent peoples  life, reputation and family in pursuit of £££££££££££££££ is foul practice and should come with heavy penalties to deter others

[ckn]

9 minutes ago, JohnM said:

Searching but  its a slow process. May take days.

Sorry, there is a problem

Please wait 5 seconds before attempting another search

Error code: 1C205/3

So, you are accusing people here then? Better be good then. 

[ckn]

59 minutes ago, graveyard johnny said:

this is a high profile case but I have a couple of friends lets say "in the law business" and this sort of thing is becoming common place - the willingness to ruin innocent peoples  life, reputation and family in pursuit of £££££££££££££££ is foul practice and should come with heavy penalties to deter others

My view is that if it's beyond doubt that it's a false accusation then the penalty should be the same as if the accused were convicted. For example, if someone would get 10 years for child abuse then the false accuser should get that same penalty.

[Martyn Sadler]

5 hours ago, JohnM said:

I expect  a number of people who were only too willingly to believe his stories will now retract.

A convicted paedophile has been found guilty of making false allegations of murder and child sexual abuse against a string of public figures.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49074879

The problem is that the people who were only too willing to believe Carl Beech were the investigating police officers.

As this article suggests, they appeared to treat his allegations as an article of faith, which led them to undertake a negligent investigation that had a massive impact on innocent people.

Whether anyone on this website believed the allegations is insignificant, compared to the fact that the police did believe them, quite recklessly.

[Just Browny]

The previous thread, for what it's worth, is here:

Unsurprisingly, it features JohnM acting like he is slightly unhinged and everyone else saying to wait for the investigation.

 

[JohnM]

". The Labour deputy leader, Tom Watson, met Beech to talk about his allegations and the former health worker told the trial that Watson was part of a “little group” supporting him."

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jul/22/met-police-condemned-over-handing-of-vip-paedophile-ring-inquiry-carl-beech-guilty

[JohnM]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tom-watson-vip-sex-ring-claim-started-moral-panic-jm0s6fqdw

Tom Watson, Labour’s deputy leader, started a “moral panic” when he made claims in parliament about a Westminster establishment paedophile ring, a public inquiry was told yesterday.

 

[JohnM]

https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/exaro-journalist-told-vip-paedophile-ring-source-nick-how-to-hide-internet-activity-court-hears/

[17 stone giant]

2 hours ago, ckn said:

My view is that if it's beyond doubt that it's a false accusation then the penalty should be the same as if the accused were convicted. For example, if someone would get 10 years for child abuse then the false accuser should get that same penalty.

I don't disagree that false accusations are absolutely disgusting, and that the person making them should be dealt with robustly by the law. However, I don't think you can adopt the system you're suggesting.

There surely has to be a distinction, for example, between murdering someone and falsely accusing someone of being a murderer. Both are clearly abhorrent, but I think the former deserves a more severe sentence that the latter.

I don't think most people that make false accusations do so because they've looked at the possible sentence and decided it's not too bad so they'll risk it. I think they make the false accusations never believing that they will ever get found out at all.

[Bedford Roughyed]

4 minutes ago, 17 stone giant said:

I don't think most people that make false accusations do so because they've looked at the possible sentence and decided it's not too bad so they'll risk it. I think they make the false accusations never believing that they will ever get found out at all.

There are also numerous cases where someone being found innocent does not mean the accuser was lying or making false claims.  

[17 stone giant]

1 minute ago, Bedford Roughyed said:

There are also numerous cases where someone being found innocent does not mean the accuser was lying or making false claims.  

That's true, but I think CKN was only talking about cases where someone had been proven beyond all reasonable doubt to have been making a false accusation.

As you say, at lot of cases end without being able to achieve that level of certainty one way or the other - enough doubt not to convict the accused, but also enough doubt not to convict the accuser of making a false accusation.

[JohnM]

I've worked my way back through the forum to 2016. Much more to do,  will take time but I will eventually be able to comply with the new forum rule that requires people to substantiate any claims they make.

[ckn]

36 minutes ago, JohnM said:

I've worked my way back through the forum to 2016. Much more to do,  will take time but I will eventually be able to comply with the new forum rule that requires people to substantiate any claims they make.

No, and stop misinterpreting it.  You made a very serious allegation against unnamed forum members.  If you’d made those allegations about a named member without evidence then I’d probably have suspended or banned you from the site.  As it stands, you thought you could get away with randomly smearing the whole class of people who disagree with you.

If you can provide CREDIBLE evidence then fair enough, I’ll admit you’re right and I missed it and should have moderated it.  If you can’t, I do expect an apology to the forum.

[Martyn Sadler]

15 hours ago, ckn said:

No, and stop misinterpreting it.  You made a very serious allegation against unnamed forum members.  If you’d made those allegations about a named member without evidence then I’d probably have suspended or banned you from the site.  As it stands, you thought you could get away with randomly smearing the whole class of people who disagree with you.

If you can provide CREDIBLE evidence then fair enough, I’ll admit you’re right and I missed it and should have moderated it.  If you can’t, I do expect an apology to the forum.

The person who needs to apologise, and resign, is Tom Watson, whose behaviour and judgement were absolutely appalling and deeply damaging.

His description of Leon Brittan, without any evidence other than the corrupted information supplied by Carl Beech, was hate speech of the worst imaginable kind.

Brittan's widow still seems to be traumatised by it, not surprisingly.

[ckn]

1 hour ago, Martyn Sadler said:

The person who needs to apologise, and resign, is Tom Watson, whose behaviour and judgement were absolutely appalling and deeply damaging.

His description of Leon Brittan, without any evidence other than the corrupted information supplied by Carl Beech, was hate speech of the worst imaginable kind.

Brittan's widow still seems to be traumatised by it, not surprisingly.

Martyn, you’re mixing up my moderation message with me actually stating an opinion on the matter. I haven’t done so, and you also mistake me as a Tom Watson/ Labour supporter. 

[Martyn Sadler]

26 minutes ago, ckn said:

Martyn, you’re mixing up my moderation message with me actually stating an opinion on the matter. I haven’t done so, and you also mistake me as a Tom Watson/ Labour supporter. 

My post was about Tom Watson, not you.

I was simply making a point about who needs to atone for their role in this scandal.

I certainly wouldn't claim you were a Tom Watson supporter.

Perhaps I should have made a freestanding post, rather than quoting you.

I suppose it did look as though I was disagreeing with you.

[JonM]

The position of Tory donor (& chairman of Anglia Ruskin University among many other things) Jerome Booth in all this is rather odd. It was his news agency & website that did so much to bring Carl Beech's allegations into the media, by selling the story to the Sunday People. Private Eye is reporting that he's now accepted a position with Nigel Lawson's climate change denial group.