It was once that in merry old England you got a fair trial. Not any more. In their rush to increase the conviction rate, the government of the day, with David (himself the subject of sex scandal) Blunkett as the Justice Minister, decided to breach Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, by taking away the presumption of innocence. This was achieved in subtle fashion by taking away the warning to Juries, "about the dangers of convicting a person on the unsupported say so of of a claimant." Thus, any person making a gold-digging [false] claim of abuse, will be believed, because the trial judge has not told them differently. After that little ruse and other amendments in the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the conviction rate soared - filling our prisons with many innocent men in the process. Did you say "prats?", If you did, we tend to agree. So come on all you claimants, why not accuse a politician of giving you one up the rear? Give them a taste of their own medicine. There is no need for proof and it won't matter if when they inspect your anal passage that they find no evidence of trauma - believe us, that will be put down to some incredible healing power. Bullshit! But that is what is happening out there today. It's true.

When it come to historical allegations, there is almost no chance of mounting a defence. Any witnesses to provide an alibi will long since have forgotten about dates and times. Your own diaries will have been thrown away and other information such as telephone bills, etc, will be long gone.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/world/uk-police-inquiry-broadens-to-sydney-20130502-2ivze.html

Jim, you must bring in character witnesses - no matter what your solicitor/barrister advises.

It's difficult to stay focused with such allegations ruining your career

THE MAIL 8 May 2013

The arrests come from allegations made to Scotland Yard officers working on Operation Yewtree, set up after Jimmy Savile was exposed as a predatory paedophile with more than 450 victims. Police have arrested 12 men as part of the operation, including convicted paedophile Gary Glitter, comics Freddie Starr and Jim Davidson, presenter Rolf Harris and DJ Dave Lee Travis. All deny any wrongdoing and investigations are continuing.

ADVICE

Jim, get yourself a specialist lawyer, demand to see any evidence the police have before making any comment, that way you can evaluate the bullshit claims and take advice from a solicitor. All too often the cops ask a leading question, on a presumption that what they have been told is true, when in fact what they have been told is false and you may be in possession of factual information to disprove that allegation - but if you don't know what information the police have been given, how could you know what to say? However, sometimes it is better to keep your powder dry and force the old bill to charge you then simply make an application to the trial judge of no case to answer. Don't forget that the police are out to gain convictions, they are your enemy - they are not in it for justice and they won't investigate any leads that point to your innocence - despite the fact that their Code of Conduct, in investigations say that they must.

In one case we know of a man accused of a rape was in fact in New York at the time of the allegation - which he rather foolishly told them. Instead of dropping the case, the cops simply re-adjusted the date of the claim of rape - and believe it or not gained a conviction. If the chap concerned had kept his powder dry, he would have been charged with the date he could prove was a lie - hence no case to answer. The cops don't play fair.

If you want to keep your powder dry, tell the police that you do not want to comment at this time pending your own investigations as to the facts, and that you reserve the right to introduce evidence in your defence at any trial on a without prejudice basis - that it would not be fair to comment if not apprised of all the facts. Be careful here, or your silence when questioned may be held against you. A transcript of your interview will be given to a Jury. If you don't protect your defence in this way a judge may instruct a jury that you remained silent - and from that silence an adverse inference may be drawn.

If you want any free confidential advice on this subject, you can email us, or get your solicitor to email us to remain once removed. Ask your solicitor to see any email from us in full. Also, see: http://home.vicnet.net.au/~safari/ 

Some of the caselaw that Safari publish have has been invaluable. For example check out the statistics of proven false allegation cases. Such information must go before a jury - if they proceed. Any jury must be made to realise that it is very likely that the allegation is false, as supported  by statistics. Sexual assault claims in the Metropolitan Police are a good indicator of the true position - about 75% of which are false. This raises the necessary reasonable doubt, which you'll need after David Blunkett and other ministers took away your right to a fair hearing. Find out all you can about your accuser. Why now? Was he promised compensation? You bet.

SIMILAR CASES

This case is not a million miles away from something closer to home in the United Kingdom, that of a certain person challenging local authority, then being convicted unjustly of sexual charges - that if one looks at them closely, are completely out of character. It appears to us that given the opportunity, local and national authorities will use whatever is at their disposal to bury anyone who dares to question their administration. Freedom of speech? Yes, but for how long?

And don't forget that the system protects the claimant by hiding his or her identity, when very often that identity is the key to the public understanding why such an allegation has been made. Usually it is at the break up of a relationship, or some other event where the motive is revenge - typically, a woman who has been jilted will seek to attack the party jilting her, by making a false allegation. The sad fact is that under the present system, it matters not if someone is innocent or not. Put a person in the dock and make the accusation, especially some time after the claimed event, and there is no way of defending yourself. Then, with the judge not giving the jury guidance as to unsupported allegations, the bloke in the dock will be convicted.

LINKS

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jimmy-tarbuck-cancels-summer-tour-1874910