Compensation for Liars and Perjurers?

I seem to be in a permanent state of irritation and frustration recently, and this is not just down to the fact I am obliged to use the totally unreliable Piccadilly Line here in west London on a daily basis. I was watching the six o'clock news earlier this evening and BBC correspondent Daniel Sandford delivered one of his TV 'packages', as they are called, this one about the poor innocent fellow who spent two years in prison due to the lies of that foul creature Jemma Beale (please read my previous blog post for details).

What made me almost choke on my 'Hob Nob' biscuit was his closing statement, informing us that we needn't concern ourselves too much because false allegations of sexual abuse are extremely rare. To quote Mr. Sandford: 'There are 160 times more prosecutions for rape than for false allegations of rape.'

So that's ok then. We are meant to deduce from this statistic that people rarely lie about being sexually assaulted. But the statistic is totally misleading. Why? Because, as I have repeatedly mentioned, the police/CPS rarely, if ever, pursue complainants who, after investigation, seem to have been telling a pack of lies.

I'm still waiting for the two friends who accused me back in 2012 to be investigated. They both lied through their teeth about me supposedly having inappropriately checked to see they were dry after a P.E. or Games lesson, back in the early 1980s. I repeat, they both lied and anyone with an I.Q. above the day's temperature, who attended Ipswich Crown Court in October 2104, will have come to a swift conclusion that there was not a shred of truth in anything the two manipulative opportunists had to say (as all twelve members of the jury immediately confirmed).

After my acquittal I asked the police officer in charge of the so-called investigation if I was going to receive some sort of apology from the liars for having had my reputation and career trashed. 'Her answer was immediate: 'That's not going to happen.'

So, Mr. Sandford, that statistic you broadcast this evening is meaningless. Because I imagine my case is far from being an exception.

Within an hour of listening to Mr. Sandford my blood pressure was back to normal. Then I reached page 12 of today's paper. The headline screamed out at me:

'Sex abuse fantasists who get to keep thousands in compensation.'

The article told the reader exactly that - anyone who makes a false allegation of having been sexually abused, even those who are shown to be unscrupulous, greedy liars, are allowed to keep their compensation money.  What????? Does that mean those two lying fantasists who invented that cock-and-bull story about me, in a bid to get their greedy hands on money they were presumably unable to earn legitimately, who have since slunk back to their former miserable, unproductive existence, anonymity intact, leaving me to pick up the ruins of my life and career in the full glare of publicity, that they have been paid compensation money out of state coffers? Have they actually benefited financially for having deliberately perjured themselves? Meanwhile, I, the victim, have not received a penny from anyone. Can this be true?

Please someone, anyone, tell me this could not possibly have happened. Otherwise, my blood pressure is going to take some time to return to normal.