The Latest Historical Abuse Scandal

I have stated time and time again, and I make this point abundantly clear in my soon-to-be-published book 'Presumed Guilty' (Biteback, Jan 10th 2017), there are few things worse to cope with when growing up than being abused by a trusted adult. Some of the stories I heard about when writing my book were difficult to listen to. All of us, as a society, must do all within our gift to keep our children safe from the hands of predatory abusers.

This stated, it will be of little surprise considering the appalling lies from which I had to suffer during 2012-2013 that I have become suspicious about the motives of those who suddenly complain about having been abused many years ago and have said nothing to anybody about the abuse during the interim period. Of course, just because someone has kept his or her counsel for decades does not mean that that person was not abused. But, in view of the latest explosion of complaints of historical abuse within the world of football, we have to be careful we do not believe all complainants without thorough scrutiny. We did precisely this with regard to a number of VIPs/celebrities/teachers in recent years and, as it transpired, after the ruination of many innocent people's lives, most of what was claimed was proven to be nonsense.

The person who recently started the ball rolling about historical abuse in the world of football coaching is a man called Andy Woodward, an ex-footballer himself, who alleges that he was abused when he was a boy by former coach Barry Bennell. It is interesting to note that Woodward is a former policeman who was himself dismissed by Lancashire Constabulary as recently as 4 November 2016 for 12 counts of gross misconduct. What's more, a number of women have made serious allegations of unprofessional conduct against him. One woman has claimed that he raped her, although no charges have been brought. None of this has been mentioned in the mainstream media.

Mr Woodward may well have been abused by Barry Bennell, as he claims, but all I am calling for is caution and proper investigative work when dealing with historical complaints. The fact is Bennell, a football coach who has three times been imprisoned for historical abuse against boys, has admitted his guilt on certain past charges and has been punished. This does not necessarily mean he is guilty of every future complaint that comes his way.

What's more, is Bennell's past guilt a reason to start a national campaign to follow those campaigns which have attracted a host of liars and opportunists over recent years? The m.o. seems to be: Bennell has been found guilty of abuse therefore anyone can make further claims against him (or against any other football coaches), knowing they will be believed. Egged on by the P.I. lawyers, they can then get their hands on the available tens of thousands of pounds compensation.

I am sorry to state that as long as we attach vast quantities of cash to these historical allegations (all claimants encouraged enthusiastically by the P.I. lawyers of course) and as long as there are malicious, greedy opportunists, like the person who started criminal proceedings against me in 2012, then we will never know who is telling the truth.  What we must do is investigate all these new allegations intelligently and as thoroughly as possible, which was palpably missing from the various historical 'operations' of recent years.

Letting Fees & Landlords

I see the Chancellor has banned landlords from charging letting fees. I own a number of properties in London and outside. I am also the Chairman of the Residents' Committee in two blocks of flats and I can tell you the vast majority of landlords have absolutely no regard and little respect for their tenants - preposterously high deposits, charging for the renewal of tenancy agreements and sky high rental payments charged; while at the same time always procrastinating, or downright refusal, when it comes to necessary repairs and refurbishment.

I remember a time when a couple could live in rented accommodation - even here in the capital - and afford to save up for a home of their own at the same time. Not any more. Rents are forbidding and the tenants have no choice other than to pay off the landlord's mortgage and then some! It leads to so much stress.

The landlords bleat that they have to charge inflated rents because they have to pay exaggerated mortgage payments on their properties. My answer to this is: then don't buy a 2nd/3rd/4th property.

The number of households with sky high rents in order to stuff the pockets of landlords is now running at about four and a half million, which has been a massive increase over the past 20 years.
I regularly deal with these grasping, unscrupulous landlords and I find the vast majority utterly selfish/self-serving.

As an example, where I live in Osterley our service charge has just risen to an annual £2,400 payment because we have to have all our rear fire exit stairways refurbished or replaced. My neighbours have consequently had their rent raised by the landlord to £1,400 per month (for a two bedroomed flat in Zone 4) - i.e. they have borne the full brunt of the increase. The landlord himself has avoided any extra charge.

Is this fair? Is it moral? No, on both counts.

Most people just want a place to live. No one seems to care that an increasing number of landlords have effectively got together, aided and abetted by the equally unscrupulous estate agents, to rob desperate tenants of their hard earned cash. And no one does anything about it.

Simon Warr (who charges £600 a month for a one bedroom property, up to £750 for a three bedroomed property). It gives me grateful, reliable, non problematic, friendly tenants, as well as a healthy profit).

Accusations and Anonymity

Being falsely accused of child abuse is catastrophic for the person targeted. I had my life as I knew it destroyed by an unadulterated liar who just happened to be a pupil in a school where I briefly taught over 30 years ago. His despicable allegations were the first thing I thought about when I woke up in the morning and the last thing on my mind at night before I, eventually, fell asleep (when I was able to do so). The whole experience was tortuous.

I spent 672 days on bail, in the glare of maximum publicity, during which time I had to suffer disgusting insults in the street and from the untutored internet mob, who regard any sexual abuse allegations as proof of guilt. During this time my name and photograph were repeatedly published in the press and on the internet. After a nigh on two-year nightmare, my accuser's allegations were dismissed by a jury within a half an hour and he was allowed to crawl back with his lies whence he came, cloaked in anonymity.

Two years on, he has still not been called to justice while I, the innocent party, am inextricably manacled to his disgraceful lies via the search engines and will be until the day I die. And some people think this publicity is a price worth paying to give confidence to 'survivors' to come forward.

Many who are the target of a child abuse allegation commit suicide under the strain of public humiliation. This is precisely what happened to a teacher from the same school where I was teaching who was arrested months before me. He was never tried in a court of law but he was unable to deal with the public scandal of being charged with child abuse. I certainly felt suicidal on occasions during my time on bail, as my family name was repeatedly dragged through the mud. And some people think this is a price worth paying to give confidence to 'survivors' to come forward.

It is almost impossible to convey the deep feelings of humiliation and depression you feel when reading press reports of what you are alleged to have done. One national newspaper produced a comprehensive report of my being charged with historical child abuse but failed to mention the case at all when I was cleared. The reason is, of course, scandals involving teachers and sex abuse and children sell thousands of extra copies, while a story about a teacher being cleared is lame by comparison. But there are those who accept this as an unfortunate casualty of their determination to have all accused's names publicised far and wide in order to give confidence to those who have, or claim to have, been abused to come forward.

Surely in the febrile atmosphere which permeates this country following Savile's death, most people are aware they will be listened to sympathetically if they make a complaint. After all, the previous Director of Public Prosecutions, Kier Starmer, announced publicly that all 'victims (sic) will be believed'. Why, then, is it necessary to publicise the names of those accused? That person's name will eventually come out when he or she has been found guilty in a court of law. Are we prepared to ruin innocent people's lives to give succour to all complainants? What about the rights of innocent people like me? Do the 'survivor groups' care about our unjust treatment? Or is this a price worth paying in the grand scheme of things?

I have heard it said that the number of false allegations pales into insignificance when compared to real abuse cases. How do we know this when the police rarely prosecute false complainants? After all, the opportunist who accused me has never been brought to justice. Of course he hasn't because he was supported and even encouraged by the police throughout what passed as their 'investigation' of my case. It would compromise their own position now to turn against him. And I can't believe my case is an exception.

I had a mountain to climb: it was I on my own versus the generous resources of the State, and that struggle was exacerbated ten fold by the repeated publication of my name on television, radio, the net and in the press. Is this just unfortunate collateral damage of the publication of suspects' names?

The police are all for the immediate disclosure of a suspect's name because they can then set about their trawling for more complainants. They realise that, where child sex abuse is concerned, no proof will be required to secure a conviction if they can encourage others to come forward to tell a similar story. They are quite correct in thinking that five or six unsatisfactory allegations often add up to one satisfactory whole. What's more, these allegations are treated as though they are spontaneous but, of course, they are usually anything but. Juries are then left to separate those who are telling the truth from those despicable opportunists who want to get their dishonest hands on a wad of cash and even enjoy a bit of attention to boot.

These liars think that if a suspect has been accused by somebody else, they themselves are on pretty safe ground making their own allegation. They'll keep their anonymity if the accused is exonerated and might even cash in with press interviews if the suspect is found guilty. There's nothing to lose and a lot to gain.

No one accused of sexual abuse, which carries with it such a stigma in our society, should have his or her name made public until that person is at least charged with an offence, although there are those (me included) who feel someone should keep anonymity until a guilty verdict is announced in a court.

Simon Warr, author of 'Presumed Guilty', published by Biteback on January 10th 2017.

Why Homework Works

I have just read the story of the Philip Morant secondary school in Colchester, which has decided no longer to set homework. It is making a grave error.

I was a teacher for over thirty years and I used homework as a vital component in educating my pupils. A few points about the importance of homework:-

Why do pupils go to school? To learn, I hear you say. Only to a degree (excuse the pun). They go principally to study. Even bright children will pick up less than 50 percent of what they're taught first time around. The learning is done after class (i.e. homework) and, if this happens, that 50 percent becomes 90 percent.

For an hour's lesson, no more than 15 minutes' learning time is required. If that 15 minutes doesn't take place, the child will forget about 85 percent of the lesson within a week. When year 11 pupils say they are revising for an exam, what they're usually doing is re-studying.

I have ALWAYS told my classes there are three steps to success:-
STUDY(1 hour) - LEARN (15 mins) - REVISE (5 mins).  Simple as this.

You cannot learn what you haven't studied and you can't revise what you haven't learned.
This is why homework is imperative. If the teacher gives the impression he or she does not consider homework as relevant to the school process, then the pupils will suffer the consequences.

Uniform Matters

I have been a guest contributor on various radio programmes this week discussing the puerile protests by parents at Hartsdown Academy in Kent because their offspring have been sent home by the new Head teacher, Matthew Tate, for wearing incorrect school uniform. These complaining fools are unable to recognise that nothing does more to undermine the effective running of a school than this sort of selfish, misguided behaviour.

There are plenty of things parents are entitled to complain about on behalf of their children, such as persistent bullying/poor teaching/being in the wrong set for a particular subject. However, any complaints parents do have must be proffered behind closed doors with the Head in a constructive, mature manner.

As far as wearing a smart uniform is concerned, because the teaching and learning process is a formal one, then what the pupils wear should reflect this. But even if the wearing of a particular uniform was deemed by many to be surplus to requirements, if the pupils know what the rules of the school are, they should abide by them; it is the slippery slope to allow pupils and parents to pick and choose which rules they agree with.

I believe smart attire at school links in with discipline, respectful behaviour and good manners. This in turn is inextricably linked with feelings of security, contentment and academic success. A school uniform crosses all social divides and this is appropriate in a school environment which is one of equal opportunities.

But regardless of any of the reasons for and against wearing a specific school uniform, I wish these parents could start acting responsibly and take a united stance with the school's position. If they cannot see that it is their own children who will pay the price of the discord resulting from these pathetic, misguided public protests, then they need to go back to school themselves.

My Petition to Parliament

These are the reasons why I have been impelled to start a petition (read and sign here) asking for all those who have patently made false allegations of abuse to be brought to justice.

On the 18th of December 2012 my life was ripped apart. On that day I lost my career, my home, a community where I had lived for thirty years, my reputation and my peace of mind.

Early in the morning my home was raided by the police and I was subsequently treated by them for nigh on two years as if I were a criminal. Ultimately, a jury took a matter of minutes to reject unanimously the allegations made against me, something the police had refused even to contemplate for 672 days, even though they had not one shred of evidence to support the preposterous claims. The fact is they were duped by some compensation chasing liar and when they realised they had been told a pack of lies, they were powerless to punish him because, as they had encouraged and supported him throughout, this partiality had now compromised their own position.

My accuser has been able to continue his previous life with impunity and anonymity despite the fact he lied and lied again to the police, lies which could have resulted in a prison sentence for me. He also perjured himself in a court of law, which should be considered a very serious crime, although the agents of the State do not seem to think so.

I contend that what that liar did to me was unadulterated abuse and potentially far more damaging than the false claims he laid at my door that I had inappropriately checked to see he was dry after showers. When the lies were seen for what they were, he still walked away scot-free. Had he thought up a more plausible and more intelligent story, he would then have been able to claim more compensation money to add to the thousands he had already been awarded for claims made against another teacher at the same school.

This campaign is about bringing to justice people like him and has NOTHING to do with discouraging genuine victims of abuse coming forward. This campaign is not to suggest that if a person alleges abuse and the defendant is subsequently acquitted then that complainant is deemed to have lied and is accordingly investigated. Everyone knows that a not guilty verdict after a court trial does not make the accuser a liar; it means there was insufficient evidence to prove the claim or claims to be true.

This campaign focuses upon those who have OBVIOUSLY made false claims.

I suggest a jury returning immediately (i.e. less than an hour) with a not guilty decision would suggest a total lack of evidence and could well intimate a false allegation/allegations. This should certainly be enough to warrant an inquiry.

It has been alleged that no one makes false allegations of abuse, whether historical or recent. Well, I can confirm from first-hand experience that they most certainly do!

The reasons are varied but, patently, a vast amount of money, running into tens of thousands of pounds, more money than these liars would ever likely get their hands on, is a good reason to do so. Particularly as there is absolutely no chance of being called to account if their lies are exposed.

Many false accusers make vast claims either against the individual, if that person is wealthy, or from the company where their supposed abuser worked (school/church insurance etc) or from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA). This involves sums of hundreds of thousands of pounds. And what is even more shocking is the fact that, if an allegation is later shown to be fictitious, the claimant is allowed to keep the compensation money. There is no mechanism in place to reclaim monies wrongly claimed from private individuals or from the taxpayer via the CICA.

But money isn't the only issue.

There are those sad individuals living unremarkable lives who, by making an allegation, particularly against someone of standing in the community, can thrust themselves into the spotlight. For the first time in their life they are being listened to; the police are at their beck and call; the press want interviews (my accuser forewent his anonymity after his allegations against a previous teacher were believed). In some cases, false complainants appear to become addicted to lying. Surely the police and the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) should maintain detailed databases of proven or suspected false complainants.

These false allegations are a waste of our already overstretched police resources and of taxpayers money and those who lie about having been abused put doubt into the minds of the general public about even genuine complainants, which is an appalling situation.

False allegations do not destroy the lives of only the accused - his or her family members have also to suffer in their own communities. Having the same surname as an alleged abuser can be very damaging.

Added to this, those vile, untutored internet trolls rarely wait for a guilty verdict before spitting their poison. After my arrest I was repeatedly encouraged to kill myself. The media also take great delight in publishing details of accusations - the more repulsive they are, the more copies they sell, the more people watch/listen to their programme.

Such is the damage of even being accused of child sex crimes, that person will have his or her name inextricably linked to the allegations for the rest of his/her life. Centuries ago in this country criminals would be branded on the forehead. Nowadays, search engines do the same job, the only difference being, now we are in 'more enlightened' times, you don't even need to be guilty of the alleged crime. Even if you are not charged or you are found not guilty, your name will be linked with child sex abuse for evermore. The reputations of those who are falsely accused are irreparably damaged, while the liar walks away scot-free.

Innocent victims of false allegations can find themselves held in prison on remand before trial or can even find themselves wrongfully convicted, as alleged sex crimes against children carry a particular stigma and, because of this, juries are naturally reluctant to acquit anyone who is unable to prove his or her innocence. Prejudice alone will suffice, proof is no longer required. This is the exact opposite of how the British justice system should operate. These victims, those who have been falsely accused, rarely, if ever, receive any compensation for their appalling ordeal.

I have made the point in other articles I have written that in cases of alleged sex abuse, the police start from a standpoint that the accused is guilty and then ignore any evidence to the contrary. They fail to interview key witnesses or make even cursory investigations if they think what they will find will not help their own case that the defendant is guilty. On the other hand, they use every avenue at their disposal to trawl for further allegations, particularly via social media. In my case they used a wealthy businessman, ostensibly fascinated by the whole tawdry topic, to advertise for fresh complainants. Is it any wonder that such foul practices encourage false allegations?

Because we are appalled by the thought that someone would abuse a child, there is much emotion attached to the topic and, thus, it is imperative that we treat any allegations of just such a crime in an intelligent, balanced, fair, cautious manner. If it seems, therefore, after a thorough investigation, as though someone has made false allegations, then that person MUST be called to account and his or her target publicly vindicated.

These are the reasons it is important you sign my petition.

Thank you.

University Education: a Costly Mistake?

We are now at that time of year when 'A' level students are starting to become apprehensive about the publication of this year's public examination results. For many school leavers there will be thoughts about whether they will have achieved the required grades to secure the course they have applied for at their chosen university. But with the prospect of massive debts at the end of that course and the value of gaining a degree having been diminished by their sheer ubiquity, it is becoming more and more questionable whether embarking on a course of university study is really worth the candle.

It would seem logical that those school pupils who are not innate academics should rather move as soon as possible into the world of vocational training and work, building a career there rather than saddle themselves (and their parents) with an enormous bill while pursuing a course in a subject that a future employer neither needs, nor wants, thereby sinking into both debt and the despondency of chasing gainful employment while being academically over-qualified.

Back in the 1970s - when I left school - universities were regarded as institutions of high learning, the preserve of those with marked academic aptitude. For those who were not academically inclined, there were plenty of alternative paths to follow.

In those days many youngsters chose training courses - as an apprentice, for example - learning to become a skilled tradesman (oh, for more of these!). It was Tony Blair, coming to power in 1997, who advocated that as many school leavers as possible, whether academically inclined or not, should regard university as their automatic next step. I always found this to be paradoxical given the fact Blair spent most of his time in office stuffing diversity down our throats.

Many school leavers got it into their heads that vocational training to become a plumber or electrician was in some way socially inferior; that being a tradesman was tantamount to belonging to a lower social class. The message seemed to be if you don't go to university, you have somehow failed and it was in some way shameful.

The fact that more and more school leavers were hell-bent on following an academic course they had absolutely no interest in, or aptitude for, didn't seem to matter. It was of no surprise, consequently, that the university course drop-out rate rose sharply, as many students soon realised they were spending their time in a state of abject boredom, studying a course which had very limited appeal to any future employer. This situation has now been exacerbated by the fact the courses have become particularly expensive.

Blair's plan was rooted in crude social engineering and we have witnessed during the past 20 years the creation of a plethora of new courses with so little depth and even less academic significance. As a consequence, our universities have over-expanded. We now have a situation in which there are more and more courses with fewer and fewer lectures to attend and less and less work to complete.

The result of all this is that university degrees no longer have the rarity value that once made them a reliable career launch pad. It would be naive to think that employers do not separate a degree awarded by a top university from a pointless qualification from some Mickey Mouse institution.

Have you ever come across anything so preposterous as encouraging youngsters to follow courses in which they have neither interest in or aptitude for? We desperately need more and better vocational training and apprenticeships. In this age of huge student debts we must warn all those who are intending to take up a place at university (and their parents) that, unless they think through all their options, it could prove to be a very expensive mistake indeed.