Why Anonymity Matters

Last month, in the aftermath of the Carl Beech trial, I took part in an item on BBC 2's Victoria Derbyshire programme, discussing the impact of false sexual allegations and the need for anonymity of suspects, at least until the point of charge. One of the guests in the studio was Peter Saunders, the spokesman for the National Association for People Abused in Childhood (NAPAC), a charity that supports victims of abuse.

BBC's Victoria Derbyshire

After they had played an interview I gave from my home in West London, Mr. Saunders stated the following: "False allegations are pernicious and horrible but it is massively rare [for someone] to make these things up.'' Sympathising with my own ordeal, he continued: ''I can't get my head around how awful it must be for Simon to have faced a false, malicious allegation (of sexual abuse).''

We now know, courtesy of the Mail on Sunday, he could indeed get his head around just how awful it is to be accused of this most heinous crime because Mr. Saunders himself was just such a target in 2008, something he has omitted to mention during the intervening eleven years. That omission matters.

Mr Saunders has always forcefully opposed anonymity for any adult accused of sexual assault, although he himself benefited from anonymity following his arrest on a rape complaint after an incident in a restaurant lavatory. These latest revelations in the Mail on Sunday concerning Mr Saunders’ arrest do suggest a certain hypocritical approach to this very important topic and they also raise important issues of public concern. The fact that his arrest and interviewing by police have only just been reported – some eleven years on – is a very strong argument in favour of legal anonymity for suspects in rape and other sexual offence investigations to be restored (it did exist between 1976 and 1988), at least until charge; although some – myself included – would extend it further until a guilty plea or the point of conviction by a jury.

Peter Saunders

In his response to the Mail on Sunday reporter, Mr Saunders states that he was falsely accused of rape by a woman following a meal at which a considerable amount of alcohol had been consumed by both parties. He emphasises that he believed the incident – in the restaurant lavatory – was entirely consensual, although he does appear to shift much of the blame onto the woman involved, whom we are told was a victim of sexual abuse in childhood and vulnerable. There is no doubt that this was a distasteful affair, but it is important to note that Mr Saunders was released without charge and the matter was never taken any further. He asserts his innocence of rape and I am willing to believe him. There is a possibility he has been the victim of a false sexual allegation.

Either way, Mr Saunders has undoubtedly benefited from the fact that his arrest and questioning by the police following the rape complaint over a decade ago have remained unknown to the general public. He has enjoyed what amounts to anonymity and the unfortunate, albeit unsavoury, incident has not – until now – impacted negatively on his life. It seems not to have damaged his family, nor does it appear to have ended his career as a vocal advocate for people abused as children. Tellingly, since the Mail on Sunday published its article, he has felt obliged to step down from the Victims and Survivors Panel of the Independent Inquiry into Childhood Sexual Abuse (IICSA), the ongoing public inquiry into sexual abuse. That, perhaps, highlights the ongoing negative impact of false sexual allegations, even after many years.

However, it is also important to note that when he appeared on the Victoria Derbyshire programme, Mr Saunders was adamant that such anonymity should not be granted to suspects of sexual offences even if they've not been charged. It is difficult to reconcile the two positions, yet, as an innocent man who was falsely accused and arrested without that fact being trumpeted all over the press and social media at the time - something which I, and many others, have had to endure - one would have hoped that Mr Saunders could have taken a more nuanced view. As it is, he seems to have benefited from a police approach that he would deny to others.

His situation also raises the important question as to whether people who have been falsely accused of a serious sexual offence, but never charged nor convicted, should be compelled to disclose that fact for the rest of their lives. One would assume that Mr Saunders’ arrest and questioning in 2008 would have been disclosed as part of any enhanced vetting checks, although the IICSA official response is that he did not do so when he joined its panel. Surely, it would also have been a required disclosure had he travelled to the USA or other countries that require information about police arrests, even when there has been no charge nor conviction.

There needs to be a much wider public debate about the plight of innocent victims of false allegations. As celebrities and public figures have discovered during the course of recent cases, including the Carl Beech scandal, merely being suspected or accused of a sexual offence can be utterly devastating, even when no-one has been arrested, especially when such police investigations are turned deliberately into an international media circus in the hope of ‘flushing out’ fresh accusers in order to bolster weak cases. False allegations, particularly of a sexual nature, are always life changing. I hope that Mr Saunders will now feel able, perhaps after a suitable period of reflection, to contribute to this debate from the position of one who has been falsely accused and is now coming to terms with the continuing fallout.

Carl Beech: He Didn't Do It Alone

The tawdry saga that has surrounded the ‘VIP paedophile ring’ fantasist Carl Beech has finally been brought to a close with him being sent to prison for a total of eighteen years (of which he must serve at least half). There was a loud gasp from the public gallery as sentence was pronounced in Court 1 at Newcastle Crown Court, but Beech himself remained impassive and emotionless – as he has throughout the trial – while standing in the dock listening to his fate. 

Carl Beech: 18 year sentence

His sentence, handed down by Mr Justice Goss at Newcastle Crown Court, includes fifteen years for the twelve counts of perverting the course of justice, while the additional three years were given in respect of the sexual offences he’d previously admitted to at Worcester Crown Court (possession of indecent images of children and voyeurism), as well as one count of fraud (£22,000 claimed falsely from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA)) and the offence of jumping bail to go on the run to Sweden). There will also be financial restitution required, although it remains to be seen what assets the disgraced nurse, turned NHS manager, still has in order to satisfy the order. 

As the judge told Beech before he pronounced sentence: “You are a highly manipulative and devious person'', adding that: “You maintained your lies of having been abused and you have not shown any remorse''. 

‘You will be believed’ 

Although the prosecution has proved its case against Beech to the satisfaction of the jury and he has been led off in shame to the first of what will doubtless be many cells he will inhabit over the next decade or so, many issues remain unresolved. Ironically, it was left for the defence barrister to raise at least some of them during mitigation, before Beech was sentenced. 

The first matter is the policy imposed on police and prosecutors that complainants in sexual allegation cases ‘will be believed’. As Beech’s counsel rightly pointed out, “With another approach, Mr Beech’s allegations would have been dismissed.” 

Sir Jimmy Savile

And there is much truth in this observation. Had there not been a radical shift towards a so-called ‘victim-centred’ justice system, perhaps malicious and calculating liars and fraudsters such as Carl Beech could not have wreaked so much havoc, wasted police time and resources, and – most importantly – ruined so many innocent people’s lives. As soon as Beech’s allegations started to evolve into what became a multi-tentacled elite paedophile conspiracy theory, embracing not only former politicians (mostly Tories) but also senior military men, ex-intelligence service chiefs and others – including, as one has come to expect, Jimmy Savile – experienced Met detectives should have smelt a very large rat.

Instead, no doubt encouraged by all the attention he and his preposterous claims were getting, Beech started to invent child murders, in which he somehow featured. We also had pet dogs being kidnapped and horses being shot, not to mention a whole host of fellow victims mentioned by Beech but none of whom able to be directly contacted. It should all have seemed much too far-fetched, precisely because that is exactly what it was. There can be no doubt that this ridiculous dogma of 'believe instantly all complainants', imposed from above for ideological motives, created a fertile ground in which fantasists and fraudsters could sew their toxic weeds, some of which – like Beech’s – blossomed into vast, dense forests of lies and conspiracy theories that eventually consumed millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money and enormous amounts of police time and resources. 

In the aftermath of the Beech scandal, it’s clear that the preposterous policy of  believing without investigating thoroughly needs to be ditched, both in theory and in practice. The police should be mandated to listen to complaints professionally and to investigate them fairly, without fear or favour.

The Role of the Media 

Long before he came to the notice of the police, Beech was an inveterate and emotionally incontinent online blogger. He shared what we now know were his own lurid, perverted fantasies with others via various internet accounts. He made contact with those who claimed to have had experience of childhood sexual abuse. In some cases, he even misappropriated excerpts from the real life testimony of genuine victims in order to bolster his own fabricated tales. He's not the first to do this. Doubtless, Beech did this because he felt it might reinforce his own credibility, as well as, in his case, of satisfying his perverted obsession with the sexual abuse and torture of children.

Carl Beech when he was blogging

Several people who had been genuinely sexually abused also began to suspect that Beech might be a fraud. I’ve had communications from some individuals who've told me how they found him creepy and disturbing. They say that they tried to warn others about Beech at a time when he was being supported – even lionised – by others within the wider support community for abuse victims. However, their warnings seem to have gone unheeded and Beech became increasingly vocal with his extravagant allegations of sex, torture and murder. 

Inevitably perhaps, Beech’s burgeoning online presence attracted the notice of journalists, some of whom were quite clearly looking for major ‘splash’ stories to plaster over their tabloid front pages. One example is the Sunday People (as it then was), which ran with Beech’s rape and murder claims, although it maintained Beech's anonymity. Nevertheless, beyond the fantasist's own claims, there was simply no evidence to back up what he was alleging. 

'Evidence-based journalism'?

It was the involvement of the online Exaro news service (‘exaro’is Latin for ‘I dig up') that really turbo-charged Beech’s tall tales (and those of other fantasists, all referred to by pseudonyms such as ‘David’ and ‘Darren’). Beech himself became ‘Nick’, although he'd previously hidden behind names like ‘Stephen’ and ‘Carl Survivor’. Exaro, under its editor in chief, Mark Watts, whipped up a frenzy by slowly drip-feeding sensationalised parts of Beech’s increasingly bizarre and extravagant claims to the world. These allegations were often picked up by the national media, which then magnified the preposterous tales. However, it should be noted that Exaro had already been pushing ‘celebrity sex ring stories’ before Beech came along. 

Beech's own stories – in some cases later shown to have been ‘harvested’ from the internet or from books already published in the USA about child abuse – were promoted by Watts and Exaro as confirming the accounts of VIP paedophile rings. In reality, this was simply a case of one liar echoing the lies being told by others. In evidential terms, it signified nothing, but because of the use of pseudonyms and the often opaque way in which the allegations were being reported, it was difficult for outside observers to understand how the stories were being generated. It would take evidence given at Beech’s recent trial to expose Exaro’s true role in the affair.

The Political Dimension

At the time Beech started making his false allegations about a VIP paedophile ring operating in, and around, Westminster, there was already a febrile atmosphere. Stories were circulating about dead politicians, such as Sir Cyril Smith, a former Liberal MP.  A book, ‘Smile for the Camera: the Double Life of Cyril Smith, M.P.', had been published in 2014, written we now know largely by Matthew Baker, but also carrying the name on the cover of controversial Labour MP Simon Danczuk. Mr Danczuk’s colourful background is now much better known, but at the time he wasn’t as notorious as he later became. However, he undoubtedly used the book and the concern it generated about historical sexual abuse of children at the hands of  a popular parliamentarian as part of his shameless mission of self-promotion.

Simon Danczuk

Danczuk was not alone. Others were already riding on the rolling bandwagon, including Labour’s current deputy leader, Tom Watson. We know that he met with Beech in July 2014, but as early as 2012 he'd been fuelling the fire over rumours of a Westminster ‘paedophile ring’, even speaking about the issue in the House of Commons. Watson appeared to have a particular animus towards the former Conservative Home Secretary, Leon Brittan. Indeed, the Labour M.P. quoted directly from Beech (then called ‘Nick’) to brand the peer “as close to evil as a human being could get.” By October 2015, Watson was expressing his regret for quoting the phrase, but, by then, much of the damage had been done.

From Tom Watson's Twitter 

Watson had also launched an extraordinary attack against Lord Brittan via Twitter. In one tweet from February 2015, he proclaimed that he had met those accusing the former Home Secretary of rape and believed they were sincere, adding: ‘I think I have made my position on Leon Brittan perfectly clear. I believe the people who say he raped them. Can’t add much else.’

In addition to Watson, other Labour MPs joined in the promotion of sensational paedophile scandals. In December 2014, John Mann was in full flow, demanding that police investigate the alleged murders which he claimed had been committed in order to cover-up a Westminster-based paedophile gang. 

According to the politician, he had handed detectives a dossier involving 22 politicians, including 13 former ministers. By January 2015, the MP for Bassetlaw was confidently predicting that “tens of thousands of victims” were likely to come forward to give evidence to the inquiry into sexual abuse.

John Mann MP

Unsurprisingly, these grandiose claims appear to have gradually petered out. The prosecution, conviction and jailing of Beech is likely to have put the final nail in the coffin of the conspiracy-in-high-places theory. Yet none of these assiduous promoters of the lies and sexual fantasies of Carl Beech and others, such as ‘Darren’ and ‘David’, have made formal public apologies for the wild accusations that they were spouting, nor taken any real responsibility for the damage their irresponsible and presumptuous behaviour has caused, both to individuals and to our national institutions. 

Social Media

As became clear from the evidence given in court during his trial, Carl Beech – under various pseudonyms – first started peddling his fantasies concerning sexual abuse online long before they came to the attention of the national media. He quickly recruited a wide circle of followers, supporters and promoters who were convinced that he was a genuine ‘survivor’ of extreme abuse, both physical and sexual. No doubt the vast outpourings of praise and encouragement he received online for his ‘bravery’ fuelled his desire for attention. 

His followers on Twitter soon formed a protective circle around ‘Carl Survivor’ (among other names he was using). His claims – no matter how bizarre or preposterous – were promoted as gospel truths and anyone who dared to criticise him, or even question his tortuous accounts of abuse, was mobbed by his followers. I, and many others, who raised the possibility that Beech’s claims might be fantasies or lies, were smeared and attacked. Some of us were labelled ‘paedo apologists’ by Twitter users we’d never even met, many of whom were cloaking their real identities online.

Vast conspiracy theories were developed by the most extreme of Beech’s online cheerleaders. Totally unrelated snippets of information, much of it misquoted or downright false, were laboriously threaded together in a bid to smear those who dared to call out the increasingly fantastical lies of ‘Carl’/’Nick’. Online campaigns were run targeting critics or those campaigning against false allegations and miscarriages of justice. In the most extreme cases, there was actual real world harassment of certain individuals, involving the police and the making of malicious false allegations to people’s employers and even the intimidation of their families. In essence, the #IBelieveNick support group had become an irrational and dangerous cult, in which facts and truth were disregarded. 

Carl Beech's video interview

I believe that many of these extremists acted in this way because they wanted the allegations that Britain was being ruled by an elite group of predatory, murderous paedophiles to be true. They harbour a deep hatred of authority – the police, the armed services, politicians, journalists, the intelligence services – and cannot resist any opportunity to de-legimitise our national institutions. So what better tool to weaponise than stoking fears of paedophilia. During the period 2012-2019, it seems that it was no longer the old ‘Reds under the beds' conspiracy theory, but the ‘paedos in high places’ that people could be made to fear.

As more and more people get their news – accurate or inaccurate – online, it became a fertile hunting ground for the #IBelieveNick mob. Misguided, often vulnerable, people were being groomed and recruited via the internet. Some of these folk are genuine victims of childhood abuse and a couple have told me how they were initially taken in by ‘Nick’ and his supporters. In some cases, they later discovered that their personal histories were being looted by Beech and others to construct false narratives of sexual and physical abuse. Yet another example of the deceitful way in which Beech and his ilk exploit and misuse innocent people.

Perhaps the worst aspect of the online #IBelieveNick cult is that it's still going on, albeit in a much weakened form. There have been notable ‘defectors’ who have tried to distance themselves from the Beech crew. Twitter timelines have been purged and a few people are even proclaiming loudly that they were duped and are among his ‘victims’. However, to date, there have been very few genuine apologies for all the unjust smearing of reputations, verbal attacks and actual threats that were made online. 

Some of the victims whom Beech has injured most, including Lord Bramall and Harvey Proctor, are still being attacked and defamed online by the die-hard extremists, who continue to maintain that Carl Beech is innocent and is now being ‘silenced’ by the state, in order to prevent others from coming forward. Utterly preposterous as this falsehood is, it is being still being circulated via the internet.

Other Institutions

It should not be forgotten that Beech worked for many years for the NHS, initially as a nurse, later as a manager. He also worked for the Quality Care Commission, as well as being a volunteer with the NSPCC. Moreover, he served as a governor at two schools. He continued to contribute to NAPAC publications. Pretty much all of the above organisations have announced that there is no evidence of misconduct by Beech in any of these roles. However, given that we now know his sexual offending spanned a significant period in time, including during the years 2012-2017 when he was with the NSPCC, giving hundreds of primary school age children talks about how to keep themselves safe from would-be abusers, serious questions do need to be asked. Surely there needs to be an independent inquiry that looks at any institution where Beech held positions of responsibility? 

Even though Beech had no criminal convictions until January of this year, there should have been concerns about some aspects of his conduct. His obsession with the sexual abuse, torture and killing of children should have been obvious to anyone who came across his endless blog posts and social media accounts. I would suggest that the alarm bells should've started ringing back in 2007 when he published – under the pseudonym ‘Nurse Lucy Samuels’ – his trashy account of his work for the NHS entitled ‘Nurse, Nurse!’ The fact that the marketing of this book was linked online to Beech’s sex shop ‘Lucy’s Delights’ should have caused some internal consternation. But, as so often in the scandal of Carl Beech, no-one seems to have done any investigation. Was any patient confidentiality breached by the book? Again, seemingly no concerns. 

Perhaps the most important lesson that must be learned from the Carl Beech affair is that there should never again be unquestioning belief in those making complaints to police, particularly concerning allegations of a crime where is no direct evidence. Misguided policies, such as ‘you will be believed’, must be ditched forever. All complaints must be treated with respect and professionalism by police officers, as should those who are accused. The new Director of Public Prosecutions, Max Hill QC, does seem to understand the challenges facing the police and the CPS in the post-Beech era. 

As I’ve said many times before, the job of the police should be to believe neither the complainant nor the accused before a rigorous investigation has been conducted. All relevant leads should be followed, no matter where they may go. All evidence should be shared with the CPS prior to a decision as to prosecute or not. And during that investigation, no names of suspects – save in rare cases where there may be a risk to the public or to specific individuals – should be released to the press. In fact, there should be a presumption of anonymity until, at the very least, the point of charge. Personally, I'm campaigning for anonymity until conviction or a guilty plea in the case of sexual allegations, given the far-reaching damage that can be caused immediately names of the accused are publicised.

Beech in the dock

When Northumbria Police was called in to investigate Carl Beech for perverting the course of justice and fraud, its detectives showed how a thorough, professional police investigation should be carried out. Every lead was pursued, every witness who could be traced was interviewed, even those who had known him as a schoolboy were interviewed. Beech’s estranged family and relatives were questioned. His communication devices were examined forensically and his possession of illegal images of children were discovered. Every lie he'd told in his previous police statements was tested against the testimony of others or documentary evidence. His copious online ramblings under various identities were sifted through to highlight the strands of his noxious fantasies. In short, Beech was – as they used to say – ‘banged to rights’.

And when he went on the run in a bid to evade the legal consequences of his criminal activities, he was tracked down to Sweden, apprehended and then extradited to face justice. Now he is where he belongs: behind bars for at least nine years and then under probation supervision for a further nine years, so prevented from causing any further misery or havoc. 

We mustn’t become complacent. There are other Carl Beechs out there and at least some of them are quite capable of telling the most outrageous lies about crimes that have never taken place. Innocent people are already rotting in jail because of liars, fraudsters, revenge-seekers and fantasists with unscrupulous moral codes and perverted imaginations. We owe it to all their victims to reform our criminal justice system and to make the appeals process fit for purpose. If this takes significant financial investment, then that’s what will be needed. Perhaps we could reduce or eliminate the amount of taxpayers’ money that is currently being claimed by fraudsters like Carl Beech and serial rape liar Jemma Beale. We mustn’t let this opportunity for change pass us by.

Prosecuting Carl Beech – Just the Start

Well, it’s over. What should be seen as one of the most significant criminal prosecutions of the decade has finally ended with the conviction of Carl Beech, aka ‘Nick’, on twelve charges of perverting the course of justice and one of fraud. He has been found guilty as charged by a jury of his peers and now faces the prospect of what should be a very substantial sentence of imprisonment, given the utmost seriousness of his vile offences.

Carl Beech in the dock

In fact, there can't be many more heinous crimes than deliberately and falsely accusing innocent people of torture, rape and child murder. Yet, this is what Carl Beech – aka ‘Carl Survivor’, aka ‘Lucy Samuels’, aka ‘Sam Williams’, aka ‘Carl Andersson’, aka ‘Oskar Andersson’, aka ‘Samuel Karlsson’ – has done repeatedly in recent years, in a cruel attempt to get his grasping hands on a substantial tranche of compensation money to which he had absolutely no entitlement. The fraud conviction related to the £22,000 he fraudulently claimed from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA), ostensibly to pay for professional counselling, which he immediately squandered on a luxury Ford Mustang Convertible car.

Ford Mustang Convertible

At length, in court one at Newcastle Crown Court, Beech's ludicrous, cruel claims have been revealed to be what they are. His despicable attempt to ride the historical sexual abuse gravy train has at long last hit the buffers. His trial exposed him to the world for what he really is: a loathsome liar obsessed with the topic of the abuse of children, a calculating fraudster and a man who is devoid of any form of moral compass. Utterly self-centred, to the point that he even attempted to throw his ex-wife and teenage son to the wolves, in a bid to blame them for some of his own vile, criminal, sexual perversions.

As someone who has become an active campaigner against the ‘you will be believed’ cult, and its close partner in encouraging crime, the compensation culture, which fuels the bogus sexual abuse industry by rewarding the most outrageous liars and fraudsters with sizeable cash payouts, I felt that I had a moral duty to attend the latter stages of the Beech trial in person. I wanted to see the man for myself – in the flesh – and to listen to the damning closing speech given by the prosecutor, Tony Badenoch QC.

Liar, Fraudster, Fantasist & Pervert

I also took note of the valiant efforts of Beech’s counsel, Collingwood Thompson QC, to try to salvage something for his client. Perhaps unsurprisingly, given the material he had to work with, the end result was hardly in doubt. Even in his own evidence, Beech had repeatedly been compelled to admit to having lied and lied again. Mr Thompson did his best to defend the indefensible, but it should be clear that no-one, other than Beech himself, is responsible for his own public annihilation.

'Someone is Lying'

HH Sir James Goss QC

Moreover, I wanted to hear for myself – and to tweet to the wider world – the key points of the judge’s summing up and his directions to the jury. His Honour Sir James Goss QC was scrupulously fair in summarising the evidence that the jury had heard. In the end, as he rightly remarked, the whole case turned on one pivotal issue: that someone was lying. And, having heard details of the thorough police investigation into Beech and his plethora of lies and deceits and aliases, the members of the jury reached their verdicts: Beech guilty on every single count.

I thought I'd experienced it all during the past seven years, since I myself was targeted by a couple of unscrupulous, lying chancers. Indeed, during this time, I've come across what can be described only as the dregs of society, people who think nothing of trashing the careers, indeed lives, of committed, hard working professionals for their own nefarious, utterly selfish ends. But what I listened to at Newcastle Crown Court during Beech's trial has exposed a monster to surpass even those treacherous, greedy fantasists. Each time during the trial that the judge afforded us a break, I felt the need to take a shower, in a bid to cleanse myself of the wretched, sordid details I'd just heard.

Already proven to be a 'devious paedophile' himself at an earlier trial, Beech pleaded not guilty to twelve charges of perverting the course of justice after dragging the names of a host of totally innocent figures, comprising politicians and senior military officers, into his depraved, degenerate world, all in a bid for both financial recompense and also to assume some sort of heroic-figure status for himself. No doubt, had he succeeded in his imposture, a 'misery memoir' book and profitable lecture tours would quickly have followed. The thought is enough to turn the stomach of even the most experienced hack.

Beech interviewed on police video

It's not within the scope of this blog to detail all the sordid, depraved activities of Carl Beech over the past few years but I am able to state with certainty that one wouldn't need a degree in psychology, having watched him in the witness box delivering his 'evidence', to come to the conclusion Beech is ostensibly in an advanced state of sociopathy. Just suppose he had been traumatically abused as a child and had opened up about it, as he persistently claimed, and was then hauled into a court of law on the charge of lying through his teeth: adding insult to injury would be an understatement. Surely the man would have been hopping mad.

On the flip side, as has now been proven, if he were making claims in a court of law that were nothing more than the province of fantasy in extremis, you'd expect the person in the dock to be highly emotional when giving his ‘evidence’, knowing it all to be a pack of lies which would wreck careers, potentially lives, of innocent men. Yet, Beech stood and delivered his testimony with barely a hint of any emotion. No wonder they say it’s the sociopaths and the psychopaths who are most likely to deceive the lie detector test. On this evidence, Beech would certainly have done so!

Beech the Sex Offender
This much is now certain: Carl Beech, disgraced ex-nurse and NHS executive – and a former school governor – is a convicted sexual abuser of children. He entered guilty pleas at his earlier trial (he could have hardly done otherwise), so there can be no rational doubt about his sordid offences.

Beech: convicted sex offender

He collected a vile library of child abuse images (some of them in category 'A', the worst category imaginable). He amassed videos of horrendous child abuse, the titles of which alone are enough to sicken any decent person. He spied on his neighbours’ children and covertly photographed them. And he betrayed the trust placed in every adult by secretly filming a friend of his own young son using the lavatory, while he was visiting the Beech family home. Who knows where his sickening fantasies would have taken him next, had he not been caught up in the web of his own making?

At his trial in Newcastle, however, Beech asked the jury to believe that, despite the evidence of his own sexually warped nature and the plethora of lies he had admitted spinning over a period of years, that he himself was the real victim in all this. He maintained his claims to have been sexually and physically abused by a long list of men, many distinguished soldiers or politicians, as part of a so-called ‘VIP paedophile ring’. He continued to claim that he had witnessed young boys being raped and even murdered, regardless of the extensive police investigations that had exploded each and every one of his bizarre assertions.

Liar, Fantasist, Fraudster
In the end, it was a unanimous jury who found Beech guilty as charged. Its members had heard his 'evidence', as well as the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, and they reached their verdicts. Those twelve men and women in the jury box rejected the defence case that Beech genuinely, perhaps misguidedly, believed the claims that he’d made to the police to be the truth. They decided that, beyond reasonable doubt, he was a liar, a fantasist and a fraudster.

Beech: guilty on 13 counts

Beech could have entered a guilty plea. He could have spared some of his victims being forced to defend themselves in the witness box. He could have saved a substantial amount of public money being wasted during the trial – that is in addition to the more than two million pounds of public money already blown during Operation Midland, which was set up to investigate his lies and grandiose fantasies. He could have done the decent thing, but he didn’t. He chose to maintain a grotesque charade in which he posed as the ‘victim’ – a role that he has been playing for years.

DS Kenny McDonald

However, it is also important to point out that Beech (and others of his ilk) has been enabled in his grotesque falsehoods and deceits by police and prosecutors, who were far too ready to believe even the most bizarre and unlikely of allegations. Who can forget the Met’s Detective Superintendant Kenny McDonald proclaiming to the world in December 2014 that: “Nick [their pseudonym for Beech] has been spoken to by experienced officers from the child abuse team and from the murder investigation team and they and I believe that what Nick is saying is credible and true, hence why we are pursuing the allegations that he has made.”


By September of the following year, the Met was left desperately trying to row back from one of the most damaging and expensive fiascos in modern policing history. Arguably, the lasting damage will be to public confidence in a police team that was so easily duped by liar Beech, who would lead them on, what was dubbed during his trial as, ‘a merry dance.’

Believers and Enablers
I believe that the sheer extent of the Beech deception was made possible only because of bad political and ideological decisions. Sir Keir Starmer, in his role as the Director of Public Prosecutions during the period 2008-2013, was an enthusiastic proponent of the ‘you will be believed’ dogma, as was his successor, Alison Saunders. This approach effectively discouraged police officers from investigating allegations of sexual offences in an even-handed way. It pre-empted proper detective work and reversed the burden of proof in sexual offences cases. Police often preferred to pass cases with little, if any, concrete evidence onto the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), content to let prosecutors authorise charges and then leave it to juries to guess who might be telling the truth. In particularly emotive trials – such as those for alleged rape or child abuse – this approach of charging with little, if any, real evidence was a recipe for wrongful convictions and miscarriages of justice.

From an #IBelieveNick supporter

In any sane world, Beech’s fantastic claims about a ‘murderous paedophile prime minister’ and a group of ruthless, brutal paedophiles, including senior military men of impeccable reputation, would have been given short shrift. However, in the febrile atmosphere that surrounded the multiple allegations made against the late Jimmy Savile, no-one wanted the role of the boy who called out the obvious deception in the legend of 'The Emperor’s New Clothes'. So Beech was left free to continue weaving his vast web of lies.

Yet, it was not just the police and CPS who indulged Beech’s vile fantasies. Certain sections of the national media were only too keen to jump onto the ‘VIP paedo’ scandal bandwagon. Lengthy features were churned out that gave unwarranted credence to the lies of Beech and others, such as ‘Darren’ (another warped fantasist, now utterly discredited). It is to be hoped at least some of the authors of this tosh now feel suitably humbled by the total destruction in court of Beech’s house of cards.

As Beech returns to his miserable prison cell – a convicted sex offender, a convicted perverter of the course of justice and a convicted fraudster – no doubt he will continue to see himself as the main victim in this disaster of his own making. During the week I sat in court watching him, I saw no evidence whatsoever that he had a shred of empathy for his many victims and their families. Lives and reputations have been tarnished, some who have given a lifetime of loyal service to this country. They all deserved so much better than to have become the innocent victims of the deceitful, cruel, manipulative Carl Beech and his shameless entourage of fantasists, chancers and believers. British justice failed the victims of the despicable Beech for far too long. Shame upon him and his enthusiastic supporters.

The Shame that was Exaro
And then there was the so-called Exaro news service, an online band of journalists, who often crossed the line from being objective reporters to enthusiastic believers in the grand VIP conspiracy theory. During the course of Beech's trial, evidence was given concerning the role that specific members of the Exaro team played in promoting and pushing their star source's increasingly outlandish claims.

Indeed, we heard in court that it was Mark Conrad, one of Exaro's reporters, who actually made the first contact with the police concerning Beech's allegations. Likewise, evidence was given in court that Conrad also taught Beech in 2014 how to mask his identity online, use the TOR web browser and to communicate via the ProtonMail encrypted email service.

Tom Watson MP

Beyond Exaro, Beech also amassed a hardcore group of cheerleaders and enthusiasts, who helped to give his allegations the oxygen of publicity, especially online, although public support from Tom Watson MP, currently Labour’s deputy leader, gave Beech’s noxious fantasies an unwarranted boost from a politician who was no doubt hoping that the ‘VIP paedo ring revelations’ could inflict serious damage on the Conservative Party. Will Mr Watson now make a public apology?

Beech’s most outrageous lies, that Britain’s ruling class was infiltrated by murderous kidnappers, torturers and paedophile rapists, found fertile ground among certain sections of the Twittersphere. Some of these ‘believers’ helped spread Beech’s lies because it all chimed with their own prejudices and fantasies. Their Twitter hashtag was #IBelieveNick. Anyone daring to challenge this cult risked being smeared as a ‘paedo apologist’ – or worse.

Sabine McNeill - jailed for 9 years

To date, none of these online reputation vandals has been brought to justice for the serious harm they have done, although the example of the infamous ‘Hampstead troll’ Sabine McNeill – jailed for nine years for her vicious campaign of false allegations against innocent people – may provide some hope that at least the very worse of Beech’s twisted and malicious cheerleaders might yet face prosecution. Of course, Beech was the author of this vile, vicious scam, yet he was not alone in promoting it assiduously. There are several people in professional positions whose careers should now be ended in shame, if only to protect the public from their obsessions in the future.

History is the study of the past, in order to understand the present, and so prepare for the future. Let us hope that the story of the lying, selfish, ruthless paedophile Carl Beech is a lesson none of us should ever forget.

Innovation of Justice Conference Speech

Innovation of Justice Conference Speech
Saturday 22nd June 2019


I’d like to say a few introductory words about the issue of accountability. We’ve recently been hearing about police making use of unaccountable individuals – be they self-described ‘journalists’ or even private individuals – to trawl for further allegations against people already under investigation after having being accused of sexual misconduct. Why do police officers seem to believe that it’s acceptable practice to go trawling at all, let alone by proxy? And who is ultimately held accountable when liars, fantasists, fraudsters and revenge-seekers crawl out of the woodwork to peddle falsehood in the hope of getting undeserved compensation payouts? The answer, ladies and gentlemen, will not surprise you. It is NO ONE. No accountability at all. And I know that from personal experience.

During the 672 days of living hell – the 22 months I was compelled to endure police bail during 2013/14, after an historical allegation of sexual assault, made by someone I'd never met but who just happened to be a pupil in a separate part of the school where I began my teaching career, I'll refer to him as 'A' – the police made use of this inordinate amount of bail time (great for them, of course) by desperately trawling, both they themselves and by using a Berkshire businessman who had nothing to do with the case under scrutiny, for other former pupils of mine to come forward to make further complaints, in order to bolster what was palpably a weak case. Indeed, the case was so wafer-thin, it couldn't withstand even light scrutiny.

Good job for the complainant, 'A', that the police had no intention whatsoever of making even cursory checking of actual provable facts. They weren't interested in pursuing their so-called investigation without fear or favour, as I had foolishly presumed they are duty-bound to do - silly, deluded me. From the start, in line with latest police procedure following the Savile embarrassment, as instructed from the top of the CPS, by DPP Keir Starmer, (my blood does run cold when I see him sitting on the opposition bench in the House of Commons) - this complainant, ‘A’, some pathetic, lying chancer, was automatically believed by the police officers he had approached to spew forth his dim-witted, nonsensical allegation. Have you ever heard anything so ludicrous as the edict 'Automatically believe all complainants’, sorry Mr. Starmer, ‘victims',? Such an edict doesn't even reach the level of puerility, it's infantile.

But the police had a problem - they couldn't charge me on the basis of ‘A’'s allegation on its own; they had to find at least one other former pupil to make a similar complaint. So they set out on their 672-day trawling mission.

Trawling is the method used by the police to search, and in some cases advertise, for fresh complainants, under the premise that the more complainants who come forward, the more the likelihood of a conviction. Moreover, allegations made as a result of trawling are treated as though they were made spontaneously, unprompted, by unrelated individuals, and are ultimately presented to juries as such. But, of course, there is an enormous difference between spontaneous complaints and those which have been manufactured through collusion, often via social media or extracted by the state via suggestion and, in some cases, coercion. When the police fish for complaints, particularly among people who are naturally dishonest, or among opportunists, or among those who are angry about their lot in life, or are financially, as my adoptive mother used to term it, 'in queer street', of course there is a danger false accusations will be the result.

Trawling operations are the most dangerous development in the history of police investigations. They have been allowed to become more and more widespread to the point of standard practice. Indeed, in historical abuse investigations, they play as important a role as DNA and CCTV do in day-to-day contemporary criminal investigations. One thing is for sure, trawling is a sure method of destroying the presumption of innocence. What is more, because of the particular characteristics of trawling operations, potential witnesses might well be pressurised into making exaggerated or even false statements. In a moment I'll explain how this affected me first hand, back in 2014.

Thus, in the absence of any 'quality' evidence, the police set about harvesting 'quantity' evidence. If someone says something which cannot be demonstrably proven either way - and this is why historical allegations are preferred by the unscrupulous opportunists - the police attitude is, let’s get enough people to say similar things that can't be proven either way and we'll be able to convince the jury that, in the courtroom cage, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is sitting a dirty old man.

Police trawling operations are dangerous in any circumstances. They become even more dangerous when the people whom they visit in order to extract supporting allegations have themselves a record of dishonesty. In my case, the police soon managed to secure a statement from a close friend of ‘A’, I'll call this person 'B' and, ignoring the sizeable risk of confabulation between the two, subsequently presented ‘B’'s allegations to me as though his and ‘A’'s were made quite independently, quite spontaneously and unprompted. To quote the leading police investigator: “Here we have two people making a similar allegation. This seems to point to the truth being told, doesn't it? What have you got to say about that?”

I had a lot to say about it. Unsurprisingly, when I asked for access to ‘A’'s and ‘B’'s recent online activity – text messages, emails etc – I was informed it had all been ‘lost.’ Well, there's a surprise.

And exactly how did the police go about trawling for further allegations which they hoped would be made against me? Well, I later discovered, when they visited former pupils of mine, they left them in no doubt from the outset that all they were after were further complaints. The introductory statement went along the lines of : 'Simon Warr has been accused of multiple counts (2 is a multiple of 1, I suppose) of child abuse.' They made it abundantly clear from the off that they were uninterested in anything positive the interviewee might have to say about me, only words of condemnation. It was standard practice, I later learned, that when former pupils stated I was kind, helpful and generous with my time, this was dismissed as 'grooming' by the interviewing officer. You couldn't make this stuff up it's so perverted. One former pupil of mine, who was interviewed, subsequently emailed the officer in charge of the investigation, thus:

'”I'm not surprised you didn't want a statement from me as I didn't come up with any dirt that you could use in your case… I will find out from Simon what these 'multiple' claims are, but, in the meantime, it's pretty clear you're not interested in actually investigating whether these allegations are indeed true, you are just searching for any old scrap to assassinate his character. Very worrying, and in the light of current high profile cases falling down, you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself, if only for the disgusting waste of public money.” I had no knowledge of any of this at the time, as this former pupil hadn't spoken to me in years. But he had reacted in a quite natural way. He had no axe to grind, he just felt something sinister was afoot. At last we were witnessing something unprompted and spontaneous.

Another former pupil visited by the police wrote in a statement:

“I was approached by the police earlier this year, who visited my home and took a statement. They were not impartial. They made it clear that Mr. Warr was guilty of abusing children and that he would be convicted without question.”

The ethics of police trawling were considered at some length back in 2013 by the Home Affairs Select Committee and it was emphasised: 'Any initial approach by the police to former pupils of boarding and care establishments should - so far as possible - go no further than a general invitation to provide information to the investigative team.' Well, I can safely state the investigative officers who seemed determined to hang me out to dry had missed this particular piece of police policy.

What the police are after during these trawling operations is evidence, I use the word lightly, which is cut from the same cloth. They search for similar ALLEGATION evidence and present it later as similar FACT evidence. Of course, similar allegation evidence is not evidence at all.

It is usual practice, of course, to try different alleged offences separately, in order to protect innocent defendants against the presumption of guilt, but an historical input is allowed if it has a bearing on the present case. The law has long held it that, in certain circumstances, if an allegation is sufficiently similar to a previously proven crime, details of that crime can be introduced in a subsequent trial under the rules governing similar FACT evidence. That's to say, if a person has been convicted in his life for drowning his wife in the bath and his second wife is subsequently found drowned in the family bath, the fact he has done it before can be brought into evidence, suggesting a propensity in the defendant's behaviour.

Thus, if a suspect can be directly linked to two women having been drowned in two separate baths, then this FACT can be introduced into a trial as 'similar fact evidence'.  FACT 1 - we have two dead bodies, both drowned in the bath. FACT 2 - the suspect can be directly linked to both women at the time of their death. But trawling distorts this by introducing into a prosecution case 'similar ALLEGATION evidence', which, as stated earlier, is obviously not evidence at all. Yet these allegations – all unproven – are used by the police and the CPS to strengthen each other. Testimony of one ALLEGED crime is used as corroboration of another.

The police use the allegations they have taken such pains to harvest to sway the jury into believing that the suspect, sitting on his own in that cage, is a dirty, creepy pervert because more than one person is alleging he has the same propensity. In the case of ‘A’ and ‘B’ and their outrageous lies against me, it was clear to anyone with an I.Q. above the day’s temperature that the striking similarity between the two complainants' testimonies pointed more to the likelihood of collusion between the two than to any pattern of behaviour on my part.

These two close friends, buoyed by the vast amount of compensation money they'd already got their greedy, grasping claws on, after having accused another teacher at the same school a couple of years before they accused me, had decided to set up a charity for children abused at school. All very laudable, of course, until they were asked to hand over £5,000 in order to register the charity. No surprise they didn't feel as strongly about helping abused children as soon as they discovered it entailed handing over a tranche of the tens of thousands of pounds they'd already received in compensation. Soon after, unsurprisingly, they abandoned their charity idea.

So, here they were, two friends had been setting up a charity for children abused at school and, a little while later, were now claiming they had suffered likewise at my hands. They stood in a court of law, both alleging I had inspected them inappropriately in a school changing room, back in the early 1980s, after a P.E. lesson. When my barrister asked them both had they ever discussed me having touched them up before talking to the police, separately they claimed they had never discussed this abuse; both claimed they hadn't even mentioned my name to each other. The police may have believed this nonsense but the jury certainly didn't.

No collusion between the two! Never a conversation about me, despite spending time together setting up an abuse charity! Their complaints about me never shared, all entirely coincidental and spontaneous! Only police officers determined to have their suspect convicted would have entertained such a preposterous gallimaufry of lies.

It can, of course, be argued that if a number of spontaneous, similar allegations are made by independent witnesses, then a case to answer should be the result. However, recent history has taught us that many of these allegations of historical abuse are rarely spontaneous, unprompted or independent. So, in the case of punctilious exactness upon which any good legal system is based, this has been, to all intents and purposes, abandoned.

Trawling is being used (or misused) by all police forces in the UK as a means of convicting suspected child abusers. Surely the police must be wary of the fact that there are some adult complainants who, living dreary, unproductive lives, and who suddenly have an opportunity to get their hands on more money than they could ever have imagined, that they just might be prepared to give the police what they so obviously want and make false allegations, regardless of the consequences for the innocent person they are accusing.

Are we really to go along with the creed of the former DPP, Alison Saunders, who rejected the notion that people invent abuse stories? Why would they, she asked? Well, I can think of a number of reasons why, as I'm sure all of you can, too. Quite honestly, if people who are by nature dishonest, or struggling financially, are interviewed and given the opportunity to, even put under pressure to, claim to have been abused in the past, it would be surprising if he or she did not allege some sort of historical abuse. Yet, still these trawling operations continue with the ostensible full backing of the Ministry of Justice and our judicial system.

It seems reasonable to suggest that in cases of historical abuse emanating from any type of boarding establishment, be it a school or a care home, facilitated so readily, of course, by the massive expansion of social media, it makes it highly likely that there has almost certainly been confabulation between complainants in numerous cases which have reached courts.

During the so-called investigation into the allegations made against me, another factor played a significant part: the police team used a private individual, who had nothing to do with the case, to act as their agent, playing the role of some sort of amateur sleuth. This self-appointed agent, who voluntarily lent his services to the police, advertised on his public Facebook page for fresh complainants to step forward. I'll give you an example: When my trial at Ipswich Crown Court was postponed from May the 12th to October the 13th 2014, (in order for the police to have more time to trawl), on the very day of the postponement the agent posted on his Facebook page:

“I am informed (by the police, of course) that the trial of teacher Simon Warr will now begin on the 13th of October 2014. I am further informed that the police in Suffolk are still open for statements. An email address for a named officer can be provided or you can communicate via me.”

In other words, the police are devoid of any persuasive evidence and, thanks to the postponement of the trial, they are now continuing to appeal for more witnesses to come forward, to strengthen a hitherto pathetic, gossamer-thin case.

It was no more than a desperate clarion call for more ex-pupils to come forward to give the police team some breathing space.

And this passes for balanced, fair police procedure.

I wondered how such advertising for complainants in this way could possibly be legal - a police force trawling in this crude manner via a third party.

I would submit that trawling is not a form of investigation; it is a technique for ensuring that prosecutions can be brought in relation to long-delayed allegations and for maximising their chances of success. And when the police search for further complainants to come forward and they refer to them as 'potential victims', it is clear that any pretence at a balanced investigation has already been jettisoned.

Trawling, or 'dip sampling' as it is sometimes termed, clearly has the danger of 'self-reproducing'. It is a mushrooming technique, each person interviewed treated as a means of propagating the names and addresses of more potential so-called victims. In this way, the police are able potentially to collect an almost limitless number of allegations against a suspect. Even if some of the complainants are subsequently proven to be fantasists, opportunists, liars, it's of no matter, as long as the police have secured even a small number of feasible complaints, these will suffice to have the suspect put behind bars and for the investigating officers to congratulate themselves on a job well done; a success in terms of career prospects, of course; and no need to worry anymore about the waste of vast amounts of public money or any comeback with regard to a flawed investigation - the incident room team will have had their backs well and truly covered.

And it's not just the police who advertise for complainants of historical sex abuse. The 'no win, no fee' solicitors are also more than eager to participate in lucrative alleged historical abuse cases. During my research into the whole business of compensation for those who claim sexual abuse, I came across, within a few minutes, a myriad firms advertising for customers:-

Abused as a child? We represent victims.
Child abuse - you deserve justice
Thinking about claiming? We deliver.
Child abuse survivor? Contact us......

… and on and on and on....

The possibility of gaining financial compensation from these 'Personal Injury' firms may well prove irresistible to some. And, if you have a legal system that doesn't insist that allegations require actual proof – real evidence – and you couple that with generous handouts, more money than many of the prospective complainants have ever dreamed about, then it's inevitable that the temptation to make a false claim will be too hard to resist.

In the case of the motor industry, we call these P.I. firms 'ambulance chasers' and, as a result of a cornucopia of scandals surrounding the largely bogus 'whiplash' claims, the authorities have finally curbed the entire industry. PI lawyers suddenly realised they are on much safer ground dealing with alleged child abuse (preferably historical because no actual proof is required) and, because of the sensitivity surrounding this topic, no government officials are likely to interfere.

The result is the PI lawyers work under the pretence that they are 'riding white chargers', in defence of abused individuals, all of whom have a right to substantial compensation for their appalling suffering (omitting to mention, of course, that their own firm will receive as much, if not more, in the way of financial return from any allegations, proven or not). The lawyers certainly don't advertise the fact that their fees are often in excess of the damages being awarded to the claimant. The self-appointed agent who assisted the police in my case even posted on his public page the name and contact details of a firm of solicitors touting for business. Doesn't the whole tawdry picture make you squirm?

Further to this paying out of vast quantities of money to victims of even comparatively minor abuse, not to mention to those lying, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) guarantee lifelong anonymity to those receiving compensation and this includes payments even to those who make allegations of abuse which are not tested in, or rejected, in a court of law. Some are even paid money BEFORE a trial. All a complainant needs is a police crime reference number and the path is open.

The whole process has become so brazen that, a few weeks ago, when I was attending the trial of a FACT member at Portsmouth Crown Court, a trial of alleged historical abuse, also present in the courtroom was a representative of a well known PI firm. When the judge learned this, the man was sent from the court and the complainant was called back to the stand to explain. It was revealed that the complainant had attended this well-known solicitors' firm's offices just two days after making his allegation of historical abuse to the police. He explained to the judge that the solicitor was present at the trial to make notes, in order to save time afterwards.

It's almost jaw-dropping in its disrespect of the just, fair process of law.

The English legal system is based supposedly on the assumption that a person accused is innocent until proven guilty. But in cases of alleged sexual abuse, particularly historical allegations, where actual evidence either way is unlikely to be forthcoming, this burden has been palpably reversed. I had to prove my innocence that what ‘A’ and ‘B’ alleged couldn't possibly have happened and the jury recognised that what spewed from their slavering lips was no more than disgusting lies. They have, nevertheless, both walked away with anonymity and impunity.

I suppose I was fortunate: both men (I use the word lightly) were too dim to concoct even a vaguely plausible account. But I recognise that 90 percent of men, in particular, who are accused of historical sex abuse against children, ARE convicted. Jurors are naturally programmed to protect children and, if there is even a scintilla of a suggestion that the accused may be guilty, this will often suffice. If the police have done their trawling job efficiently (generous funds are certainly available for them) then the person in the glass cage has little, if any, chance of acquittal. The number of innocent people in our jails convicted without a shred of factual evidence doesn't bear thinking about.

So, what about the future...?

1. The police cannot, must not, side with either a complainant or an accused person when undertaking an investigation. It is not the police's duty to believe or disbelieve either party, it is their job to investigate without fear or favour, with perfect balance, just like those scales of justice which perch on the roof of the Old Bailey.

The dangers of biased investigations, which have been so apparent over recent years, mean that when the investigative officers realise they have been well and truly duped by some lying chancer whom they've supported from the off, then they're not in a position to react and to arrest that person for perverting the course of justice or for perjury in a court of law. It's plain common sense.

My accusers lied and lied again; they both perjured themselves at Ipswich Crown Court. When it was all over and I asked the lead investigative officer whether I was going to, at the very least, receive an apology from the accusers, her immediate answer was: “That's not going to happen.” Of course it wasn't, because she and her team had offered the liars succour throughout the entire appalling process. They had believed the unbelievable and had imagined the unimaginable. And neither the police, nor the fraudsters, have faced any consequences whatsoever. No accountability.

2. Police trawling has to cease forthwith and there should be an immediate ban on either the police, or any of their agents, advertising for fresh complainants. These trawls can lead to criminal trials that are no more than cruel charades, the outcomes of which are determined not by factual evidence but as a result of devious, opaque confabulation behind the scenes, a certain amount of guesswork and, in so many cases, overwhelming prejudice.

Evidence suggests that there are scores of innocent people in prison, or with life-inhibiting criminal records, on account of police and/or complainant subterfuge. Do we really want to continue to convict innocent people on the basis of contaminated so-called evidence? How can we expect twelve members of the public to come to a correct conclusion when they are faced by so much intrigue, so much fraudulence, all served up as impeccable authenticity?

3. And, finally, when are we going to get it through our thick skulls that as long as we continue handing out vast quantities of cash to complainants, we're going to have to deal with an endless conveyor belt of fraudulent opportunists prepared to send innocent citizens to jail, just so they can get their greedy hands on public money to which they have absolutely no right.

Thank you for listening.