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.

Forever Tarnished

In view of what happened to me a few years ago, I know I shouldn't be shocked when reading news stories of a fantasist making outrageous allegations of historical sexual abuse straight from his or her own warped imagination. Nevertheless, such a story has presented itself recently and I am shocked to the core that such appalling claims could have been believed by agents of the State.

I defy any sane person not to feel acute sympathy for outstandingly successful and highly respected geography teacher, Kato Harris, for having been the innocent target of just such a fantasist who claimed she had been repeatedly raped by him in a school classroom (with a window onto the outside corridor) during lunch breaks. The parents of this complainant did everything they could to support their daughter, quite naturally. They employed a psychotherapist and hypnotist and even flew her to New York on a weekly basis to visit a therapist. After all, 'their daughter had been brutally and outrageously abused by a professional in a position of trust'.

However, anyone who works or has ever worked in a school, with its busy routines, would think it inconceivable that a member of staff could carry out an act of sexual intercourse in a public classroom during school hours. Even if this highly unlikely event were to take place without anyone noticing, are we then supposed to believe that a pupil could endure having been raped in a public place by a teacher she hardly knew and then return at 2 pm for afternoon maths, and for this to have happened on repeated occasions? If rape in such circumstances could ever occur, then the perpetrator should not only spend the rest of his or her life in custody, but also he or she would need to be criminally insane to think the victim would not tell the first person she saw. Or at least tell SOMEONE they trusted that day.

How on earth could anybody in authority with an I.Q. above the day's temperature not take all the mitigating factors of these allegations into account before deciding to ruin the career of an outstanding teacher by charging him and exposing him to the inevitable media glare? Even though the jury returned an immediate and unanimous verdict of not guilty, the stain on Mr. Kato's character will never be erased and - as anyone who has been the target of ludicrous, false historical allegations will tell you - the online references to the whole tawdry affair will be inextricably and irrevocably entwined with the accused's name for the rest of his or her life (and subsequently) because the search engines refuse to remove allegations, even if they have been shown to be lies.

Those who upload such reportage take the view that a trial took place, we are only reporting the facts, so live with it. How heartless, how cruel. Thus, anyone in modern society will have his or her life linked with a heinous crime in perpetuity if some lying opportunist or fantasist alleges abuse, which is exactly what happened to Mr. Kato (who despite being acquitted now faces a legal bill for his defence in excess of £195,000), and which also happened to me.

Despite the fact I proved the allegations proffered against me were lies, I will be forever tarnished. I have repeatedly attempted to have references to my own charging and trial in 2014 erased but there would be more chance of the England football team winning the next World Cup. I am unlikely to secure new work from anyone who didn't know me prior to the ordeal because of these unfortunate search engine references. Employers will naturally always lean on the side of caution, particularly where alleged child abuse is concerned, regardless of the fact of an acquittal by a jury that has heard all the evidence.

I wish Mr. Harris the very best as he tries to rebuild his life, but if he thinks the lies laid at his door by an hysterical fantasist will have no future bearing on his life, he is in for disappointment.

This Is What We Offer As British 'Justice'

I have just read about the appalling case of David Bryant, a 66-year-old retired fireman who was falsely accused of historical abuse by some compulsive liar called Danny Day (who has waived his right to anonymity, so I am free to name him). This opportunist is the latest to take advantage of the 'guilty until proven innocent' approach to justice which our once widely respected police force and judiciary have adopted since Jimmy Savile's death.

Mr. Bryant's nightmare is about as bad as it gets. For full details you can read the excellent account by Matthew Scott on his Barristerblogger website (click here).

Most right minded people will be shocked by what happened to Mr. Bryant. However, this appalling miscarriage of justice comes of little surprise to anyone who has first hand experience of being targeted by some greedy, lying misfit.

I have lost all faith in British justice with regard to historical abuse 'investigations'. Why? Because so little investigation takes place. The police start with an assumption of guilt and then set about fitting any 'evidence' they find to that end. Anything they come across which isn't compatible with their preconceived conclusions about what took place, they simply ignore.

Via their 'trawling' method in so called investigations they basically advertise for anybody who would like to add their own complaint to the ones they already have. In my case, they used a successful businessman, who is unhealthily obsessed by the whole tawdry topic, to advertise on their behalf. I quote from a Facebook page he controlled:

'Simon Warr's trial has been postponed until October 13th 2014 but the police have asked me to inform you that they are still open for statements.' 

And this is what we offer as British justice.

The police work hand-in-hand with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and yet the CPS was established in 1986 precisely to ensure innocent defendants could not be railroaded by the police into Court. Is it not too much to ask that the police operate independently of the prosecution and defence teams and investigate alleged crimes fairly and with a balanced, open mind?

Such is the police support, even encouragement, of a complainant that when they subsequently ascertain that the complainant was telling them a pack of lies, as happened in my own case, they cannot take steps to prosecute the liar without compromising themselves. So the liar gets off scot-free and almost always remains anonymous, despite the fact he or she has committed what can only be described as a most heinous crime.

Meanwhile the falsely accused, the target of their appalling lies, has his or her life - and certainly career - ruined forever. And this is what we offer as British justice.

I dread to think of the number of (usually) white, elderly, formerly prosperous men who are in prison or have served sentences for an historic crime, or crimes, of which they are innocent. What do we expect when even judges are failing to alert juries that they must never convict on prejudice alone, that real evidence is required? They rarely, if ever, tell juries that the complainants stand to get their hands on a substantial amount of money if they are believed, in most cases far more money than they could ever have dreamed of. Are we to think that tens of thousands of pounds in compensation money will never tempt some liar to make a false allegation? And all this is what we offer as British justice.

What the police cannot prove via quality evidence, i.e. proving the offence or offences actually took place, they make up for in quantity. And it doesn't matter a jot whether or not the various complainants have had ample opportunity to discuss between themselves details of what they are going to allege. Yet still these separate allegations, deriving from multiple complainants, are treated as if they are all uncontaminated and spontaneous. And this is what we offer as British justice.

Everyone wants to see those who abuse children, whether recently or many years ago, punished. But in their unintelligent, illogical modus operandi of automatically believing all complainants, the police are wasting valuable resources which should be being used to target real offenders. At the same time they are casting doubt in the minds of the public about the complaints of genuinely abused people who step forward. And this is not just in any society.

The NHS: the Case for Radical Surgery

The health service is in need of major surgery. I have rarely bothered my doctor during my adult life and I have tended to use the local pharmacist if I need some medical advice. This stated, I have recently been irritated by a cough which seems to have hung around much longer than usual and so I made a few abortive attempts to secure an appointment with a local G.P. I have been told there is a long waiting list - weeks to wait, indeed.

I grew up feeling immense pride that my country had an NHS, a glorious creation of post-war Britain that offered free health care for all. But, of course, it never has and never will be free. Its running has to be paid for by someone and that, of course, is every taxpayer.

With the growth of population and the increased number of those using it who make little or no contribution, coupled with those who use it as a result of their own totally irresponsible behaviour or lifestyles, mean that the NHS no longer functions properly and is unlikely to do so ever again. Its very structure means we will continue to pour billions of pounds into it and it will, nevertheless, always be short of funds. It has become unwieldy and is the one of the world's last communist-style organisations. Do you remember communism? It was based on good intentions but was always doomed to fail.

The NHS is totally and utterly anachronistic but no politician is prepared to address the issue for fear of the inevitable public backlash. A few years ago debt-ridden Hitchingbrooke Hospital in Cambridgeshire was taken over by a private firm. The outrage was immediate: 'this is the end of civilisation as we know it... shock/horror/ bloody Tories'.

Why can't we have some grown up discussions about the future of our failing NHS? Why can't we learn from the way our neighbours France, the Netherlands, Germany run their health services? These countries have combined public and private to create a more efficient, fairer system.

In France, for example, you have to pay 23 euros to visit the local doctor. Good. This would encourage people to stop wasting our GPs' time having to attend to superficial issues that could be dealt with by the local pharmacist. It would also stop people missing scheduled appointments. And why shouldn't a patient make a small contribution to professional help/advice?

In France everyone has to purchase health insurance, which means less income tax at source and might even encourage the sloths among us to eat and drink less. If everyone had to pay something towards their medical treatment it might well mean the greedy, selfish among us would follow a more responsible lifestyle.

NHS staff are overworked. Our waiting lists for operations may have shortened during the past decade but we have spent an absolute fortune achieving this and the lists are still much longer than those of our European counterparts.

Here in the UK we have the most nationalised health service in the developed world and, at the same time, one of the most inefficient. And yet, we carry on regardless.

The NHS was a marvellous - is a marvellous - idea in theory, but in practice it needs major surgery.

Brexit: The Big Issue

I participated in a TV debate on the topic of Brexit yesterday evening and, as is customary on these shows, there was a lot of anger being vented on air and a few people were being openly rude to each other as soon as the cameras stopped rolling. How on earth have we got ourselves worked up to such an extent about leaving our European partners and why are we so divided about the issue?

Alastair Stewart hosted the C5 debate 

Look no further for the genesis of the whole debacle than our erstwhile Prime Minister Tony Blair and his sidekick Gordon Brown. It was their policy, as soon as they took over the reins of government, not only to flood our country by permitting whoever wanted to come here to settle but also by actively encouraging as many migrants as possible to relocate to Britain. Just like his policy to invade Iraq was ill-thought through, so was his immigration policy.

Gordon Brown & Gillian Duffy

The UK has always had racists living among us but, overall, in my lifetime we have prided ourselves on being a tolerant, inclusive country. Blair/Brown couldn't see how trampling over all immigration rules would ultimately stretch tolerance levels and engineer the increased popularity of the politically far right. While they were in charge of the British government, the topic of immigration was out of bounds among New Labour ministers and we citizens were fed the impression that even to discuss the topic suggested racism. How utterly puerile (remember Gordon Brown referring to Gillian Duffy as a 'bigot' because she had the temerity to bring up the subject).

The vast majority of the Brexit voters based their decision upon their frustration at the speed of immigration with which this small island has had to cope during the past eighteen years, some towns having their population almost doubled.

We are now paying the price because, as a protest, many have voted for leaving Europe and my bet is levels of immigration will be unaffected and the topic will continue to dominate the political agenda just as much as it has been doing. Meanwhile, as we all argue and throw insults among ourselves, Tony Blair will continue to make himself richer.

Thoughts on Sir Cliff Richard

I imagine there are few people in this country of ours who do not feel sorry for Sir Cliff Richard. Ever since the police raided his home, in the glare of maximum publicity, in August 2014, he has been living under a dark shadow, doubtless uneasy in mind, angry, frustrated. Although he was never arrested, he was under police investigation, with its concomitant daily anxiety and endured all the misery of the media circus, for nearly two years before being informed that no charges were to be brought against him.

I have first-hand experience of what a lengthy bail term feels like as I had to endure 762 days of it during 2013-2014, only then to receive an immediate and unanimous acquittal by a jury. When you have been falsely accused, such allegations are the first thing that you think about when you wake up in the morning and the last thing on your mind at night before you, eventually, fall asleep.

The whole experience is tortuous. While on bail, not only do you have to consider the worst of all possible outcomes, you also have to deal with the poison which is spat in your direction on a regular basis from the online untutored mob, many of whom have never met you and for whom any allegation means certain guilt. Being accused of child abuse is a particularly challenging experience and elicits the most appalling lies and insults via social media, just when you are feeling at your lowest.

No one accused of a crime, particularly alleged child abuse, should have his or her name made public until that person is at least charged with an offence, although there are those who feel someone should keep anonymity until a guilty verdict is announced in a court. I feel this particularly applies to famous people like Sir Cliff, because, with the present preposterous system of handing out vast quantities of cash to any malicious opportunist (and there many) who claim to have been abused, these celebrities are like sitting ducks. If we are to pay out compensation money, it should go straight to the medical professional who has been called in to help the victim. This would ensure that only the genuinely abused come forward.

Even if you are found not guilty, or charges are dropped, the internet search engines will be most reluctant to remove the references to groundless allegations that have been made or, at the very at least, agree to replace earlier negative coverage of a case with news that the person has been acquitted by a jury after all the evidence has been heard or that no further action is to be taken. So much for the right to be 'forgotten', even when your name has been cleared in court.

Once you have been the innocent victim of a false allegation, it is like being branded on your forehead for the rest of your life. The reputation of one of this country's finest entertainers has been tarnished forever and it is a modern day disgrace. I wish Sir Cliff every success with his ongoing civil action against those authorities and institutions that have made his terrible ordeal so much worse.

A Teacher's Report

Dear Mr and Mrs Parent, (I apologise if I am being presumptuous:  it could of course be Mr and Mr/Mrs and Mrs/Ms and Ms or even Miss and Miss),

Anyway, I'm sorry I was unable to see you both at the meeting last week - a colleague told me you became very frustrated that you had to wait in the queue for so long. The parents before you were admonishing me for having marked their daughter's class work in red ink. They told me that it had been tantamount to an assault on her self esteem and she had been sleeping uneasily on account of it ever since. They refused to accept my apologies and kept telling me, in no uncertain terms, as no doubt you could hear from where you were standing, that I should have known that red ink is strictly verboten in modern day schools and that, basically, my insensitivity was partly responsible for the fact that their daughter had suddenly become disillusioned with her schooling and was staying out late at night, instead of doing her home work. Once again, my apologies that you felt it necessary to make a premature exit, evidently irritated, judging by what I was told you shouted in my direction.

I do find these meetings frustrating at times - I mean, what I am I supposed to say to a parent whose opening gambit is: 'Why does she have to learn French anyway?  We never go there and, besides, everybody speaks English.' No wonder some of the children, sorry, young adults, in the class are reluctant to do any work.

Let me give you some details about your son and his progress this term:

I teach him only one subject, French, which I'm surprised he opted for, as young adults usually go for the 'soft' subjects these days, which present them with only a modest challenge . As our industrial competitors are churning out multi-lingual physicists and chemists year upon year, here in the UK we seem to concentrate on the 'lightweight' subjects, which prospective employers neither need nor want, but which, with the minimum fuss, work or brainpower, the young adults have a good chance of passing at GCSE. (The more passes at GCSE, the higher the school is in the league tables, hence schools discouraging their young adults from choosing rigorous courses).

Anyway, I see your son three times a week, as part of a heterogeneous (mixed ability) group, for 50 minutes at a time. As there are 29 other young adults in the class, this means that, if I did nothing else during lessons, I could spend about five minutes per week with him as an individual, to teach him, sorry, facilitate his learning, and, very important I am led to believe by those in the know, to understand him as a young adult. But, as you are no doubt aware, there are some young adults in his class who demand much more of the teacher's time, due to the fact that they have never had any proper behavioural boundaries set for them at home, and they have not yet been diagnosed with ADHD, at which point we can resort to a daily pill, prescribed by the local doctor, to keep them compliant. This inevitably means that some young adults will be left with none of my time at all and, unfortunately, that applies to your son.

I'll be honest, I can't recall the last time I  spoke to him but I know which boy he is because he regularly chews gum during my lessons. At least he doesn't use his mobile phone to send text messages to others in the room as I'm teaching, sorry, facilitating learning, which a number of his friends do. When I and a number of my colleagues suggested these 'phones should be banned from school classrooms, we were told by management that the young adults needed them in case there was an emergency at home and, besides, we should be considering ways in which mobiles could be used as part of the teaching and learning process. Mobiles, we were told, could be an important part of their 'virtual learning environment' (whatever this means).

Accordingly, it is difficult for me to offer any honest and accurate assessment of your son's progress, or, for that matter, of many others in his class, which is why at parents' evenings I usually opt for vague generalities and try to avoid names, because I'm likely to have forgotten them. (On one occasion, at last term's meeting, I had absolutely no idea which young adult's parents I was talking to but managed to bluff my way through to the end).

I teach twenty five lessons a week. Despite my best intentions, some of these lessons are pretty tedious, as to plan a perfect lesson can take hours. There are just not enough hours in the day to do this for every lesson I teach. If I'm told a member of the school management team is to observe me, I ensure that my benchmark grades are clear, my lesson plan is thorough and that my teaching is totally inclusive. No matter how well I feel the lesson has gone, there's always some criticism - last time I was told I hadn't done enough 'paired work'.

Schools these days are full of middle-management types. They tell us regularly that all the young adults have to be totally clear about their "learning objectives" and all we teachers have to plan precisely for each young adult's individual needs. It's called ''differentiation''.They believe that learning simply cannot take place unless every young adults' needs have been catered for.

What one might consider real work -  vocab and grammar tests, answering unprepared oral questions in the foreign, sorry, target language, executing prose translations and writing 300 word essays in the 'target' language  - these are all considered hopelessly old-fashioned and bordering on young adult abuse. Instead, they like almost anything involving interactive whiteboards, scissors and glue and answering 'bitesize' questions that have been given to them a week beforehand. And, of course, at the top of the list - the powerpoint presentation - vital in the encouragement of 'cooperative learning'. When computers arrived in the classroom 15 years ago, they were to be the panacea in education. We were told that standards would soar. A decade and a half on and we are still waiting, despite each young adult now in possession of a laptop.

This doesn't restrain the technological bullies: if this lot had their way, we human learning facilitators would become surplus to requirements, so the young adults, after staring at a screen at home until the early hours, could carry on doing so as soon as they arrived at school. The techno bullies think that young adults should be permanently ''plugged in''. The idea that this may be an assault on their brains is to think the unthinkable in modern British schools. The result so far is your son, like the vast majority of his contemporaries, is digitally fluent but has serious difficulties coping with even basic speaking, reading and writing in French (and, so I am led to believe from a colleague, in English as well).

Many in this class, and I see no reason why this doesn't apply to your son, are of the firm opinion that anything that isn't fun is not worth learning, which is backed up by management, who seem to think we learning facilitators are equivalent to circus performers. We are told, if the young adults misbehave, it is our fault because we have not made the lesson entertaining enough.That's why I show your son's class lots of films from YouTube. As long as it has a tenuous connection with France, or the French culture, I can get away with it.

All work for young adults needs to be 'scaffolded', i.e. done for them. The very notion of giving a young adult a task they might fail is considered another example of young adult abuse. Every task must be able to be completed within about ten minutes and we can't even mark the young adults' work without recourse to a prescribed formula.

As far as lesson plans are concerned, we learning facilitators are no longer able to stretch the young adults' minds, instead we must adhere to a specific exam-oriented formula (with about 70 exams per young adult in year 11, we spend only a modicum of time feeding their minds but, instead, are constantly weighing them, if you understand the analogy).

I am sorry to inform you that, having hardly spoken to your son this year, when he returns to school in January, he'll be attending class only on rare occasions because all young adults in year 11 spend practically all school time in the exam hall during their final two terms. Part of the reason I have had little to do with your son in the scheme of things is because he is not in the GAT (gifted and talented) group, nor does he have EBD (emotional and behavioural difficulties) nor does he have SEN (special educational needs).

This endless use of acronyms (actually, it has just occurred to me an acronym has to spell out an actual word, not that any teacher under the age of 50 would know this because grammar hasn't been taught in schools since the 1970s)....this endless use of 'initials' is another obsession in modern day schools - we are deluged by them - AFL (assessment for learning, whereby in a History lesson, for example, instead of taking 5 minutes to give the young adults the principal details appertaining to the Battle of Waterloo, there now has to be some sort of dramatic re-enactment of the event); LSA (Learning Support Assistant); BESD (behavioural, educational and social difficulties); ADD (attention deficit disorder - an acronym!), plus its offshoot ADHD; EAL (English as an added language) and ECM, which stands for 'every child matters'. Yuk! Oh, and I nearly forgot, TUP, i.e. 'Thumbs Up Plenaries', whereby at the end of each lesson the young adults acknowledge whether or not the lesson objectives have been achieved by the use of their thumbs pointing up or down.

There is no point complaining about any of this because any teacher who dares to put his head above the parapet is accused of ''breaching protocol'' and would have to face the consequences. Even if that teacher is a particularly effective one, this cuts no ice. Indeed, I often wonder whether it'd been better had I been useless throughout my career because, this being the case, the school would by now be offering me early retirement, affording me a generous lump sum and subsequent healthy pension. I recently met one of my ex-colleagues, generally regarded as inept in the classroom throughout his undistinguished career, who told me he was now teaching only three days a week at a local junior school but, with his generous pay-off from us, supplemented by his pension, he was taking home more money than when he was working full time.

I digress. I apologise if I seem a bit of a curmudgeon but, having been working in schools for more than three decades, I'm finding it difficult to reconcile myself to the myriad initiatives which flood my life as a modern day learning facilitator. Common sense and trust in face-to-face communication are being forced out of the profession. As playwright G.B. Shaw once stated: 'common sense is not so common' and, as for communication, it must ALL be done electronically nowadays.

The status quo is just fine for a lot of middle and senior management: it allows them to wield power, justify inflated salaries and be recognised by their peers as being "outstanding" teachers (even though they rarely stand in front of a class, being too busy in their cosy offices with their one-to-one interviews).  Never mind. They never really liked teaching children, sorry, young adults, that much anyway.

To sum up, your son is making satisfactory progress, I think. My report is principally based on the fact he rarely comes to my attention.

Yours,
Simon Warr, M.A.

P.S. Would you forbid him from bringing gum to school? I did mention this to my young Head of Department and he told me it could be a cry for help.