Mark Watts, former editor-in-chief of Exaro News, has written a long and detailed argument explaining why he considers that the conviction of Carl Beech was a miscarriage of justice. He points out that he is “a lone voice” amongst journalists:
“While many journalists join in the official narrative, some who know otherwise in the national media either go along with them in a desperate attempt to protect their cowardly backsides or elect, understandably, to keep their heads down.”
As well as cowardly journalists who “join in the official narrative,” Mr Watts has particular contempt for what he calls “the falsely accused brigade.”
“The falsely-accused brigade and its cheerleaders in the media have exposed their hypocrisy in their celebration of this trial. If they were genuinely interested in fair justice, they would not be ignoring the dubious way in which Beech was found guilty.
In truth, members of the falsely-accused brigade are not remotely interested in justice, but in proclaiming with a pseudo-religious fervour that they or their loved ones or their friends or associates are innocent of accusations of sexual abuse levelled against them.”
Mr Watts is rather vague about exactly who is in the “falsely accused brigade,” although presumably it includes Harvey Proctor, Lord Bramall and Greville Janner’s son Daniel. All three have fervently “proclaimed that they or their loved ones are innocent of accusations sexual abuse levelled against them.” Confusingly, though, Mr Watts concedes that “Beech’s allegations against anyone have no credibility,” in view of which it seems mildly ungracious to sneer at his victims for “proclaiming” their innocence.
Unexpected support for Watts
Another prominent public figure who has proclaimed his innocence of accusations of sexual abuse is Jonathan King. He was convicted in 2001 of being – in his own words – a “vile pervert” (he has made a musical about it which you can watch online, it has some excellent lines and some rather catchy tunes). Since his release from prison Mr King has devoted a good deal of time to proclaiming his own innocence, and to criticising Operation Yewtree and the prosecutions of other well-known figures, such as Dave Lee Travis and Rolf Harris, so if anyone is in the “falsely accused brigade” it is King. He was prosecuted a second time last year, but the case against him fell apart in the most spectacular fashion. He has an application pending with the Criminal Cases Review Commission in respect of his 2001 convictions. Despite this, Mr King has praised Mr Watts’s piece very warmly. It is, in his view, “very well written,” and “makes some very good points with which I agree.”
Well, who is right? Mr Watts and Mr King, or those unnamed journalists who “know otherwise” yet join in “the official narrative,” keeping their heads down “in a desperate attempt to cover their cowardly backsides”?
The Beech debacle has done nothing to quench Mr Watts’s seemingly unshakeable belief that the guiding hand of a malign establishment has only to make a secret announcement of the official line, for journalists – other than himself, an ex-BBC journalist called Anna Brees, and possibly George Galloway – to follow it.
So did Carl Beech have a fair trial or not?
There is no point in summarising the whole of Mr Watts’s argument, by all means read it for yourselves. Nor, because life is too short and the weather is still delightful, am I going to attempt a detailed refutation of all of his arguments.
And in fact there are some reasonable points buried amidst a large number of very bad ones.
I agree with him, for example, that:
“when assessing the truth or otherwise of allegations of sexual abuse in particular … the criminal justice system is often hopeless,”
although I would add the caveat that the criminal justice system still has a much better record than Exaro News.
He is right that “that is a problem both for those who have been sexually abused and for others who have been falsely accused.”
Was an 18 year sentence too long?
I even have some sympathy with the view that Beech’s 18 year sentence (15 of which were for perverting the course of justice) was very severe and arguably excessive. Beech’s lies were certainly carefully planned and carried out, and he persisted in them over several years, causing terrible harm to innocent people (as well as giving false hope to the bereaved). There are no really comparable cases but one called Weiner [2012] 1 Cr. App. R. (S.) 6, gives some guidance, although it does not make very happy reading for Beech. The Court of Appeal in that case upheld a 12 year sentence for perverting the course of justice by secretly installing indecent images of children on a school caretaker’s computer, and then falsely accusing the poor man of distributing the images. The motive was simply that he did not like him. According to the judgment:
“It was 18 months before he was exonerated after a thorough police operation. The police had been careful not to make public the arrest of T or the reason for it, but the appellant gratuitously and spitefully informed the local press in January 2007 so that T and his wife suffered the distress of inevitable unwelcome publicity. Amongst other things they were spat at in the street, they were forced to move out of their home and they were deserted by many of their friends. When T eventually returned to work at the school he found life unbearable as many of the staff would not speak to him. His health suffered and so did that of his wife. There were still people who believed that he was a paedophile, even though he was in fact a wholly innocent man.”
The judges made the point that:
“The case was further aggravated by the great public opprobrium which an accusation of the type made carries with it and by the malicious alerting of the press to T’s arrest.”
By comparison, Beech’s activity was almost as well-planned, affected many more people and went on for even longer, all of which might suggest a sentence longer than Weiner’s 12 years. His case, of course, shares the aggravating feature that he alerted the press, not the local press but Mr Watts’s Exaro News. The only real point of mitigation for Beech – but a significant one nonetheless – is that nobody was actually prosecuted or imprisoned on the strength of his lies, but then nor were they in the case of Weiner.
The case of Jemma Beale, might be more helpful to him. She falsely accused four men of rape, leading to the wrongful conviction and imprisonment of one of them: she was sentenced to only 10 years imprisonment, which was upheld by the Court of Appeal. If that sentence was right, I am inclined to think that Beech’s was perhaps too long. Some would say, however, that it is more a question of Beale’s being too short.
The Bad Character Evidence
I want to deal in detail only with Mr Watts’s main point, which is that the judge wrongly allowed the jury to hear of Beech’s “despicable” convictions for downloading indecent images and covertly filming a child (a friend of his son) urinating.
This was the ruling which, according to Watts:
“… made it impossible for Beech to have a fair trial on the PCJ and fraud charges. It left the ‘Nick’ trial hopelessly compromised, making the subsequent convictions wholly unsafe.”
He describes the application by the prosecution to admit this evidence as “an extraordinary wheeze.”
It is correct that prosecutors are not automatically permitted to adduce “bad character” evidence of this sort. The permission of the judge is normally required, and in Beech’s case it was given. Mr Watts is mistaken in suggesting that there is anything “extraordinary” about it, and if the word “wheeze” is meant to suggest that it was a clever but slightly tricksy ruse, he is wrong about that too.
His grasp of the law becomes shaky as he tries to explain the position:
“The problem is that prosecutors must not usually tell juries about any previous convictions of defendants otherwise trials would be hopelessly prejudiced. …
But there was a hope for the CPS – in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. It is a handy bit of legislation that is often used in particular to discredit witnesses who allege child sexual abuse because it enables defence lawyers to introduce evidence of any “dishonest” crime to be deployed against them to undermine their credibility. The fact that the “dishonest” crime may have sprung from the childhood abuse is invariably conveniently ignored.
Could the CPS break the usual rules and turn the Criminal Justice Act 2003 on to Beech the defendant and introduce his recent reprehensible past convictions into the trial? Well, it could certainly try.”
Mr Watts has identified the right Act but otherwise this is nonsense.
In the first place there is nothing remotely unusual about the prosecution introducing evidence of a defendant’s bad character. Typically, such evidence consists of previous convictions. So common is it, that the standard questionnaire completed by both parties at the first substantive hearing in the Crown Court requires the prosecution to give an “indication of bad character evidence to be relied upon.” Far from breaking the “usual rules” the CPS was following them.
Mr Watts then implies that the effect of the 2003 Act was to enable defence lawyers “to discredit witnesses who allege child sexual abuse.” That again is simply wrong. The effect of the Act was the opposite; to make it much harder for the defence to ask about a prosecution witness’s “bad character,” including their previous convictions.
The previous rule, derived from the common law which applied until 2003, was that the defence had a wide discretion to cross-examine as to the “credit” of a witness. If a witness had a previous conviction, the defence could ask about it without first obtaining the permission of the judge.
S.99 of the 2003 Act abolished this common law rule and replaced it with a statutory framework that is far more restrictive to the defence. S.100 sets out the rules which now apply:
100 Non-defendant’s bad character
(1) In criminal proceedings evidence of the bad character of a person other than the defendant is admissible if and only if—
(a) it is important explanatory evidence,
(b) it has substantial probative value in relation to a matter which—
(i) is a matter in issue in the proceedings, and
(ii) is of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole,
or
(c) all parties to the proceedings agree to the evidence being admissible.
If you think that the slightly woolly phrase “important explanatory evidence” enables the defence to get in any old conviction that a witness might have, think again. It is defined very restrictively in subsection (2):
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) (a) evidence is important explanatory evidence if—
(a) without it, the court or jury would find it impossible or difficult properly to understand other evidence in the case, and
(b) its value for understanding the case as a whole is substantial.
The effect of S.100 has been, as was intended, hugely to restrict the defence in asking questions of this sort. Here is Lord Justice Pitchford explaining it in a 2010 case called Miller [2010] EWCA Crim 1153:
“The purpose of s.100 … is to limit the ambit of cross-examination to that which is substantially probative of the issue of credibility, if credibility is an issue of substantial importance to the case. One of its intended effects is to eliminate kite-flying and innuendo against the character of a witness in favour of concentration upon the real issues in the case.”
The 2019 edition of Archbold’s Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice, rightly known as the criminal lawyers “bible,” summarises the law:
“Where the convictions are old and the offences not particularly serious, permission to cross-examine about them is likely to be refused. In R. v. Garnham [2008] EWCA Crim 266, for example, the Court of Appeal endorsed the refusal of the trial judge to permit the cross-examination of a rape complainant about her record for theft and other offences of dishonestly, the most recent of which was five years before. In Brewster and Cromwell, on the other hand, the Court of Appeal took a different view of the witness’s criminal record which included, besides the manslaughter already mentioned, convictions for theft, burglary and possession of heroin with intent to supply, the most recent being only two years before. Where—as often—the witness’s record falls somewhere between these two extremes, the court will have to decide upon which side of the line it falls; and provided the reasoning set out in Brewster and related cases is followed, the conclusion will be difficult to challenge on appeal.”
Presumably Mr Watts was mistaken rather than disingenuous in his description of the Act as
“a handy bit of legislation that is often used in particular to discredit witnesses who allege child sexual abuse because it enables defence lawyers to introduce evidence of any “dishonest” crime to be deployed against them to undermine their credibility,”
but if he had done his research he would not have made such a mistake.
As well as making it harder to introduce evidence of a witness’s bad character, the 2003 Act also made it easier to introduce evidence of that of the defendant.
The law here is set out in S.101 of the Act, subsection (1) of which lists the various circumstances in which a defendant’s bad character can be given in evidence:
S. 101 Defendant’s bad character
In criminal proceedings evidence of the defendant’s bad character is admissible if, but only if—
(a) all parties to the proceedings agree to the evidence being admissible,
(b) the evidence is adduced by the defendant himself or is given in answer to a question asked by him in cross-examination and intended to elicit it,
(c) it is important explanatory evidence,
(d) it is relevant to an important matter in issue between the defendant and the prosecution,
(e) it has substantial probative value in relation to an important matter in issue between the defendant and a co-defendant,
(f) it is evidence to correct a false impression given by the defendant, or
(g) the defendant has made an attack on another person’s character.
In the jargon that has grown up since 2003, these 7 routes to the admissibility of bad character evidence are usually known as “gateways.” Gateway (d) in particular has had a profound effect on the way criminal trials are run, sweeping away the old presumption that a defendant’s previous convictions, or other “misconduct” could not be referred to in a trial except in very special circumstances. Now, provided that such evidence is “relevant to an important matter in issue” bad character evidence is admissible.
That does not mean it can always be introduced. Unless both parties agree, or the defendant himself admits it in evidence [gateways (a) or (b)], the judge’s permission must still be obtained. Moreover, and very importantly, in the case of gateways (d) and (g) the judge must exclude otherwise relevant bad character evidence if:
“… it appears to the court that the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it.” [see S.101 (3)]
Although (as he has often reminded us) Mr Watts was present for the whole of the trial, his 7,500 word piece does not explain either the basis upon which the prosecution made its application, or the reasons given by the judge for allowing it. Given the importance Watts ascribes to the evidence – it is central to his argument that the trial was unfair – this is a peculiar and glaring omission.
Fortunately there was another reporter present who took a better note of the argument, the BBC’s Daniel De Simone. Prompted by the lacuna in Mr Watts’s piece, Mr De Simone has explained in detail the reasons why the judge allowed the jury to hear about Beech’s previous conviction. They were:
1. To demonstrate that Beech had an interest in the subject matter of his allegations, namely the sexual abuse of young boys by men, entirely independent of his claim that such abuse actually took place;
2. To demonstrate that he had a propensity to lie in relation to criminal inquiries, since he had lied to the police officers investigating his offending against children;
3. To demonstrate a propensity to deploy technology to hide his offending, which was at issue in relation to his use of an encrypted email account to pose as a fake collaborative witness during Operation Midland;
Reason 1 may not on its own have been entirely convincing, but in a case where the main allegation is that the defendant has lied through his teeth to the police is Mr Watts seriously suggesting that the the fact that he has lied to the police about another investigation is of no relevance at all? We don’t know the answer, because Watts has not said.
Similarly, where Beech was accused of using an encrypted email account to pretend to be a corroborative witness, how could it be irrelevant to reveal that he also used electronic gadgetry to make and then conceal his collection of indecent child images? Again Watts deals with this question by simply ignoring it.
In fact, and unsurprisingly in view of the obvious relevance of the convictions, the argument seems to have centred not on the question of relevance but on the judge’s residual duty to exclude the evidence if “it would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the trial that the court ought not to admit it.”
Yet once the relevance of the evidence is conceded, what was so unfair about admitting it? Certainly making indecent images of children, and secretly filming his son’s friends urinating were the sort of things that might well cause prejudice in jurors, but that alone is not enough to make the trial unfair. The typical situations in which bad character evidence is likely to be considered so unfair that it ought not to be admitted are (according to Archbold):
(1) where the bad character evidence is adduced to support a prosecution case that is particularly weak; and
(2) where the evidence of bad character is disputed and if admitted is likely to give rise to complicated “satellite issues.”
The case against Beech, even without the bad character evidence was strong and there was not the slightest doubt that he had committed the previous offences, indeed he had pleaded guilty to them before the main trial started.
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander
And there was, as Mr De Simone also mentions, another issue, which again, for some reason, Mr Watts entirely ignores. Beech’s defence was not that he was mad, or that he had for some reason imagined things that had not happened. It was that his allegations were true. In other words, he was accusing various people of murder, paedophilia, torture and people-trafficking. He was, in short, making an attack on other people’s characters. How could it then have been fair to allow Beech to accuse others of such criminality, yet prevent the jury learning that the man making the accusation was both a liar who was sexually interested in children? Gateway (g) of S.101 specifically provides for the admission of a defendant’s bad character in this situation. Mr Watts evidently believes that Beech should have been free to accuse others of murder, torture and child rape without the jury learning that he was himself indisputably a liar with a taste for covertly recording and storing indecent child images.
Even under the far more restrictive law in existence prior to 2003, where “the nature and conduct” of a defence involved “imputations on the … the witnesses for the prosecution,” a defendant laid himself open to cross-examination and the admission of evidence about his own bad character. In fact this has been a rule since defendants were first permitted to give evidence in their own defence in 1898.
The search evidence: kite flying and innuendo?
Mr Watts raises other points. He complains that the defence were forbidden from cross-examining Mr Proctor about various items found in the search of his premises by Operation Midland. Since all those items were returned to him by the Metropolitan Police investigating Beech’s rape and murder allegations, it is reasonable to assume that they did not regard them as very significant. One of the intended effects of s.100 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (the provision that Watts disapprovingly says is “often used in particular to discredit witnesses”) was, as Pitchford LJ put it:
“… to eliminate kite-flying and innuendo against the character of a witness in favour of concentration upon the real issues in the case.”
The judge was doing his duty.
The missing witnesses
And why, asks Watts, were more officers from the Met not called? Why in particular did neither prosecution nor defence call Supt Kenny “Credible and True” McDonald?
“I do not see, though, why the defence should not have summoned the missing officers.
A few, rather junior Met detectives were called, including one lowly DC who was dragged all the way to Newcastle even though he had also left the job. No round-the-world cruise for him, it seemed.
But no one thought to ask them, especially those who worked on Operation Midland from the outset, just what was the basis of the Met’s staggering “credible and true” assessment.
The answer would have been illuminating, putting a different complexion on the trial.”
As Mr Watts doesn’t see it, perhaps I can explain. A witness – other than an expert witness – is simply not allowed to give opinion evidence, and certainly not on the central issue in the case. That is why police officers are never asked “do you believe that the defendant is truthful / untruthful?”
But what if Beech’s very experienced defence team had been unwise enough to follow Watts’s advice? What if they had called Supt McDonald anyway, and asked him – perhaps when the judge was temporarily distracted – “what was the basis of your ‘credible and true’ assessment?”
I can guess what he would have said: that he now accepts that Beech duped him, just as he duped Watts, Conrad and Hencke and the rest of the credulous Exaro crew, and just as he duped Tom Watson, Zac Goldsmith, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, his counsellor, the police psychologist Elly Hanson, LBC’s James O’Brien, Bristol City Council the #IbelieveNick twitter-mob and goodness knows how many other people; and that whatever he may have thought in 2014, he now, like Watts himself, accepts that “Beech’s allegations against anyone have no credibility.” That might or might not have been “illuminating” and it would have damaged Beech’s defence.
I understand why Mr Watts is reluctant to let go of Beech. He gambled his reputation on him and lost. It must be very painful, though less painful than being accused of rape and murder via the pages of Exaro. Like a compulsive gambler, rather than sensibly walking away from the green baize, Mr Watts is now staking his shirt and suit on persuading the world that Beech is not just a greedy liar with an obsession about sex with small boys but also the “survivor” of some ill-defined establishment conspiracy to deny him a fair trial. It is another gamble that I predict he is going to lose.
Excellent, as always.
Well done Matthew and thank you for your article. I tried I think three times to read Watts article and found it strange. Soo…. relieved to see your article. Thanks once again.
Yes, Beech did have an unfair trial. It would have been much fairer if he’d had a co-defendant – Mark Watts. They could have shared a cell for the next eighteen years then.
Here is one of the articles I published at the time:
https://www.infotextmanuscripts.org/tln/the-latest-news-402.pdf
If this creep is still running an “investigation” bureau, perhaps some of the men with warrant cards who allowed him to dupe them should look into it. Unreal.
Okay. Firstly I agree with everything you say. But (there was going to be a but …)
I’m not convinced of the “carefully planned” thing. I’ve been involved (not as a witness, complainant or accused) and have read more interviews and statements than I care to think. They are very very obviously being “guided” shall we say. Pretty much told what to say (not a problem in court apparently, even with a witness saying directly “I didn’t say that. They wrote that”). Written statements addressing the same topics, in the same order, using the same expressions, the same phrases. They’re being fed what to say (admitted in court), agreeing with it, and then its put down as if it was their own words.
I don’t think he planned it – beyond random attempts (like the mad escape to Sweden). I think it was planned in a sort of “oh heck – I want money – how do I do it” sort of way. If it was a “cunning plan” it would have been far more credible and avoided obvious traps (like Proctor and Heath would only share a room if they were going to have a duel). It actually resembles one of Baldrick’s “Cunning Plans” in that it’s mostly a dumb idea made up on the fly.
So who did plan it ? Well, I think it’s a combination of Exaro, the Police, and Compensation Solicitors (if they are involved here, I’m not sure). They’re basically writing the story, and inviting him to fill in the gaps. They have compensation money waved under their noses (after any trial, so they can claim not) and react as you’d expect them to react. Offer many people money to lie without penalty, they’ll do it.
And that’s why I have concerns. Given my experience, I should want Beech to rot in jail for life, but actually I think he’s the scapegoat for the failings of others, who seem to have had no penalty whatsoever. No problem with him being jailed, but 18 years is way OTT. (I have a slight relative by marriage in for a nasty planned murder (he did it) and he only got Life/25 !)
Until this is fixed, nothing will change. There are hundreds of Beech wannabes out there and the risk is low (Prosecutions for lies are very Rare – cf David Jones in Merseyside) and the rewards sizeable.
Very interesting well written article Matthew.
So , the answer to your question “did Carl Beech have a fair trial?” Would appear to be , yes. Excellent the system works occasionally.
Again a very good, fair and forensic view Matthew – can I just clarify that I still feel Watts made a well written piece with several good points though I do feel that he and several other Enablers should be in a dock charged with deliberately attempting to pervert the course of justice; not because they wanted to but because, in media (and police) world, all that matters is a good story. The system is broken; police behaviour is appalling. There are many victims of false allegations in prison and many who put them there are wealthy or promoted and praised. But let’s not allow our eyes be blinded by one side of things; appalling though Beech’s behaviour is, it was simply inspired by a system that says “you will be believed”, that compensates liars through the CICA, that praises incompetent or corrupt police for jailing innocent men and women and that rewards fantasists for destroying the reputations of dead people. Beech should be in Broadmoor being treated and only released when his madness is over. But I do feel the Enablers (including Watts and “credible and true”) should have given evidence because then it would have emerged – not only were they conned but they wanted to be conned, because the broken system told them to be – and because all media wants is “a good story”.
I’d say that puts pay to what little reputation Watts had left.
A veritable tour de force…. a masterclass in legal interpretation and understanding.
Congratulations!
Good demolition – though I have to say that JK does say that it is only some points that he has sympathy with, including the length of sentence – he never expressed any admiration for Watts the person, and perhaps foolishly says the piece is well written without knowing the law that reveals it to be badly written due to being unconcerned with honest research or a holistic view.
I rather admire Jonathan for not dismissing people in their entirety even when they have been pretty damn beastly, including to him – and here he shows that tendency yet again, however misplaced his apparent support of Watts’ argument may be.
As another of the huge army of the falsely accused I am not so balanced in my view – and will not be inclined to support Watts’ delusional views in any way, nor extinguish his brain with a convenient hose should it accidentally ignite.
Was the evidence of Beech’s own crimes in fact relevant? I mean, it is widely held, and possibly true, that victims of sexual crimes as children often grow up to perpetrate such crimes themselves. So the fact that Beech had perpetrated such crimes does not prove or indicate that he was lying about his childhood experiences. Other factors surely had to be and perhaps were proved in order to indicate that he was lying.
Yes it was relevant, not for the reason you suggest but for the reasons given by the judge and set out in the post. The 2 most compelling (to me) were that he had lied to the police about his indecent images & voyeurism, including trying to blame someone else, and secondly, that his defence was that Proctor, Bramall, Heath, etc etc were rapists & murderers, and if someone is making allegations of that against others it is fair that the jury are aware of the character of the person making them. I agree there is an argument about whether the prejudicial effect on the jury might make the admission of the evidence unfair (I don’t think it did), but that’s different from saying the convictions were irrelevant.
Indeed. If your defence involves accusing others of foul crimes involving children, you really can’t complain if its pointed out to the jury that you’ve admitted to being a liar and someone sexually interested in children.
Thank you Patrick; I seek no praise for failing to be balanced. Matthew seems to agree with me on my main reasons for finding some of Watts’ points valid. And I’m happy to admit I know far, far less about the law than he does. Beech was, without doubt, guilty. Whether he was also mad is a different point – deliberate or misguided, the deeds were appalling. Believe me I’ve been there and have suffered from False Allegations; they have killed three friends of mine in the past 4 years. It is precisely the ENABLERS I fear are being let off by putting all the blame on Beech – and what’s left, on the system. Journalists who allow the search for a good story to trump all other responsibilities; police who obey the dictum “you must believe them” despite common sense saying “don’t”; lawyers who egg liars on whilst pretending to believe them and the law that allows this to happen. Watts is delighted I’ve called some good in his post. He seems not to have noticed that his fair points also direct him towards sharing a prison cell with Beech.
Great analytical piece , again, Matthew.
I wasn’t going to comment; too tired and fed up with the lack of understanding of the plight faced by those falsely accused.
However the “not interested in justice” quote really hurt and hit home.
It is the complete lack of justice meted out and faced by innocent professionals that is the point. Whether charged or not, convicted or not, the way police “investigate” allegations, starting with a “belief” , that reverses any notion of innocent until proven guilty and therefore any sense of natural justice, that so grates with anyone falsely accused, and should anyone with any sense of justice.
Police are not interested in truth, just a conviction or a result, of any kind.
Thank goodness for those, like Matthew, who keep trying to educate those who should know better, and already be able to see the gross and tragic consequences of a justice system on its knees, not just due to lack of resources, but also the concentration on allegations of past”abuse” and “making up for past mistakes”.
Perhaps the real tragedy is that current abuse goes unnoticed or not investigated.
Shame on police, and even if this was proved true in coming years, they will once again avoid accountability. Unless the good do not remain silent.
Hey Muppet, you are so full of shit, and so is your so called article here, you sound deluded, but your not!
Carl Beech is a “Manchurian Candidate” programed to go and a fronted by CID officers of the metropolitan police to make false allegations. The allegations, alone are the attack. The Metropolitan police realized in the late 1980’s that there is no defense against accusations of pedophilia, they used this to create false intelligence operations, bogus intelligence operations, which they are using now to prevent a proper investigation of the allegations of Carl Beech.
Lets go back to the 1970’s and the corruption of the Metropolitan Police, who blind eye the rape of children, carry it on to the mid 1980’s and the link to a company called Lowman Manufacturing, and then a subsidiary trust company called Saxon Trust, a minor trust company £600,000 in assets making odd loans. Hey cool one, don’t bribe, “make a loan” they owe you money to produce the children to fuck.
So to the present, Hey Nonce, what are you going to do with Carl Beech? best kill him, nah your a nonce, you love the power.
In 1989 there was not an internet, now anybody is reading this and looking at the companies and personal and i so hope they will visit you and insist that you deep throat cock.
Victims of historical pedophilia, of which there are very many more than we will ever hear about, especially immediately post WW2 and within the UK care system right up to the current day, will always be significantly disadvantaged in seeking justice. They are often induced into a life of drug dependency, often from an incredulously early age, and thereafter lead a life of crime to feed their habit. Hardly a context for upholding high moral values, and therefore trivially discredited in court. I recommend such individuals simply write their book and seek publicity through the increasing number of YouTube channels focusing on the topic. Be like Michael Tarraga who tells his own story of being a “meat rack boy” in post war Britain https://www.amazon.co.uk/Meat-Rack-Boy-Michael-Tarraga/dp/1794599487
I was looking for something like this. Yes, there can be no justice if one lonely voice is fighting against the VIP’s. They are extra ordinary important and would go to the ends of the earth to keep their deeds under the carpet. They abuse people and in turn these people become like their abusers. But in the end, the powerful escape and the weak are taken in and case closed. There is no justice in the world if the people applying it are also involved in grave deeds. They would never fall from grace, they would rather find someone to take the fall.
(quote) Similarly, where Beech was accused of using an encrypted email account to pretend to be a corroborative witness, how could it be irrelevant to reveal that he also used electronic gadgetry to make and then conceal his collection of indecent child images? (end quote)
Isn’t this rather like, and certainly the same argument, for introducing a witness’s previous conviction for beating someone to death, where it is for some reason relevant to show that he is a strong and healthy person?
Isn’t an encrypted email account the norm? Maybe I don’t know exactly what that means.