The Damage to Society from False Accusations

A BUSINESSMAN is suing Surrey police for sending to a school information from the force computer that wrongly suggests he could be a danger to girls.

The policy of allowing the police and other government employees to spread, what are, effectively, nothing more than damaging rumours about someone, just because they happen to have suspicions about him (and, of course, the victims of such malicious suspicions are almost invariably males) is such an appalling corruption of any decent notion of justice that it has to be opposed vigorously.

Thomas Hamilton

It might also be well worth reminding these arrogant and malevolent government employees that Thomas Hamilton, who eventually killed 16 children at Dunblane, was persecuted in just such a manner, and, further, he, himself, claimed that his murderous actions constituted nothing less than direct retribution for the way in which he had been victimised and harassed on account of persistent and unfounded malicious rumours about his intentions toward the children with whom he worked. 

Indeed, just prior to his infamous actions he had been protesting his innocence in writings to the press, to the police, to Members of Parliament and even to the Queen.

He was ignored.

The argument is, of course, that 'it is better to be safe than sorry' when it comes to the welfare of women and children and the possibility that they might be sexually interfered with, but this is almost always at the expense of innocent men.

However, this argument is completely false. 

For example, the result of treating adults with unwarranted suspicion whenever they have anything to do with children is that they withdraw from having much to do with them. 

James Bulger

Indeed, it is precisely because of this that, for example again, the two year old James Bulger was able to be led openly to his death by two young boys along a route that was actually being traversed by hundreds of adults.

Quite simply, if the two young boys who killed him had been at school that day, the shocking murder of James Bulger could never have happened. 

adults now turn away from the children in their midst

And it is only because adults now turn away from the children in their midst that these two boys were able to wander around the streets and the shopping centre for most of the day without anyone demanding why they were not at school, and doing something about it; such as reporting them.

There is no doubt that the rumour-mongers and those who espouse the view that 'stranger' adults are not to be trusted around children are the very ones who cause much of the child abuse that actually does take place in our society today.

To appreciate this, try to understand the following.

Imagine, for example, that there is only one potential child abuser throughout the ENTIRE country. 

Yes; just ONE.

Now, ask yourself this question.

How are the potential victims of this single potential abuser more likely to be protected?

1. By discouraging the general adult population from having anything to do with children?

OR

2. By encouraging the general adult population to get involved with children and to keep their eyes on them?

Well, 1. would clearly be preposterous. After all, there is only one potential abuser in the entire country.

Would we really want to alienate the entire adult population from having anything to do with children

Would we really want to alienate the entire adult population from having anything to do with children when the chances of a child being abused is so unimaginably tiny? 

And think of the horrendous consequences of allowing all our children to do pretty much as they wish because the adults surrounding them are too fearful to intervene in their activities.

Further, of course, with all the adults generally 'looking the other way', it is much easier for our single potential abuser to target the children - just as the Bulger killers were allowed to do as they wandered aimlessly about the streets  - completely unchecked - and then walked off - completely unchallenged - with the little boy.

And so, surely, with only one abuser in the entire nation, it would be far better for our society to have even its 'stranger' adults involved with the children - and keeping their eyes on them. After all, 99.99999% of them will have a good influence and, indeed, provide an amazing amount of protection against our single potential abuser. 

Now, imagine that the number of potential child abusers starts to increase dramatically. And the number reaches 500,000. There is now a potential child abuser, or two, in every shopping centre - every day.

Which option (1. or 2. above) would provide the greater protection now?

Well. It's the same one, isn't it?

Of course it is. There's no real difference. Just think of the Bulger scenario again.

If people are looking the other way, then there is a far greater likelihood of a child being abused, or, in this case, killed.

it is sheer madness to make people 'look the other way'

And if there are thousands of abusers around (rather than just one) it is sheer madness to make people 'look the other way'. 

Indeed, whatever kind of 'criminality' is under consideration, it is surely the case that the more of it that there is, the more policing that there needs to be! 

And this means that more people need to be involved in policing. Not fewer.

If you have any remaining doubts about this, just consider the situation where, for example, your very own children are being taken on a school trip for two weeks along with, say, 100 other children. Which would make you feel more comfortable; a situation where five of the school teachers were also on the trip, or where twenty such teachers accompanied the children?

The reality is that the more adults that there are to look after the welfare of the children, the safer it is for them.

But the hysteria-mongers, who keep flaming the issues around child abuse, and who keep successfully portraying normal adults as potential abusers, are achieving the exact opposite. They are frightening the millions of 'civilian police officers' into looking the other way.

And so it is that the argument that it is better for society to trip easily into making unjustifiable false allegations on the grounds that 'it is better to be safe than sorry' quickly backfires because the consequence is that millions of civilian police officers begin 'to look the other way' for fear that someone might just 'trip' into the belief that they are abusers themselves.

And, if this wasn't bad enough, the resulting increase in the anti-social behaviours of our children - that occur precisely because of the loss of so much adult policing - heaps horrendous additional burdens on to our society in terms of massively increased crime, poorer socialisation, lost education and, hence, even more abused children. 

It also creates a climate in which many more children end up being vulnerable to abuse.

Financially, these hysteria-creators cost the nation many billions of pounds annually. 

Socially, they tear up the very fabric of society and decrease significantly the well-being of the entire population.

 they are a permanent and mighty curse on the nation's psyche

Psychologically, they are a permanent and mighty curse on the nation's psyche, as most of its citizens scurry around in constant fear of being abused, or of falsely being labelled as an abuser.

And, to top it all, they actually do far more harm to the very children that they claim to be so concerned about!

Fundamentally, the child-abuse hysteria causes nothing but misery both to adults and to children.

And the same occurs when the justice system knowingly and willingly foists injustice upon its citizens - by, for example, allowing the child-abuse hysterics to damage severely the lives of innocent others merely on the basis of their suspicions. 

The public realisation that there is, basically, an unjust, uncontrollable, hysterical witch-hunt being undertaken undermines nearly all our relationships - especially those with children - and it increases, therefore, the vulnerability of us all - and that particularly includes the children - to those who might, in fact, abuse us.

Indeed, with regard to child abuse itself, while such media hyperbole and deceit, together with the corruption of our justice system and its officials, might well, in the end, result in more severe punishments for genuine abusers who are actually caught, they do so by increasing enormously the amount and severity of child abuse that actually takes place within the country in the first place.

Finally, in order to ram the point home with a simple example, just imagine that your child was going on a school camping holiday next week with 20 other children. 

With regard to the specific issue of sexual abuse, which would make you feel safer? 

One teacher accompanying the children?

Two teachers accompanying the children?

Or ten teachers?

Surely, the children would be much safer from sexual abuse if there were ten teachers accompanying them.

The more teachers the better.

Well. The same is true for society as a whole.

But what the child-abuse hysterics are doing is to make the vast majority of adults (the teachers) look the other way.

Guilty - By Suspicion Alone

The child abuse industry has so successfully demonised the male gender, and the politicians have so perverted the justice system, that very few men are now prepared to risk their entire futures by working anywhere near children.

Indeed, it takes no valid evidence whatsoever to have such men roughly investigated, sacked from their jobs, publicly vilified, and even locked up.

All it takes is an accusation.

For example, here is the attitude of the social services as revealed on the BBC's programme Hypotheticals where professionals are asked how they would react in a hypothetical situation that is put to them, in this case, by the late Vincent Hannah.

The hypothetical scenario was about a 14 year old girl who had made two separate and distinct allegations of abuse against different men.

In the first instance, the allegation was about an incident with a male teacher. The professionals in the programme decided that the teacher must immediately be suspended from the school. 

Eventually, through lack of evidence, the teacher was re-instated. But his career was completely ruined. After all, who would take the risk of employing him should he seek another job within the profession?

And why is this completely innocent man's career ruined? 

Because for people like Yasmin Iyyaz, a social worker; Even when " ... there's no witness and there's no evidence, it doesn't mean it did not happen, and from our point of view, we believe the child, if the child is making an allegation."

The second allegation made by the same 14 year old some time later was about an incident with the stepfather, where the mother and the stepfather both denied any impropriety, and when, further, the 14 year old herself was withdrawing the allegation.

Well, Ms Jean Jeffrey, a Director of Social Services, appeared rather annoyed that this hypothetical pupil had withdrawn the allegation. Her manner changed to one that could be best described as dictatorial; as was the fist-waving that accompanied her sometimes as she spoke. Also, at this point, she referred to children as ‘kids’, whereas throughout the rest of the programme she used the more endearing term ‘children’.

" ... because what you do is ... you MARCH along beside the kid, you KEEP TALKING to the kid, it's not that black and white, you GET THROUGH to the kid then somehow ... ... Stick with it! Stick with it! ... It's that concern to get through that REALLY carries you forward."

John Faulkner, a Detective Inspector in the Family Protection Unit, would have arrested the stepfather. 

No evidence. No witnesses. The 14 year old has withdrawn the allegation. But the stepfather is arrested. 

Another life possibly ruined.

Jean Jeffrey again - "... and whether it (the allegation) is accurate or not, we must be concerned what is going on for her (the 14 year old)."