i dont know where to start.

[tiasmum]

interesting..........

i really cant thank all of you enough for your replies.

as noted at the bottom of my last input, ss turned up this morning with 10 mins notice.
she advises me that she has no concerns regarding the childs welfare or safety. however after reading peoples troubles on here, i'm not sure i'm buying it really. apparently it was the police who asked for the medical examination on my youngest and sw said that even they had no doubts that there is nothing wrong with my youngest, she aslo said he's a very happy outgoing cheeky chappy who quite openly speaks to the sw (so again i supose that helps a bit as were not telling him not to say anything to her). SW said that the school are probably a bit anxious and since the allegations made by daughter and investigated by police and ss in the school they r probably covering their backs, however for the last 6 yrs that my kids have been at the school and 3 yrs of that i worked there too as dinner lady and support assistant for a child with special needs, they never once had any concerns regarding any of my kids and even the sw said that counts for a lot?
Maybe i have a very good social worker who having children of her own knows what kids are like and is very good at knowing when kids are telling the truth and knows the signs of abuse or i have a very good sw who is very good at lying???

[Rights Fighter]

While I was on remand there was a guy in prison who had just been found guilty, 2 of his daughters had accused him of rape. Apparently they had tried to retract their statements a couple of times. I wasn't sure a believed him so I asked my barrister about this and she said it happens, accusers do retract but the cps will press forward and use their statement anyway. Once it's in the process of going to trial there is practically nothing that can stop it. I suppose if the accuser actually admits they made it up then that would be a different matter.

Then it would still be most unusual. The conviction could be appealed on the basis that the complainant could not be challenged on her statement/ABE interview. I would think that that could only occur if the statement/ABE was not challenged by the defence and that there were no inconsistencies. When somebody is lying there is usually something within their own statements that contradicts another part of it/them.

I would say that this is a rarity. In my ten years of helping to defend these cases I have yet to come across one where this has happened although I have heard of it happening - VERY RARELY.

[Saffron]

TiasMum

There are some good social workers out there - ones who are really committed to doing the best they can. They are not all dreadful! Same with coppers really...some will do anything to gain a conviction and some are genuinely interested in getting to the truth.

You are doing really well. Stay strong.

[Verity]

Mark's barrister confirmed to me that if an allegation is made by a minor it is 'policy' for it to go to trial and she used these words;
"An allegation has been made so it is for a jury to decide on the accused's guilt......... (and said nearly as an after thought);
or innocence.

The barrister who has written the sexual offences sentencing referencer which is used by prosecutors and judges also told me the same.

So yes in the last few years the goal posts have not just been moved, they have been removed.
The rights and protections in law for those accused of an offence of a sexual nature have been destroyed, by-passed and ignored as a direct result of Home Office circulars issued to the Law Society, the CPS (who have a positive charging policy; ie: if a case can be forwarded to trial on the most tenuous and weak 'evidence', that being the unsubstantiated, uncorroborated simple word alone of the complainant, then to trial it goes) and the police.

There are some decent, honest OIC's who do the right thing but they seem to be getting few and far between.

What is making things worse is the latest directive not to prosecute false accusers even if the evidence against them is compelling or overwhelming.
I suspect this is is a response to the rising numbers of false accusers who were being tried and convicted.
It was proving that false allegations are not a rarity but a commonplace crime perpetrated predominantly against men.

The only way innocent victims falsely accused can counter this is to take out a private prosecution against their false accuser and either self-represent or team up with a friend lay advocate or join up with other victims falsely accused and do a class action against the false accusers.
Verity

[Rights Fighter]

While I was on remand there was a guy in prison who had just been found guilty, 2 of his daughters had accused him of rape. Apparently they had tried to retract their statements a couple of times. I wasn't sure a believed him so I asked my barrister about this ............

Are you saying that your barrister visited you in prison?

The way you have worded this sounds like you had been told this by an inmate while you were inside (on remand) and that you asked your barrister pretty soon afterwards.

[66dw99]

Are you saying that your barrister visited you in prison?

The way you have worded this sounds like you had been told this by an inmate while you were inside (on remand) and that you asked your barrister pretty soon afterwards.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, yes I was told by a prisoner while I was on remand and yes I know not to believe everything I hear. It played on my mind and when I had my meeting with my barrister for the first time I mentioned it to her and that's when she told me.

I really thought my accuser would retract what she had said, oh how naive was I. Then I learnt that it was irrelevant anyway as even if she did it would still go to trial.

[Bigsister]

Social workers are usually smiling assasins in my opinion. I dont think they would be doing the job how is expected of them if they weren't. They are certainly never anyones friend.
When one of them visited me after my bro was questioned, he hadn't even been charged yet, & she told me there was more to the allegation against him, more had happened than just touching.
I have since seen the paper work & witness statements & that was bull! And she said all that in front of my 2 kids. They are NOT there for childrens benefit. They are fishers.

[Rights Fighter]

Sorry for the misunderstanding, yes I was told by a prisoner while I was on remand and yes I know not to believe everything I hear. It played on my mind and when I had my meeting with my barrister for the first time I mentioned it to her and that's when she told me.

I really thought my accuser would retract what she had said, oh how naive was I. Then I learnt that it was irrelevant anyway as even if she did it would still go to trial.

Fortunately, as some suspects/defendants have discovered, when statements have been retracted or where the allegations have involved "children" in historic allegations, in some cases the matters have been NFA'd / discontinued.

It would not be "in the public interest" (as taxpayers more often than not ultimately fund trials and appeals) to continue with a case that has little hope of succeeding.

[66dw99]

Social workers are usually smiling assasins in my opinion. I dont think they would be doing the job how is expected of them if they weren't. They are certainly never anyones friend.
When one of them visited me after my bro was questioned, he hadn't even been charged yet, & she told me there was more to the allegation against him, more had happened than just touching.
I have since seen the paper work & witness statements & that was bull! And she said all that in front of my 2 kids. They are NOT there for childrens benefit. They are fishers.

That is exactly what they are like, they actually told my nieces that I had admitted some of the charges, which was complete and utter tosh. Luckily I had told my nieces everything anyway so they new it was rubbish.

[Rights Fighter]

Yes - beware the smiling Rotweillers AKA Social workers who by the way volunteer to work in these cases as I understand it. Makes me wonder why.......

Like probation and police officers they will lie to get the result they want regardless of the truth of the matter.

[Bigsister]

That is exactly what they are like, they actually told my nieces that I had admitted some of the charges, which was complete and utter tosh. Luckily I had told my nieces everything anyway so they new it was rubbish.

The thing I dont get is WHY do they do that? I mean in our case it had no benefit at all, my 2 told her they get on great with their uncle & actually put across they thought it was all ridiculous. My son carried on on his pc in the living room at the time. Although I guess it was my 13 yr old at the time daughter she was more interested in speaking to. It's not like they were or are witnesses. Social workers are probably the most damaging people that children can end up unfortunatey getting involved with. It's rare you hear anything good come of them.

[quinnb]

The reason why they do that is simple. Baby p. They do not under any circumstances want another little child splashed all over the media. So even the slightest
chance is ruthlessly closed down. But can u really blame them I font know. I for one does not want to see another baby p. And if it means punishing the innocent to ensure the guilty masquerading as innocent then so be it.
But on the other hand I have also been arrested for a false accusation of rape. My little boy in care for a year and if they had their way they would have put bullet through my brain and at that point if u told me what I posted above I would have been none to happy about it. But now I have gone through the other side the key phrase is the safety of a child is paramount.

[66dw99]

The reason why they do that is simple. Baby p. They do not under any circumstances want another little child splashed all over the media. So even the slightest
chance is ruthlessly closed down. But can u really blame them I font know. I for one does not want to see another baby p. And if it means punishing the innocent to ensure the guilty masquerading as innocent then so be it.
But on the other hand I have also been arrested for a false accusation of rape. My little boy in care for a year and if they had their way they would have put bullet through my brain and at that point if u told me what I posted above I would have been none to happy about it. But now I have gone through the other side the key phrase is the safety of a child is paramount.

And that is the very reason so many innocent people are languishing in our prisons. I'm sure that's what so many jury's think, they'd rather see and innocent person go to jail than a guilty one go free. That attitude has to change, if the police and ss do their jobs properly in the first place then it just wouldn't happen!!

[quinnb]

I agree beds police were so useless and incompetent that the lie the British police are best in world was proved. But and talking about ss. Again I had many an argument with them and they used in the best interests of the child argumenta bit to much when it suited them. However we have started an interesting debate. Do jurys really think that way. How many people who are guilty walk and how many innocent ppl get convicted. Are the prisons full of innocent ppl or do the jurys get it right. U say if police and ss do jobs properly. Please tell me what they are not doing properly and how do they fix it.

[Rights Fighter]

Do jurys really think that way. How many people who are guilty walk and how many innocent ppl get convicted. Are the prisons full of innocent ppl or do the jurys get it right.

It depends on the jurors and what is in the news at the time, in some cases. One guy I know was convicted the same week Maddie McCann went missing. Those jurors went home every evening, turned on their TVS or radios/computers and it was all about Maddie (allegedly) being abducted by a paedophile or paedophiles.

The defence barrister was brilliant - yet our man was found guilty. I am 199% sure that what went on that week in the news had a massive bearing on it. I am sure that the jury was swayed by that.

I know that some people who are guilty get away with it after being found not guilty.

I also know that some of our guys are found not guilty - correctly so.

Unfortunately, because of my work, I also know that many innocent men (and some women) are found guilty when they are completely innocent.

I've said it before, if these cases were removed from conviction targets I am sure the police are more likely to investigate them properly, rather than just gathering evidence in the hope of a conviction, ignoring critical defence evidence as they do, at the moment.

If the allegations were properly investigated then the truth would come out and SS would know about it. At the moment SS are left with having to protect the children after an allegation is made (which they must do) and then once a wrong conviction occurs they then continue "working with" the family, accusing those that support the inmate of being "in denial" and "at risk" of being taken in by yet another (alleged) child abuser.

Having said that, I've just read a family court judgment online, where the evidence was abundantly clear that the mother had concocted the whole lot in order to stop her ex husband having contact with the children, and as she was wealthy and he was not, she would not have to pay any sort of divorce settlement.

Fortunately the family court judge saw through that - despite the best efforts of the social worker who insisted that the mother was a good caring mother with no agenda. The allegations consisted of fantastical scenarios including a man with three heads who abused one child with his left head...............

Utter stupidity yet that SW chose to ignore the rubbish........