Cheery was aware that Commander Vimes didn't like the phrase 'The innocent have nothing to fear', believing the innocent had everything to fear, mostly from the guilty but in the longer term even more from those who say things like 'The innocent have nothing to fear'.

Terry Pratchett (click for a review of the Discworld novel Snuff)

In my case, I was persecuted when I was a local councillor in Sidmouth (UK) in around 1998. A few local zealots and their friends in high places tried to use the s.215 planning law against my 'wild garden'. They failed. Subsequently, I helped many other people with on-line advice - including a man in Cheshire who was persecuted in 2007/8 to the point of near suicide by one particular planning officer who was trying to make a name for himself. This is recorded here. To their credit, local court officials assisted me.

Several other cases from other areas of the UK were never written up - often because the people who were persecuted were fearful of the consequences were they to be seen to have tried to stand up for their rights.

Some years ago, the German government abolished payouts for sex abuse cases except where there was corroborated evidence. The result was a drop of over 80% in the number of complaints from would be 'victims'.

	For many years, ever since Labour MP Harriet Harman embarked on a feminist campaign to increase the conviction rate for rape and with the involvement more recently of the Director of Public Prosecutions Alison Saunders, many men have been falsely accused of 'sexual' crimes. Innocent men have committed suicide. None of this matters to ardent feminists: these people simply have their own agenda. The most disastrous central feature of many injustices is the fact that both police and the CPS have had a policy of always believing purported victims of any type of sexual abuse - and irrespective of whether they are delusional, paranoid, fantasists or merely out for revenge. It has been suggested that in many cases the 'easy compensation' available may be the prime motive. This aspect of CPS behaviour has been heavily criticised both in the Press and by Sir Richard Henriques, a retired High Court Judge who undertook a review of major police operations during 2016. A BBC radio programme highlighted that 43 failings by the police had been documented.  A short text summary is here. A common feature of several high-profile cases where no prosecution should ever have occurred (and thankfully where defendants were acquitted) is that the CPS not only failed to apologise (or offer compensation) but excused their malevolent behaviour with the stock phrase "we respect the decision of the jury in this case".
The allegation in this case was that in walking past a fully clothed woman on a crowded train station in the rush-hour, Mark Pearson somehow managed to penetrate her vagina for two or three seconds, using three fingers and whilst holding a newspaper in one hand and a rucksack in his other hand. The entire non-incident was captured on CCTV - yet the 60 year old actress was believed. Mark was put on trial by the CPS. So what hope for anyone accused of molesting a scantily clad woman in a dance hall in the UK? Mark Pearson was supported in his ordeal by world-famous campaigner, Erin Pizzey, herself no stranger to courtrooms, threats and intimidation from militant feminists.	Thus, anyone who has ever made enemies whether in business or in politics or even as a surgeon, dentist or doctor can now expect that any malicious complaint against them will be believed - and that their life may be turned upside down as a result. If you think this is exaggerated - then read on to study the case of Mark Pearson - and he is not alone. In a sense, Mark Pearson was lucky - he didn't go to prison for a crime he didn't commit. David Bryant was less fortunate - you can read a full summary of his case written by a barrister here. - Take your time - it is worth reading every word on this website. One key factor is that appeals against wrongful criminal conviction are often centred upon contesting the evidence - but in these cases there was no evidence to start with - so how do you appeal? Another case has been turned into book. Probably few of the people wrongly convicted of sex crimes have either the educational attainment or financial resources to fight back. Yet another book is by veteran broadcaster Paul Gambaccini - his ordeal under the now-discredited Operation Yewtree is also outlined here. Another recent case is that of Nigel Lang: the details are on a solicitors website. and more widely on other links. This firm of solicitors is a member of the Police Action Lawyers Group. Making a false complaint of historical sexual abuse is probably the easiest way to obtain compensation for events that never occurred. The sums involved may be greater than for 'whiplash' injury which, until recently, was a large 'claims compensation' scam in the UK. Taken as a whole, insurance fraud is estimated at £3 billion (£3000 million) annually in the UK with each minor (and often fraudulent) whiplash claim being £1000 to £3000. Some lawyers may have become millionaires by processing thousands of false claims. Even if a malicious sexual complaint is eventually proven to be a complete fabrication and even if it wastes thousands of hours of police time (and millions of pounds of public money), the complainant will never be prosecuted and anonymity will be guaranteed. This is the law as it is misused today (in 2016) in the UK. Thus - the policies of both the police and the CPS have in effect encouraged false allegations. Accusers and fantasists have nothing to lose and everything to gain, including the prospect of financial compensation. Both the police and the CPS will willingly do their dirty work for them - including driving innocent people to suicide. Of possible future interest is whether people who make false allegations can be sued in the civil courts. One problem may be that, almost universally, they may be low achievers with only minimal assets. Therefore they may not be worth suing. But it is still an interesting idea.
The article in the Daily Mail attracted nearly 600 comments. Most were highly critical of the actress, whose identity was, at that time, not widely known.	Erin Pizzey is a famous activist and author. She set up the first 'refuge' centre in the world for battered women. Like Camille Paglia she has been variously attacked and threatened by vicious feminists. Erin Pizzey is now also highly critical of the CPS - see her comments in the transcript below: "the CPS have, unfortunately, a very, very jaundiced look at anything to do with men and I’ve been watching men targeted now for several years, dragged through the courts, humiliated, really persecuted."

Why did I become interested in these instances of injustice?

I have always had an slight interest in the law. As a scientist in the civil service, I attended lectures and seminars on elementary contract law, negligence, duty of care etc. I have always undertaken all my own legal work (for conveyancing of flats and houses, court cases, etc, and dating back over 30 years). I have been an expert witness on scientific and technical matters in both criminal and civil cases.

So why did I become interested in cases involving alleged sexual abuse or assault? The short answer is that I became curious about the possible ramifications when a long term, favourite and attractive dancing partner suddenly accused me of molesting her during a dance. This was when we were both away from home at a dance weekend in late February 2016. Yet I had not danced with her any differently than I had done many times before - always with some flirting as is often encouraged in folk dance. She refused to elaborate on what had upset her or exactly when it was supposed to have occurred. In emails to and from the dance organisers I suggested her attitude might merely have been attention seeking - a well-known characteristic of recently divorced women who have been 'dumped' by their long-term husbands. These women feel a deep sense of loss and sometimes will go to great lengths to get the attention of other men - and that can include being nasty to them. You see this all the time on dating websites.

When I returned home from the dance weekend I searched the internet for examples where false complaints of assault had been made. There are many examples. In the case of Mark Pearson, the events were purported to have occurred in December 2014 but it was February 2016 before he was acquitted after enduring a lengthy trial. He elected to make public all details of his case in order to help other men who might also be falsely accused.

Because of Mark Pearson's openness, his is an unusually well documented case of a false allegation of sexual assault. It has been covered on many news websites in the UK and USA. The female actress who made the false claim has been named on several US based websites, one of which is referred to in the comments section of a related article in the Daily Mail in the UK. A screenshot is reproduced above. You may need to access the website and search for the name of the victim, or maybe searching Google for 'Mark Pearson false actress' could produce the same results.

Here is some summary text from a US website: it condemns the injustice of the UK law that prevents naming of women (or men) who falsely accuse other men or women of rape and other 'sex' crimes. The US website contains a thoughtful video by Paul Elam - who is a well known and lucid commentator on rampant feminism. However, despite that my website is hosted in the US, I'm not allowed to tell you what is in the video, because I live in the UK. Under the UK legal system people can be prosecuted and imprisoned for telling the truth. But you are allowed to look up Paul Elam on youtube.

If you live in the UK you are probably not allowed to Google the following words by Dean Esmay - so wait until you go to a free country for a holiday.

"My sources for this information are unimpeachable. UK law would prevent anyone UK-based from putting out this information, however. Good thing I’ve never set foot anywhere in the UK, isn’t it? My friend Paul Elam has more to say."

Transcript of interview on ITV.com with Mark Pearson (taken from original full length ITV video, March 2016)

Holly Willoughby (TV personality and multi-millionaire model): For the last year our next guest’s life has become a complete living nightmare. Mark Pearson (MP) was making his way back home during a busy commute when he passed a complete stranger. In that split second his life changed forever after she falsely accused him of sexual assault.

Phillip Schofield (TV presenter): On Friday, Mark was found Not Guilty and joins us now alongside Erin Pizzey (EP) who has been his avid campaigner The day that this took place, Dec 3rd 2014 6.40 your regular commute the amount of times you have walked through Waterloo Station at that time, hundreds of times, do you actually remember that day in particular?

Mark Pearson (MP) : No, nothing, it was just an ordinary day going home from work.

So the first you knew about any of this was later on, on 5 Feb 2015, when you got a knock at the door?

MP: Sure,

And it was the police?

MP: Yes, it was two months after the so called event.

What did they say?

MP: They just said “Can we come in?” There were six of them, what I now know is called a Trojan Team, and they go around London picking people up who are wanted by the police, the transport police

HW: So you must have been, at some point you must, you were fully co-operate which you were, you went down to the police station, you gave them all the information that you had, like you don’t remember this day in question, because there were so many similar days like it, nothing stuck out in your head, you must have been thinking at this point, common sense will prevail surely, they realise they had got the wrong person,

MP: I had the option not to say anything. My solicitor, the duty solicitor, said you could either say no comment or you could be fully co-operative which is what I did, because any normal person would assume that common sense would prevail, they would look at the CCTV footage which they had, compare that with what the woman was saying and conclude that it was preposterous, it was just nonsense, what she was saying.

It was four months after that that you were then phoned by your solicitor and he said ”You’re going to be charged”

MP: Yes.

And then this is going to go to Court?

MP: That was the worst day of my life,

HW: And there were no witnesses, there was no forensic evidence to this, the biggest bit of evidence they had was the CCTV footage and now in her statement she gave to the police it was two to three seconds that this moment happened on passing,

She said, she’s a well known actress in her sixties, claimed that you sexually assaulted her, penetratively, for two to three seconds, and this was followed she insisted by a violent blow to her left shoulder. And since this has all come to light and we have all seen the CCTV footage - it is impossible for that to have happened.

MP: It totally contradicts what she is saying, and what I don’t understand is why the CPS even the Police didn’t see that. I hold the CPS more responsible because we actually have the CCTV footage analysed by an expert at Warwick University, a guy called Jacob Blythe (who I thank) and the CPS still proceeded with the trial. The CPS said in their statement ”there was sufficient evidence for this case to proceed to Court, and progress to a trial, we respect the decision of the jury.”

They’re saying there is evidence, we’ve got the evidence here in front of us, where is this going wrong then, this seems to be a serious problem here?

MP: It is a systemic problem with the CPS, there’s something gone radically wrong with their processes,

On analysis of that CCTV footage, you didn’t break stride, you passed her possibly without even brushing her, you passed her in half a second, and yet all of this is supposed to have taken place: you have a bag, you have your hand on the strap, with your right hand, and in your left hand you are carrying a newspaper, so you must have thought how…

MP: Logistically it is not possible to do what she accused me of, I would have had to walk forwards whilst leaning backwards,

HW: So what has this done to you then, because I mean you have lived with this for a year, you’ve been named, she remains anonymous, not named at all, but as a person, as a man, how does this feel, to be accused of something…

MP: I should have remained anonymous as well, although I chose eventually to give my name to the newspapers because I wanted to publicise this to stop it happening to other people. It should never have happened to me and for all I know it is happening to other people right now. It took the jury 90 minutes to decide, 9 women, 3 men to reach their verdict and to reject her story.

Erin Pizzey (EP), a family care activist: normally you’re a campaigner for women’s issues, you started the first domestic ……

EP: The first refuge centre in the world, yes,

but this time you’re on the side of a man?

EP: I’ve always said it is generational family violence, it affects both men and women, particularly children, and in a case like this, We had a mutual friend, I didn’t know Mark a year ago, a mutual friend and she suggested that he phone me, for help, and when he came to see me, I was terribly worried about him because he was in such a state of shock, and people die, they commit suicide in situations like this, and you (Mark) had to have help didn’t you?

MP: Yes, I had therapy myself,

Looking at that evidence, what conclusion did you come to?

EP: Well I knew from the beginning as soon as he told me what happened, that’s it is a false allegation, and one of the problems is that the Police, and I’ve been on other cases where they’ve said they don’t have the right to drop things, it’s all anything to do with sex or sexual abuse or rape has to go to the CPS, and the CPS have, unfortunately, a very, very jaundiced look at anything to do with men and I’ve been watching men targeted now for several years, dragged through the courts, humiliated, really persecuted.

HW: What would you like to see done, how can we..….

EP: I think we have to stop the false allegations, when somebody like Mark is found absolutely not guilty…

HW: People are saying the CPS are damned if they do and damned if they don’t, a lot of people are not coming forward because they’ve got fear they won’t be believed,

EP: You can’t on the basis of “Oh, people might not come (forward)", demonise very innocent people. If you make statements then you have to stand by them,

You’ve gone on to say that at the moment women seem to be above the law.

EP: Well I think that is true. Particularly in these cases, because there is a policy, because everything has to be investigated, and because women particularly know they will be anonymous for the rest of their lives, you think of the ruined men you’ve passed through here, those women who made those allegations, they’re still, for the rest of their lives, they are protected.

We don’t know what happened with this woman, whether that did happen but she just got the wrong guy or the investigation went in the wrong direction, It physically can’t happen if you think about it. Do you believe that she should be anonymous?

No, I think she,…, he’s been found not guilty, she should come up in front of the courts,

What is your message to the CPS?

EP: The CPS are not fit for purpose.

What about you Mark, what do you say?

MP. Exactly, the same, the system needs to be altered, slightly maybe, but there has to be some sort of change.

And how do you feel now when you are out travelling, doing your commute?

MP: Well I have not gone back to work yet, it was only Friday that I was out, I’ll find that out on Wednesday, I’ll think.

Since it happened I’ve avoided that part of Waterloo Station, but I have no choice but to use Waterloo, like 300,000 other people every day,

HW: I’m very sorry you’ve had to go through something like this, I hope you can find some way to move on from it.

MP: Thank you.

Alison Saunders, a long-time employee of the CPS, emphasised at the outset that the CPS had sought to "reduce chances of miscarriages of justice".. by "raising standards", "conducting a independent review of evidence", "to filter cases to ensure there is evidence for a prosecution" (etc). Her interview centred only upon the procedures of the CPS in relation to recent 'celebrity' cases.

She was not asked about any of the several recent cases where the CPS prosecuted 'ordinary' people (Mark Pearson, David Bryant (who spent 3 years in prison after being convicted on the word of a proven serial liar) - and without a shred of actual evidence being available. This may have been as a result of a condition imposed by the CPS on the BBC.

For a perspective from a barrister with decades of experience read this excellent summary of the David Bryant case - and the many comments that follow it. You will probably never again have any faith in the legal system in the UK. Indeed, amongst lawyers, the Royal Courts of Justice in London are referred to as the Law Courts. What you will experience there, more often than not, is Law rather than Justice.

Other references on the David Bryant case include this and this. An article by Dominic Lawson is here.

There was less coverage of the David Bird case - probably because he was cleared almost immediately by the jury and did not spend years in prison for a crime he didn't commit.

A case dating from 2002 was reported in the Sunday Telegraph of 22 Oct 2006 (add link). This article, by Alasdair Palmer, (one of the few journalists brave enough to report these cases) highlighted the absurdity of believing witnesses who have been 'coached' by the police to 'recall' historical abuse - and with compensation promised to be payable when they did recount the required evidence. It was headlined as "The Orwellian world of sexual offence trials, where witnesses are 'rewarded' and a defendant has to prove his innocence". In this case an innocent man spent years in jail. The Court of Appeal ruled twice he should never have been convicted. After the first appeal a retrial was ordered. It is asserted that the 'complainants', having been made aware by the police of flaws in their original evidence, changed it. This enabled a second term of eight years to be handed down at the retrial.

The article highlights the views of Chris Saltrese, a solicitor who has handled many similar cases:

As Sir Richard Henriques said in his report on the failings of the Metropolitan Police in their 'Operation Midland' - "It was and remains policy to believe complainants from the outset.... the instruction foisted upon investigators to believe a 'victim' from the outset perverts our system of justice and attempts to impose upon a thinking investigator an artificial and false state of mind". A BBC radio programme discussing these issues is here.

Sir Richard also said " ..prominent people are vulnerable to compensation seekers, attention seekers and those with mental health problems"

The CPS position seems still to be that any malcontent or vindictive or deranged person or persons can make wholly fabricated sexual allegation(s) against any person and they will automatically be believed. Part of this attitude may be owing to the well publicised Rotherham sex scandal - where both social workers and the police chose to ignore multiple claims and a wealth of evidence of sex abuse of young white girls by Asian men over many years - and for reasons of 'political correctness'.

Stung by the valid criticism of their past ineptitude in handling these horrific cases of multiple sex abuse, both the police and the CPS have sought to improve their 'public relations score' by prosecuting as many men as possible, and irrespective of their guilt. Their 'get out a jail card' is always the same 'we respect the decision of the jury in this case'.

So, they prosecute 100 men none of whom are guilty, and against whom there is not a shred of real evidence. This all provides months of lucrative and easy work for both the police and the CPS lawyers. If only 50 out of the 100 get convicted owing to the lottery that is the jury system, they can still claim 50 'successes'. In the other 50 cases they 'respect the decision of the jury in this case'.