FACTion-6.1-web-version

criticised if they do others. Since late 2012, they have been caught between a rock and a hard place. Of course,transgressors must be brought to justice and this is the police's difficult job. But this can't disguise the fact theyconsider educated, professional people as easy targets because we will cooperate in any way possible....berespectful, answer politely and fully all their questions. I can tell you this didn't assist me one iota. It would haveserved me better to have said nothing. The more information I gave them, the more they tried to use it to enhancetheir own case.In order to improve the present system, investigations must be carried out in a balanced manner, with an openmindedwillingness to investigate claims from both parties. In my case, I was effectively hung out to dry for nigh ontwo years. Yes, of course, we must protect children and encourage people who have been abused to come forwardand then to listen to what they have to say sympathetically, but, at the same time, we must appreciate we arecreating a climate in which those who have not been abused can claim that they have. The scales of justice seem tohave been tipped whereby complainants are believed almost automatically. Successive governments have driventhrough law after law with a purpose of increasing convictions. Are we prepared to convict innocent people just sowe can show the public there are more and more guilty verdicts in our courts? And how can an allegation, totallyunfounded, be put forward as evidence?My main complainant, now in his forties, originally approached the police, after consulting 'no win-no fee' solicitors,with an allegation against me early in 2012, (despite the fact that when he was interviewed about other matters todo with the school in 2011, my name wasn't mentioned with regard to any abuse). He was told that the police wouldnot be taking the matter further.He then returned months later, and, once again, embellished his statement. This further embellishment led to myarrest.The compensation culture is largely to blame for false allegations. When you have anonymity, coupled with no winno fee solicitors and a potential pay-out, liars have nothing to lose and a lot to gain. Besides which, the very idea ofgiving people compensation for historical abuse claims such as these is beyond me. What is the connection betweenhaving been supposedly abused 30 odd years ago and financial compensation now? Had I been guilty, all they shouldhave wanted was my name to be published, me to have been punished, and justice would surely have beendone. The only rider I would put to financial compensation is if a victim has had to pay privately for psychiatricsupport. Then it is incumbent that those fees should be paid by the abuser directly to the doctor; no money shouldbe paid to a complainant. Anyone who has been abused will not be concerned with financial compensation, but byhis or her abuser being punished.“I’ve been cleared, yes,but there’s still that smell of it"I also believe that people who have been accused of a crime should be protected by anonymity until they are foundguilty.Despite being cleared, I am aware my life will never be the same as it once was. Making friends was nigh onimpossible during my 2 years of hell: whether you’re innocent or not, as soon as you’re arrested, your name goesout publicly. Whilst the people who wrongly and maliciously accused me of these acts can hide behind anonymity,my name was published on TV, radio and the internet immediately (illegally, under the Education Act 2011), and innewspapers as soon as I was charged. Even though we proved there was not a scintilla of truth in these charges,even now, if I met someone and gave them my name or my personal card and they subsequently looked me up onthe internet, (as people always do nowadays), the first thing they would read is: ‘This person has been cleared ofchild abuse. I've been cleared, yes, but there’s still that smell of it; it will remain there for the rest of my life; I’llnever be rid of it. It will remain on Google, and I don't think it should. If someone is found not guilty, as I was, thenall records should be deleted from search engines. Each case should be treated on its own merits. I have lost anumber of job opportunities since my trial because, as soon as anyone puts my name into Google, that person readsa list of articles appertaining to my arrest and court case. If you are being introduced to someone for the first timeand you read that they have appeared in court accused of child abuse, even though that person has been found notguilty, the automatic, human reaction is to stay clear; you certainly wouldn't offer that person a job.FACTion 9 Volume 6.1