Wednesday, 18 January 2017

'Liars and fantasists' Yes - they DO exist says Henriques

But, let's put those two words in context shall we ? I'm liking this Henriques chap, more by the minute. 

Sir Richard Henriques posed with the remit to investigate 'non-recent sexual offence investigations' arrived at some pretty controversial conclusions. One of these being that, contrary to what some Police chiefs might think, not all complainants are victims. Indeed, some even tell lies. Heck, some even do it to get money ! 

Henriques makes it quite clear from the get-go 


Now, that's something I didn't know. In Crown Courts they don't use the word victim. Must re-read (I won't) the High Court Savile case.

Henriques, gives as good as he gets from those who disagree with such absurdities as the notion of a fair trial 

 That's Chief Constable of Norfolk, Simon Bailey by the way. It gets better - allowing myself a wry smile thinking of the nonsense that is Giving Victims a voice 

The application of the word victim as opposed to complainant, may have it's uses. If you're trying to 'raise money' that is

 Remember it was a charity that co-authored Giving victims a voice playing a significant role in Operation Yewtree and the notion that all complainants ARE victims

The same charity that wanted 'victims' of an ex prime minister to come forward !

Henriques is very much concerned with prominent folk. He knows they are a special case when it comes to complaints. Here's where I fit the title of my post into his context

 As for Bailey and the rarity of the same 

Part two to follow - Prominent people 

 Thanks to Jonathan King for bringing my attention, via twitter back to Sir Richard's excellent report. 


  1. "Henriques is very much concerned with prominent folk. He knows they are a special case when it comes to complaints"

    On the internet, everyone can be famous. I recall that Ray Teret had a wiki-page for years, detailing his 1999 conviction for under-age sex, which remained in place during the almost two years until his ultimate prosecution. When the time came for his trial, the page was removed... but this is patently a paper exercise.

  2. I regularly edit and correct Wikipedia articles.* I saw Teret's page while it was up and it failed a lot of Wikipedia's rules; for instance, it was clearly written by Teret himself, and a biographical article can't be written by the person themselves. There were also too few cited soources for statements - every factual statement must be traced back to a primary source. In addition, a biographical article must be about somebody who is well-known; the editors obviously decided this wasn't the case with poor Ray Teret.

    1. The wiki page is still there. Maybe they took it down during his 'trial' in case it prejudiced his case - Yeah, as if !!

    2. @rabbitaway... yes, it was taken down once the case was readied, which process took well over a year.

      When I wrote this article, I thought he was going to be nfa'd

  3. I suggested that change of wording from "victim" to "complainant" sometime back, in the blog. Oddly, I was just re-reading it, after a couple of years away from the mess.

    1. Nice to hear from you Sally. Hope you are well !