The Sexual Offences Act and other arbrogations, effectively breach Article 6 for any person accused of a sex crime, in that you are presumed guilty, rather than presumed innocent.





It's difficult to stay focused with such allegations ruining your career


It was once that in merry old England you got a fair trial. Not any more. In their rush to increase the conviction rate, the government of the day, with David (himself the subject of sex scandal) Blunkett as the Justice Minister, decided to breach Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, by taking away the presumption of innocence. This was achieved in subtle fashion by taking away the warning to Juries, "about the dangers of convicting a person on the unsupported say so of of a claimant." Thus, any person making a gold-digging [false] claim of abuse, will be believed, because the trial judge has not told them differently. After that little ruse and other amendments in the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the conviction rate soared - filling our prisons with many innocent men in the process. Did you say "prats?", If you did, we tend to agree. So come on all you claimants, why not accuse a politician of giving you one up the rear? Give them a taste of their own medicine. There is no need for proof and it won't matter if when they inspect your anal passage that they find no evidence of trauma - believe us, that will be put down to some incredible healing power. Bullshit! But that is what is happening out there today. It's true.




A Sydney woman has told Scotland Yard police she witnessed an ''incident'' in a London recording studio toilet involving the television star Rolf Harris more than 20 years ago. Detectives are preparing to take statements from two other Australians in coming days. It's quite scary when you're 19, 20, you're a Kiwi backpacker, and you're in a London studio with people like this. 

Lauren Martell was interviewed on Thursday at her home near Wisemans Ferry, north-west of Sydney.

In an interview with Seven news, Ms Martell said she contacted the Metropolitan Police last November when she heard about the Jimmy Savile case.

Harris has strongly denied any wrongdoing and has not been charged. 

''I heard his name being bandied around and I thought, 'well, I can offer something here','' Ms Martell told Seven.
She claims to have told the detectives that in the early 1990s she walked in on Harris in a toilet at a recording studio in London, but no further details were broadcast last night.

Harris was believed to have been performing as a musician on an album.

She said she had told ''people'' in the past and no one had believed her, which was the reason she hadn't come forward earlier.

''I was only young and you don't run around saying 'Rolf Harris did this' or 'I saw this' because nobody's going to believe you,'' she said.

''It's quite scary when you're 19, 20, you're a Kiwi backpacker, and you're in a London studio with people like this and you see what you see.''

Scotland Yard police interviewed Ms Martell in the presence of an Australian Federal Police detective. The federal police declined to comment, saying they were not the lead investigators in the case.

It is understood two other women were being interviewed as part of Operation Yewtree, which was established after a flood of sexual assault claims against British television entertainer Jimmy Savile.

The claims made against Harris are entirely unrelated to Savile but have been investigated by the same taskforce.
The international investigation's move into the tiny Hawkesbury township was of only passing concern to Ms Martell's neighbours in Settler Street.

However, one neighbour said Ms Martell was an erratic character.

Thursday was not the first time police had been to her home. Neighbours said officers had been called to deal with disturbances involving the 43-year-old who lives alone in her raised single-storey home.

Ms Martell left home after the interview with Channel Seven.

A comical sign on her front door reads: ''Do not disturb. I'm disturbed enough already.''



THE MAIL 8 May 2013

Police have arrested 12 men as part of the operation, including convicted paedophile Gary Glitter, comics Freddie Starr and Jim Davidson, presenter Rolf Harris and DJ Dave Lee Travis. All deny any wrongdoing and investigations are continuing. Scotland Yard officers set up Operation Yewtree, after Jimmy Savile was exposed as a predatory paedophile with more than 450 victims. Such an investigation is bound to lead to many people jumping on the band-wagon. After all it is free money under the criminal compensations rules, which at present reward people for making up fairy stories to help the police boost sex convictions.


Consider that for every girl that gets pregnant under the age of 16, you create two sex offenders. For every family doctor who prescribes the pill or other contraception to girls under 16, that doctor becomes complicit in helping under age boys and girls to become sex offenders. If you take that to its logical conclusion, most people will leave school with the potential to be charged at some time in the future. It only takes one of the two having an affair while under 16 to shout rape, and that's it. Of course it will be the male who cops it - and the police will happily prosecute the male and grant the female immunity. In case you didn't know, this is happening all of the time. Sex prisons such as HMP Maidstone, HMP Littlehey and HMP Bure are choc-a-bloc full of men that are suffering from so-called crimes like this. In France the age of consent is 13.


We are no condoning under age sex, we are simply pointing out the obvious flaws in the system. In Africa girls are married off at the age of 13. Why? Because that is when they are likely to produce the healthiest offspring - as part of the natural human cycle. By the time a woman reaches 30, her eggs are on their way out. These are biological facts. Ignoring that for now. The law needs to be changed to limit bogus claims. There needs to be a time limit, after which a case cannot be brought by virtue of Article 6 unfairness. In tandem with that, the rules as to fair hearings needs to be brought back. Everyone is entitled to a fair hearing, not just murderers and drug dealers, and that includes those accused of sex crimes. By changing the laws to obtain more convictions, the government of the day were breaking the law in the name of 'noble cause corruption.'




Rolf, get yourself a specialist lawyer, demand to see any evidence the police have before making any comment, that way you can evaluate the bullshit claims and take advice from a solicitor. All too often the cops ask a leading question, on a presumption that what they have been told is true, when in fact what they have been told is false and you may be in possession of factual information to disprove that allegation - but if you don't know what information the police have been given, how could you know what to say? However, sometimes it is better to keep your powder dry and force the old bill to charge you then simply make an application to the trial judge of no case to answer. Don't forget that the police are out to gain convictions, they are your enemy - they are not in it for justice and they won't investigate any leads that point to your innocence - despite the fact that their Code of Conduct, in investigations say that they must.


In one case we know of a man accused of a rape was in fact in New York at the time of the allegation - which he rather foolishly told them. Instead of dropping the case, the cops simply re-adjusted the date of the claim of rape - and believe it or not gained a conviction. If the chap concerned had kept his powder dry, he would have been charged with the date he could prove was a lie - hence no case to answer. The cops don't play fair.


If you want to keep your powder dry, tell the police that you do not want to comment at this time pending your own investigations as to the facts, and that you reserve the right to introduce evidence in your defence at any trial on a without prejudice basis - that it would not be fair to comment if not apprised of all the facts. Be careful here, or your silence when questioned may be held against you. A transcript of your interview will be given to a Jury. If you don't protect your defence in this way a judge may instruct a jury that you remained silent - and from that silence an adverse inference may be drawn.


If you want any free confidential advice on this subject, you can email us, or get your solicitor to email us to remain once removed. Ask your solicitor to see any email from us in full. Also, see: 


Some of the caselaw that Safari publish have has been invaluable. For example check out the statistics of proven false allegation cases. Such information must go before a jury - if they proceed. Any jury must be made to realise that it is very likely that the allegation is false, as supported  by statistics. Sexual assault claims in the Metropolitan Police are a good indicator of the true position - about 75% of which are false. This raises the necessary reasonable doubt, which you'll need after David Blunkett and other ministers took away your right to a fair hearing. Find out all you can about your accuser. Why now? Was he promised compensation? You bet.




This case is not a million miles away from something closer to home in the United Kingdom, that of a certain person challenging local authority, then being convicted unjustly of sexual charges - that if one looks at them closely, are completely out of character. It appears to us that given the opportunity, local and national authorities will use whatever is at their disposal to bury anyone who dares to question their administration. Freedom of speech? Yes, but for how long?


And don't forget that the system protects the claimant by hiding his or her identity, when very often that identity is the key to the public understanding why such an allegation has been made. Usually it is at the break up of a relationship, or some other event where the motive is revenge - typically, a woman who has been jilted will seek to attack the party jilting her, by making a false allegation. The sad fact is that under the present system, it matters not if someone is innocent or not. Put a person in the dock and make the accusation, especially some time after the claimed event, and there is no way of defending yourself. Then, with the judge not giving the jury guidance as to unsupported allegations, the bloke in the dock will be convicted.






Coronation Street king Bill Roache says he is 'horrified by the last 24 hours' vows to fight rape allegation TV chiefs rework scripts

Scotland Yard detectives interview woman 'witness' after travelling to Australia to pursue sex abuse claims against Rolf Harris

British detectives have flown out to Australia to investigate Rolf Harris sex abuse claims

Television comedy legend in his 70s facing questioning by Savile police over historic allegations of sex abuse

Living 24/7 nightmare Max Clifford on 'black cloud' over his life charged 11 counts of indecent assault girls 14 to 19 1966 and 1985

Comedian Freddie Starr arrested again over further allegations of sexual offences





This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.


This site is protected under Article10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.