How do you prove a guilty man innocent? Easy. You erect a smokescreen.
Carl Beech is a victim, sexually abused as a child by his stepfather, by the prolific paedophile Jimmy Savile, and, he claims, by men of great power, such as our yacht-owning bachelor prime minister Edward Heath and other parliamentarians. It is his claims against these men that have brought him to court.
He is charged with perverting the course of justice. Also with fraud, but that seems to depend on the assumption that his claims are false.
He is also, it is claimed, a paedophile. Images of child sex, it is alleged, were found on his personal computer. Does this in any way undermine his accusations? Of course it doesn’t. He certainly wasn’t a paedophile at the time of his abuse. He was a child.
The link between being abused as a child and subsequently developing a desire to abuse children has long been debated. A 1990 study (Freund K, Watson R, and Dickey R) shows that there is a significantly greater risk of pedophilia developing in an abused child than one who has not been abused – although not to the extent that it becomes probable.
If the only evidence against Edward Heath (for example) were Beech’s words, then the case for discrediting Beech would be clearer. You only need to Google ‘Edward Heath Jimmy Savile’ to see a host of articles and interviews that make similar claims. Many of these link to the events of the Haut de la Garenne children’s home from which children disappeared, permanently, in surprisingly large numbers.
So maybe this trial is not so much about attacking Carl Beech, who may or may not be a perfect individual, but more about protecting the establishment.
When next you hear suggestions that someone in high office has raped a child – and it won’t be long before the next one of many is uncovered – I bet you’ll soon hear the words, “Remember Carl Beech?” It’ll be soon after someone suggests it’s a conspiracy theory.
It’s all smoke and mirrors, this game of power.
Inequality is built into our constitution.