Blogs Coffee House

If a policeman stops you, accuse him of raping you and force him to arrest himself.

10 May 2013

2:05 PM

10 May 2013

2:05 PM

Now that virtually any well-known male entertainer of a certain age is arrested for alleged sexual offences, it is becoming clear that this is more a culture war than a set of proper criminal investigations. This does not necessarily mean that all the allegations are false — look at Stuart Hall — but it does suggest that a new way has been found of ruining people’s reputations before anyone has established their guilt. The undeniable fact that so many of the men accused wore deplorable clothes in public all through the 1970s is not, in itself, proof of iniquity. Enraged by Leveson, the press argue that naming people being investigated for sex crimes is a brilliant way of smoking them out. Possibly it is, but it is also an unfair process because the anonymous accusers can do damage with impunity. The new doctrine that one must believe victims assumes that anyone who says he or she is a victim is. It gives legal force to the old feminist claim that ‘All men are rapists’. Even the less irrational cry that ‘All elderly presenters from popular BBC kiddies’ programmes are rapists’ cannot be true.

This desire to convict regardless of evidence is deep in the human heart, but it has taken a politically correct form in recent times. Attacks on traditional, ‘reactionary’ injustice often ape the evils they condemn. In 1999, the appalling report by Sir William Macpherson on the Stephen Lawrence affair formally declared that: ‘A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person’. This means that any incident of anything, ever, can be racist so long as one person in the world can be found to declare it so. Against this doctrine, no form of justice can stand. The same applies to the automatic credibility of anyone who claims to be the victim of a sexual offence.


And now comes the arrest of Nigel Evans, the deputy speaker. In yet another copying of former oppressors, militant homosexuals spend a lot of time nowadays trying to ‘out’ fellow gay people who, for whatever reason, would rather stay quiet. This seems to have happened to Mr Evans two or three years ago. Now two men have accused him of rape, and the goody-goody police, bursting to show that they yield to no one in their detestation of whatever it is that their paymasters have told them to detest, have made a public show of nicking him, destroying him in the process. Of course it is possible that Mr Evans is guilty. I doubt it, but I do not know. My general point is that a mixture of madness and malice has now entered the whole subject of sex and crime. Let’s all join in. When a policeman stops you for bad driving, accuse him of raping you and force him to arrest himself.

This is an extract from Charles Moore’s The Spectator’s Notes in this week’s magazine. Click here to subscribe.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.

Show comments
  • Sean Moran

    Shocking new survey links homowsexuality and paedophilia:

    • Kate HA

      The defamatory opinions in this link, supported only by well-known, USA Christian Right adherents, requires a full, rigorously referenced refutation. The tone is a gleeful confirmation of unverifiable bigotry; comments offer ‘confirmation

  • James Strong

    ‘destroying him in the process’.
    No.No. No.
    If Mr. Evans is not guilty I hope he continues his life as before, is seen to do so and is supported in doing so.
    If he is not guilty then that is how he should behave, sending out a strong signal to accusers that they cannot destroy innocent men.
    Mr. Evans should NOT resign from the Deputy Speakership or as an MP if he is going to plead Not Guilty.

    • Benjamin O’Donnell

      While I agree that he should not resign as an MP if he intends to plead not guilty; I think his role as Deputy Speaker is untenable while his reputation is under this cloud …

  • the viceroy’s gin

    I’d say this blogpost is just some hyperbole from one of the bubble denizens, because fellow bubble denizens are being scrutinized here, and not the miserable oiks out in the hinterlands.

  • the viceroy’s gin

    How is it you come to the conclusion that the deputy speaker is being “destroyed”?

    I’d say quite the opposite would occur, assuming the accusations are unfounded, or even if they’re not.

    I’ll make you a little wager that his employment status and income will improve, following the conclusion of this.

  • Hexhamgeezer

    I note that Sooty and Sweep are keeping a suspiciously low profile.

    • Austin Barry

      Not to mention Bill and Ben, the so called Flowerpot Men.

      What exactly was their relationship with Little Weed? And to what exactly did the question posited at the end of the programme, ‘was it Bill, or was it Ben’, refer?

      And ‘Muffin the Mule’? Don’t let’s go there.

      • MaxSceptic

        Was Andy Pandy really Ander Pander?

        • Jimmy R

          I always thought Andy Pandy was more into bestiality than anything else. He never seemed to be interested in vanishing with Looby Loo but he was always disappearing into that basket with Teddy the moment the programme ended. What a disgusting example to set with young children watching.

      • Redneck


        Similar to Hexhamgeezer, I am so grateful to you for highlighting this sordid issue of institutionalised misogyny.

        Even the casual usage of “FlowerpotMEN”: how was this crass, anti-Emily Pankhurst type of language allowed? Flowerpotperson or Flowerpointcitizen surely?
        Similarly, “Weed” was never introduced without the pejorative usage of “Little” as a qualifier. The b******ds!

  • Gaudi

    Perhaps I have got this wrong but I thought the call from Childline et al was that all children and adults who say they have been abused should be ‘listened to’ rather than ‘believed’. Then an investigation of the claims should take place. I’m sick and tired of Charles Moore’s flippant attitude to child abuse claims. Stuart Hall has admitted his offences, can Mr Moore not then imagine that others currently under investigation may just possibly also be guilty?

    • GUBU

      And others under investigation may just possibly also be innocent, perhaps?

      You and I – and indeed Mr Moore, as he readily acknowledges – do not know. One would hope that Stuart Hall had enough semblance of conscience left to admit his guilt when confronted with what he had done, but one must assume that others who have been charged will vigorously contest any charges brought against them.

      What Mr Moore was drawing attention to was the widespread presumption of guilt upon allegation or arrest rather than conviction, in part on the basis of widespread abhorrence of such crimes. As the recent case of Lord McAlpine demonstrates, even those who have been genuine victims of sexual and physical abuse can be involved in false allegations being made.

      As for the police, I can’t help feeling that Mr Moore has a point. The police were markedly reluctant to investigate the sexual abuse of young girls by groups of asian men, allegedly because of sensitivities about race, but seem to have no difficulties when it comes to elderly light entertainers. Why is this so?

      • Gaudi

        Yes, others may well be innocent and I take the point entirely that the media circus around such arrests prompt many to speculate there is no smoke without fire. It’s a complex issue, naming suspects may well prompt others to come forward, as it did in the case of Stuart Hall, and others. When no charge is brought then that person does indeed suffer reputational damage leading to who knows what outcome.
        I don’t know what the solution is but I feel very angered by the flippant approach taken by so many commentators on this issue, it’s too important for all concerned.

      • Jimmy R

        It was the media, particularly TV, followed by some politically motivated bloggers who made public broad hints and claims that Lord McAlpine was the person involved in the North Wales Abuse, not the police or one of the victims, and, if I remember correctly, the moment that victim was shown a picture of Lord McAlpine from the time the abuse occurred he immediately exonerated him as not being the person involved.
        The whole incident was not something created by the police or any of those who were abused but by a media circus fixated on stirring up a good political scandal. Of course, for some their fixation with demonising Margaret Thatcher by “outing” one of her close advisers as being the person responsible was too much of a temptation to avoid.
        Unless my memory fails me completely I don’t recall Lord McAlpine ever being anywhere near being arrested or even named by the police. To imply that the police were involved in the scurrilous and incorrect claims about Lord McAlpine is most definitely unsupportable.

        • GUBU

          As I never linked the police to the false allegations about Lord McAlpine, we should perhaps conclude that it is your powers of comprehension, rather than recollection, which must be failing.

    • Thatsnews

      Had you read his article, you will find Mr Moore already made that distinction.

      Incidentally I was at the house of a friend when someone was quoted as saying that some evil, nasty celebrity had forced himself on her when she was young and vulnerable.

      My friend said: “The bloody liar! She told me at the time that she was going to bed him and boasted afterwards how she had slept with him. Funny how memory changes, isn’t it?”

  • Austin Barry

    “When a policeman stops you for bad driving, accuse him of raping you and force him to arrest himself.”

    Accuse him of rape?

    How trivial.

    Accuse him of racism, the most heinous of crimes, for which I would like to see the reintroduction of hanging, drawing and quartering as a public event where howls of execration from the baying throngs of Any Questions audiences will greet the early morning skies.

    • Radford_NG

      Emma West[the Croydon tram woman,arrested in Nov.2011] has had her case adjourned Five times as she refuses to plead guilty.There is another hearing in Croydon Crown Court this afternoon(10th May) for a “listing for mention” ;some legal procedure.I’m looking-out for further information.

      • Colonel Mustard

        Has she been held in custody all that time? We seem to be heading for a US justice system of plea bargaining where defendants are being coerced and blackmailed into pleading guilty by the threat that if they plead not guilty and are subsequently found guilty they will get a longer sentence.

        • Radford_NG

          Emma West was released on bail in Jan. 2012.She has since also been charged with assaulting two police officers in her own home.

          • Jackthesmilingblack

            Face it, she is a piece of garbage.

            • fantasy_island

              Is she Jack?

              Based on what evidence?

              • Karla’s Man

                “@Jackthesmilingblack:disqus ” is of course a 4′ 11” Japanese troll who hates both Jews and Whites. What a confused puppy!

                • Jackthesmilingblack

                  You’ve told me I’m Japanese at least 100 times. That make you a fool times 100.

                • Jackthesmilingblack

                  Oh, you mean those “rip the face off the client, white-collar criminals” Scottish Life; after fees and commissions are deducted, pay less than two percent on private pensions?
                  Never thought I’d be thanking Mad Jock McNutter for a second bite of the cherry opportunity.
                  Hitler may have been a blackguard, but he sure had the right idea about mental defectives.

                • Jackthesmilingblack

                  What kind of total “uckwit would give this puerile nonsense the thumbs up? Your average run-of-the-mill Spectator contributor. Face it Spec, you need better quality readers.

              • Jackthesmilingblack

                Check the YouTobe clip.

              • D B

                She did no more than say, somewhat crudely, what many people think. Most of us are too polite to do what she did, but if rudeness were a crime, the jails would be even fuller.

      • Radford_NG

        No information around [] except a rumour the case is adjourned again.

  • NiceTeaParty

    Let’s face facts. There was a time not that long ago when ‘slebs, and dare I say, others with magnetic motive and access in politics, business and other walks of life, took advantage of their status to take sexual advantage of others. A time before the modern world when paedophiles were seen more as lecherous dirty old men than the vile and deviant predators that they are. A time when vicar and choirboy jokes were laughed at by the vast majority.

    But there is a massive difference in scale of guilt between those who took advantage of the proverbial Casting Couch with Groupies over the age of consent and those who decided to rape children.

    The first was quite obviously deemed socially tolerable back when our ageing octogenerians were in their ‘prime’. The second never was.

    Time, then, for us all to try and differentiate between the two kinds of crime so as to enable society, and the courts, to discriminate between those who deserve a social flogging and those who deserve to rot in jail.

  • judyk113

    In yet another copying of former oppressors, militant homosexuals spend a lot of time nowadays trying to ‘out’ fellow gay people who, for whatever reason, would rather stay quiet. This seems to have happened to Mr Evans two or three years ago. Now two men have accused him of rape, and the goody-goody police, bursting to show that they yield to no one in their detestation of whatever it is that their paymasters have told them to detest, have made a public show of nicking him, destroying him in the process. Of course it is possible that Mr Evans is guilty. I doubt it, but I do not know.

    The best words in your post are the last four in this extract.

    You admit you do not know.

    Yet in the preceding sentences you proceed to disparage and deride the police. And to suggest that the police are just arresting him to satisfy “whatever their paymasters have told them to detest. You cast doubt on whether Mr Evans is guilty.

    By doing so, you imply that the accusers are likely to be lying, and telling lies so outrageous that they could be sued for defamation of character. Yet you say you don’t know, so why disparage and discredit them in this way?

    If they have been raped, what do you think is likely to be the impact of your article, bringing your fame and authority to bear, on a leading and reputable website, on these men?

    You suggest that the current spate of arrests that have followed the Savile disclosures and the people who claim forward offer an opportunity for the deliberate and gratuitous trashing of reputations of men who are completely innocent by people who make accusations of rape for that purpose. You then go on to suggest that madness at malice are factors in the fact of this case having been brought. How can you know that? Are you not aware that these are typical allegations that convicted rapists have habitually made against their accusers? And that Hall himself adamantly claimed his accusers made completely false accusations for the sort of nefarious purposes you suggest.

    Finally, you ridicule this arrest for a really serious and devasting crime further by suggesting that motorists arrested for bad driving deliberately try to discredit a policeman in the course of his duty by accusing him of rape.

    No doubt you’ll claim that you’re just being facetious to make a point.

    What you’re actually doing is trivialising serious crimes where the victims have typically been so traumatized that suicides and/or lifelong mental illness are not uncommon.

    I very much admire your writing. But this post is a disgrace, and it’s a disgrace that the Spec publishes it.

    • Barakzai

      I don’t think it’s ‘disgraceful.’ The possibility of this being malicious opportunism by the complainants (perhaps you’ve already judged them to be ‘victims’?) at a time when the police are, ahem, more open to criticism than usual, should not be dismissed out of hand, as you appear to have done. I’m with Messrs Pickering and Barry above over this . . .

    • Gaudi

      I agree with everything you have said and of course we both realise the Spectatorati will down grade anything which suggests that some some people, celebrity or otherwise, may just have committed rape and child abuse and need to be brought to justice.

      • Barakzai

        Terrible, aren’t they, these Spectatorati who don’t jump to conclusions and who occupy the wasteland below the moral high ground?

  • Colonel Mustard

    I don’t agree with Barbara Hewson’s call to lower the age of consent, which has caused outrage, but she was right to describe a shift from the rule of law to one of “therapeutic justice”, where people are “victims” rather than “complainants” before guilt has even been proven in a court of law. I believe this term was coined by an American judge.

    On QT last night it seemed that some were arguing for conviction on accusation, which is in effect what the media achieve now anyway, aided and abetted by a moralising police farce and a thoroughly politicised CPS.

  • In2minds

    The police are having such fun, the Andrew Mitchell case was just the start.

  • Fergus Pickering

    Are these twenty-something men who say they were raped very small men. Or did Mr Evans set upon them mob-handed. Or are they rent…. well it can’t be boys, can it? who would sell their own grandmothers for a bottle of scotch. As you say, we can’t know one way or the other, can we?