Boys from rape culture row schools ‘attacked in street’

BOYS at private schools embroiled in a sex abuse scandal are having to change out of uniform to avoid street attacks and verbal abuse, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.

Current male pupils also fear including their school name on CVs in case they are turned away by potential employers because of the negative associations.

Others – aged as young as 13 – have faced abuse from members of the public and have been branded rapists in the street, prompting some to change out of uniform for journeys to and from school.

It comes after thousands of accusations of sexual harassment and rape were posted on a campaign website, Everyone’s Invited, with some allegations naming famous establishments such as Eton, Highgate School and Dulwich College.

But parents of innocent children fear a backlash. One said: ‘My son is being unfairly treated because of this. He’s now associated with these allegations and is scared for his future.’ Another woman tweeted: ‘Boys are being attacked and beaten up based on allegations. Trial by social media is dangerous and potentially very damaging.’

One boy at a London independent school told The Mail on Sunday: ‘A lot of us are worried our association with the school is going to damage our job prospects. People will just look at us and see a rapist.’

A 46-year-old mother of boys aged 12 and 17 told The Daily Telegraph: ‘This is scaring me. What if it’s a case of two different perspectives of an event? What if the accusations are false, or exaggerated? How does a young man get his reputation back?

‘I know of boys being “cancelled” by friends they’ve had since primary school because nobody wants to associate with them in the wake of allegations. They are being branded as rapists without any opportunity to share their perspective – it’s frankly terrifying.’

‘It’s really worrying,’ another mother added. ‘Very little is said about false allegations and protecting the alleged perpetrator.’

A teenager who on arrival at sixthform college allegedly had girls screaming at him after a story had circulated has not returned since. None of his friends have been in contact with him, fearing they will be ‘cancelled’ if they break ranks.

One boy was obliged to share intimate text messages with his parents to prove that an encounter had been consensual after a girl he had been in a relationship with told a very different version of the story.

As of last night, nearly 14,000 allegations of sexual abuse and rape had been made on Everyone’s Invited.

Norfolk Chief Constable Simon Bailey, the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead on child protection, has blamed the ‘volume of pornographic material being consumed’, adding: ‘There’s an erosion of an understanding of what normal sexual relationships look like.’

THE hideous process of prejudice and hysteria which led eventually to the outrageous treatment of several honourable men and women has begun again. The frenzy about alleged ‘rape culture’ at schools has rapidly lost all touch with reality or proportion. Perhaps it took off because the allegations were first made against expensive private schools, so reviving the ancient myth that the authorities are covering up the misdeeds of the rich.

But it was quite obvious very quickly that the undoubted poisoning of young minds by pornography is present in all schools, rich or poor. Yet by that time, it did not matter. The frenzy had begun. And a senior police officer was once again declaring that ‘victims’ would be ‘believed’.

It was this utter loss of restraint which brought about the shameful treatment of Lord and Lady Brittan and Field Marshal Lord Bramall, prominent people publicly humiliated and their lives hideously and painfully disrupted, on the word of a ‘victim’ who was not a victim, but a fantasist.

Does Mr Simon Bailey, Chief Constable of Norfolk and the national police ‘lead’ on such matters, have no capacity for learning from mistakes? He was specifically singled out in the report on the Operation Midland fiasco, conducted by the retired judge Sir Richard Henriques. Sir Richard objected to Chief Constable Bailey’s use of the word ‘victim’, when guilt had not been proved. He said: ‘A police officer has a duty to investigate, as part of the criminal justice process, determining whether or not a complainant is proved to be a victim.’

And he advised: ‘All “complainants” are not “victims”. Some complaints are false.

‘Throughout the judicial process the word “complainant” is deployed up to the moment of conviction, whereafter a “complainant” is properly referred to as a “victim”. Since the entire judicial process, up to that point, is engaged in determining whether or not a “complainant” is indeed a “victim”, such an approach cannot be questioned.

‘No Crown Court judge will permit a “complainant” to be referred to as a “victim” prior to conviction. Since the investigative process is similarly engaged in ascertaining facts which will, if proven, establish guilt, the use of the word “victim” at the commencement of an investigation is simply inaccurate and should cease.’

Sir Richard added, in a lengthy attack on the police habit of saying that ‘victims’ will ‘be believed’: ‘Any policy involving belief of one party necessarily involves disbelief of the other party. That cannot be a fair system.’

I THOUGHT we had been through all this. Even the unsatisfactory Metropolitan Police chief Cressida Dick said as long ago as April 2018 that she had told officers they must have an open mind when an allegation is made and that their role was to investigate, not blindly believe.

Yet last Monday, on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Mr Bailey said: ‘If parents are aware that their son or daughter has been a victim of abuse then please come forward and report the abuse, your son or daughter, their account will be believed.’

He went on, astonishingly, to urge parents to turn in their own children if they suspected them. The BBC’s presenter, typically, offered no challenge to this peculiar and questionable stuff.

It’s the current groupthink now, just like the groupthink that led police to believe the warped and ridiculous fantasies of the unpleasant Carl Beech, and so to an inexcusable police raid on Lord Bramall’s home. Everyone knows that now. But they didn’t seem to grasp it then. A moment’s intelligent thought, and the good old presumption of innocence, could have prevented all that.

Well, then, surely it’s the duty of the rest of us to throw a bucket of cold water over these frenzied people. No compensation, no reluctant police apology, ever makes up for the damage done by hysteria.

Investigate allegations seriously. But leave it to the courts to decide on guilt or innocence. Presuming guilt is the road to disaster.