But I believe he is the tip of the iceberg.

Conventional wisdom pretends this was all provoked by society failing to stop Jimmy Savile abusing children. I do not believe Savile ever did. Personally I think he probably overstepped the current moral line, where pinching a buttock or stealing a kiss is virtually considered rape. And thirty years ago it was just thought of as nasty laddish behaviour.

But I was falsely accused almost 20 years ago.

And the same enablers were around then that assisted Carl Beech 14 years later. Not specifically the same, but basically those who encouraged false accusers and helped them with details. The media, running a good story (preferably involving sex and celebrities). PR people, knowing how to manipulate media. Police, knowing how to collude with media. And others, often involved in charities, assisting false accusers - sometimes believing their claims, sometimes cynically going along with them.

When Peter Saunders of NAPAC goes on TV saying false allegations are rare, he knows as well as I that he is being as best hypocritical.

If personal experiences are a fair area of assumption, I would say that, since I was never abused but have been the victim of false allegations, the ratio of lies to truth is 100-1. I would not dream of believing that but I do believe the vast majority of claims are inflated and a hefty chunk are fiction.

Saunders claims to have been abused when young. How true that is I have no way of knowing (Moor Larkin has investigated more thoroughly and his findings are worth reading).

But he has developed a large and, I suspect, wealthy charity which seems to be his foundation for living these days. Highly respected, he advised the Vatican on abuse and constantly appears on TV and radio.

But I have heard he was also, in 2008, a victim of false allegations. Does he ever mention this? No. Does he ever reveal that, in his personal experience, there are as many false allegations as there were real abuse? No. Does he say that he can personally attest to there being, at very least, a 50/50 ratio? No.

Now perhaps I have got this wrong. I can find no proof online that he was a victim. In which case I apologise (and I do think, like false accusers, the falsely accused should not be named). But when he publicly pretends that false allegations are "rare", and implies that those thousands who have suffered like the victims of Carl Beech are a tiny minority, he must be asked whether it has ever happened to him. The friends and families of the falsely accused need to ask him if his family or friends ever suffered from having to bear witness on his behalf under those appalling circumstances. Police forces should be questioned.

Social media now exists; perhaps witnesses from 2008, ex cops, lawyers, media folk might have answers.

Or perhaps Saunders himself might like to deny that such things happened to him and to defend his position that such claims are indeed "rare". Especially if serial false accusers or "victims" are known to him or to his charity. Because otherwise he might be accused of being an ENABLER.