Paedophile ring - military, law enforcement, political fig

[carinaman]

Transmitter Man said:

Why do you think so many voted against?

It seems party political? Someone on Exaro comments said if the LibDems had voted with Labour that it would have been passed.

Heath? Kincora?

The Labour former Minister that former police officer Clive Driscoll has hinted at?

[Transmitter Man]

Only just read the full Harvey Proctor statement: https://theneedleblog.wordpress.com/2015/08/25/ful...

Seem to be closing in on one or more living MP's or former MP's.

Slowly slowly.

Phil

[carinaman]

I heard the Police & Crime Commissioner for Northumbria I think, Vera Baird QC on Radio 4's World at One on about naming suspects for sexual offences while the accusers stay anonymous. I need to listen to it again, as I didn't hear all of it.

I think whatever is happening with the rumours or evidence about Heath should have been passed to a different force than Wilts.

[Skywalker]

Thankyou4calling said:

I guess I must've been. Even they didn't want me and it causes me a crisis of confidence to this day.

I'm not asking much, just maybe 10k from the Church of England and perhaps 7k from the Scouting association. It's the least i deserve. I've had to live with it for nigh on 40 years.

At least if i'd been touched I would have felt attractive. this is far worse. Even a paedophile didn't want me.

Perhaps you were not unattractive, as such, just...unnaturally hairy at a younger age which acted as your super-power / Dirty-Ernie deflector shield. You were a special child.

I will send my invoice for the counselling session by post. Payment is requested via the usual terms.

[MarshPhantom]

Interesting that Harvey Proctor has been distancing himself from Ted Heath in all his interviews.

If Heath has done nothing wrong why would Proctor do this?

[Thorodin]

I got the impression he was distancing himself from just about everyone. He sounded very angry, rightly so, at the massive slurs on him by police apparently releasing the fact he was being questioned. He probably still remembers what he went through the last time he got so much attention. He also sounded as though he was trying to claim homophobia as a reason for his questioning. This febrile atmosphere might at least have the effect of discouraging new offences.

[carinaman]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-ord...

Perhaps it's a malicious smear campaign?

It would seem unfair to tarnish him or anyone else if there is other low hanging fruit like the Labour former Minister that former police officer Clive Driscoll has been alluding to.

[Thorodin]

I believe the various 'investigators' are under pressure to widen the net to include as many straw men as possible so as to slow the impetus and discredit the core enquiry.

The pressure is coming from the establishment who are very vulnerable to 'blind eye' accusations (and therefore complicity) and, holding the reins, can direct proceedings ad infinitum.

Proctor, and who knows who else, can be thrown to the wolves as he is no challenge and neither are now-dead accused individuals. It's open season on any one who may have caused difficulty in the past. I fully understand the seriousness of the assaults at the time of committing them and if such charges can be proven then full weight should be brought. But in the case of these historic charges there is no proof whatsoever. He said/s(h)e said evidence would be unlikely to be accepted as proof in adult rape cases - even when the accused and victim were in court so these charges are a smokescreen and smack of power struggle wriggling.

All pure guesswork of course, but after a lifetime of seeing government machinations, and credibility thresholds being reduced then demolished, I don't believe a word from the 'higher up's', my 'betters' or 'superiors' or even our so-called 'Peers'.

Edited by Thorodin on Friday 28th August 12:34

[Derek Smith]

Thorodin said:

I believe the various 'investigators' are under pressure to widen the net to include as many straw men as possible so as to slow the impetus and discredit the core enquiry.

The pressure is coming from the establishment who are very vulnerable to 'blind eye' accusations (and therefore complicity) and, holding the reins, can direct proceedings ad infinitum.

Proctor, and who knows who else, can be thrown to the wolves as he is no challenge and neither are now-dead accused individuals. It's open season on any one who may have caused difficulty in the past. I fully understand the seriousness of the assaults at the time of committing them and if such charges can be proven then full weight should be brought. But in the case of these historic charges there is no proof whatsoever. He said/s(h)e said evidence would be unlikely to be accepted as proof in adult rape cases - even when the accused and victim were in court so these charges are a smokescreen and smack of power struggle wriggling.

All pure guesswork of course, but after a lifetime of seeing government machinations, and credibility thresholds being reduced then demolished, I don't believe a word from the 'higher up's', my 'betters' or 'superiors' or even our so-called 'Peers'.

Edited by Thorodin on Friday 28th August 12:34

Most court cases in such matters are a case of he said/she said. Any jury will have cognisance of circumstantial evidence when coming to a decision. To suggest that there is no proof in historical offences is wrong. If the evidence is ther, then there should be a prosecution.

The police are in a cleft stick: accused of not pursuing the offences in the past (and this historical failure is one that should be the subject of criminal investigation) they have to investigate now.

[Thorodin]

Derek Smith said:

Most court cases in such matters are a case of he said/she said. Any jury will have cognisance of circumstantial evidence when coming to a decision. To suggest that there is no proof in historical offences is wrong. If the evidence is ther, then there should be a prosecution.

The police are in a cleft stick: accused of not pursuing the offences in the past (and this historical failure is one that should be the subject of criminal investigation) they have to investigate now.

I take your point Derek and I've heard all the arguments.

I, I think, have or had an open mind and the usual arguments about one accuser (with no other supporting 'evidence') saying something happened many years ago and able to say that without challenge by the person they accuse, fail to persuade me. I accept that any statement made by an apparent victim is technically 'evidence' but does not on its own constitute proof that the event happened or that the accused is the one that did it. I also accept that that argument has been lost but I remain unconvinced.
In my view it falls well short of any evidence that could result in anyone being convinced a) that it happened, or b) the accused is the one that did it. What other 'circumstantial' evidence could there be that would materially change the outcome? In the absence of such 'circumstantial' evidence a case lacks sufficient 'evidence' to proceed, surely? To charge and bring a case in the likelihood of 'well, he possibly did it' because other alleged victims say they were assaulted (at a different time or place) is ridiculous. As you say, "If the evidence is there.." but I say it's not.

I wouldn't be a copper for any amount of money. You know full well that you have to say and do things you know are wrong but are required to obey either your superiors and/or your colleagues. These investigators are in an impossible position. Indeed, there just may some truth that very senior officers, although having a uniform in a closet, are less police than greasy pole acrobats. Unfortunately, career trumps conscience.

[carinaman]

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jul/08/chi...

[Derek Smith]

Thorodin said:

I take your point Derek and I've heard all the arguments.

I, I think, have or had an open mind and the usual arguments about one accuser (with no other supporting 'evidence') saying something happened many years ago and able to say that without challenge by the person they accuse, fail to persuade me. I accept that any statement made by an apparent victim is technically 'evidence' but does not on its own constitute proof that the event happened or that the accused is the one that did it. I also accept that that argument has been lost but I remain unconvinced.
In my view it falls well short of any evidence that could result in anyone being convinced a) that it happened, or b) the accused is the one that did it. What other 'circumstantial' evidence could there be that would materially change the outcome? In the absence of such 'circumstantial' evidence a case lacks sufficient 'evidence' to proceed, surely? To charge and bring a case in the likelihood of 'well, he possibly did it' because other alleged victims say they were assaulted (at a different time or place) is ridiculous. As you say, "If the evidence is there.." but I say it's not.

I wouldn't be a copper for any amount of money. You know full well that you have to say and do things you know are wrong but are required to obey either your superiors and/or your colleagues. These investigators are in an impossible position. Indeed, there just may some truth that very senior officers, although having a uniform in a closet, are less police than greasy pole acrobats. Unfortunately, career trumps conscience.

As you quite rightly say, for a conviction there have to be two quite separate things proved: that an offence did take place and that the person charged committed that offence.

The two things should be taken separately as they are different.

The general public, and to a certain extent the police in my experience, treat sexual offences different to many others. Here on PH we see a report of a burglary accepted without any doubt but rape is normally prefixed by the word allegation. This is far from unique to PH. Indeed, I had words with two or three controllers for doing just that.

For the police and other regulatory bodies, if someone suggests they have been sexually assaulted, it should be taken as true until the contrary is proved. In other words, the wheels are put in motion. If someone reports a burglary, then the immediate assumption is not that they might be telling lies. However, I have been to quite a few reported burglaries that were either inventions for various reasons or did not come within the definition.

With regards to sexual abuse at children's homes, there is ample evidence to suggest that it was endemic. The argument against it is over. It clearly went on. It went on until recently and it is probably going on now. Victims of the system come forward all the time. The idea that these people are only after compensation, unlikely in such cases as, for instance, Samantha Morton, is a guess. In any case, the desire for compensation does not negate their evidence.

There are some who were not themselves sexually abused but witnessed abuse of others. Many might feel that the fear that it might happen to them at some time is also abuse.

If anyone wants to deny that abuse went on then there is a mountain to climb for them.

The accusations of victims is not circumstantial evidence. It is eye witness evidence. If 20 victims come forward and say the same sort of abuse happened to them then the number itself is evidence of system. But, of course, it hasn't only been 20.

The police investigated Smith. The team felt that they had sufficient evidence to stand a realistic chance of a conviction.

The abuses did go on.

There is a video on YouTube where an ex chief whip admits that in order to have a 'whip hand' over certain MPs, his dpt would 'assist' is the person came to them with a 'problem'. Implicit in this is that the government, and one assumes the opposition as well, would cover up these minor discretions. There seems little doubt that this was done in the case of Smith. Who will rid me of this turbulent MP?

I met and talked with a minor TV celebrity who had a checkered past. I'd read that she had been raped whilst in a children's home but when she complained she was disbelieved. She ran away. She got her life in order but so many do not. Runaways from children's homes are common. They used to turn up at Brighton railway station and then be picked up by predators.

I hope I have convinced you that these things did go on. And, there is little doubt, do go on. Whether there was institutionalised cover-ups is also a resolved argument.

Then we get onto the offenders.

Much is made of the suggestion that Jenner is unable to defend himself. I agree that if a person is in such a situation then a trial is an abuse of process. However, he was aware of the allegations for some years and one might assume he could have prepared his defence then. Shame he, apparently, didn't. But that should not mean that the victims have no recourse to justice.

For many, just the idea that they were being taken seriously is enough. For others, they want, I think reasonably, to apportion blame and if a famous person abused his position, and others of his rank - a fear to use the phrase his peers - organised a cover up then if the evidence is there then they should be able to publish their experiences.

It is open to such people to take their accuser to civil court. But if there is sufficient to support their accusations then the inability of their attacker to defend himself is not their problem.

As for the dead, they are dead. They are beyond harm. I accept that their families might be hurt by the allegations, and I feel sorry for them, but if there is supporting evidence then the victims should speak out I think.

We will never know the full extent of the abuse. Too many famous people are involved, too many clever people, or at least those with knowledge of the legal systems, are involved and know how to cover up and obfuscate. There are many who can still call on 'favours', ie threaten those with the ability to protect them with exposure.

Just put yourself in the place of a 13-year-old lad who is in a children's home. Most nights he hears the sound of footsteps coming up stairs and his only hope, his prayers in fact, is that they choose someone else that night. He can't complain as those he complains to are part of the abuse. The police - to their shame - often did not believe them. They had nowhere to turn.

Now, are we to say to them that they should keep quiet about the abuse? Are we to tell them that as there is no forensic evidence (arguably that is also circumstantial evidence by the way) to support their allegations, that we only have their word, although lots of them of course, against one famous bloke they must not say anything. Are they to be asked to sympathise with a bloke who has an illness?

The abuse that went on, and probably goes on, in children's homes in this country is on par with that which went on in Ireland at the hands of priests. It is a stain on this country. If we don't do anything it will continue.

My mother worked in a children's home as a cleaner/general dogsbody. The woman who ran it was dead straight and enforced proper care. She encouraged the children to talk to staff, including my mother. What she heard shocked her - and upset her to the extent that my father tried to get her to leave - and she wanted to go to the police. But the woman in charge pointed out that they already had.

It makes me wonder just how many lives have been ruined. Children's lives. We must find out what went wrong and why. It is the only way that systems can be established to ensure it is never endemic again.

I know of circumstances where over 144 offences of gross indecency with children were covered up. There were worse offences involved as well. I very infrequently put tin foil on my head. I'm not daft or nutty. I think these victims deserve to have the offences against them acknowledged, they should be allowed to say who the offenders were and those who covered it up should also be exposed.

It is a tragedy that this won't happen because the people involved are the great and the good, looked up to by the general population.

[carinaman]

Thank you for that post Derek.

[Fantic SuperT]

Another one has just passed on - Lord Montagu of Beaulieu. To provide balance, here's a link to a lefty newspaper:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/15/to...
He was let off by the same DPP QC as Cyril Smith. It's a small world!

[Vixpy1]

Fantic SuperT said:

Another one has just passed on - Lord Montagu of Beaulieu. To provide balance, here's a link to a lefty newspaper:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/15/to...
He was let off by the same DPP QC as Cyril Smith. It's a small world!

'Montagu died in 1995 but the files on his case'

[Fantic SuperT]

Vixpy1 said:

'Montagu died in 1995 but the files on his case'

Blimey how many of them are there? Victor (paedo), Robert (abused son of Victor), and now there's Edward (non-paedo homosexual?). This one is in the clear is he?

[eccles]

Fantic SuperT said:

Another one has just passed on - Lord Montagu of Beaulieu. To provide balance, here's a link to a lefty newspaper:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/15/to...
He was let off by the same DPP QC as Cyril Smith. It's a small world!

He was another of those where everyone used to joke about him at the time. I've been going to the Beaulieu autojumble since the 70's, and everytime his name was mentioned there'd be some quip about passing him another boy scout as the one he had was full.

[dudleybloke]

Are any of our politicians and aristocracy NOT nonces?

[Transmitter Man]

Fantic SuperT said:

Another one has just passed on - Lord Montagu of Beaulieu. To provide balance, here's a link to a lefty newspaper:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/15/to...
He was let off by the same DPP QC as Cyril Smith. It's a small world!

On a later court appearance he pleaded not guilty but was sent down anyhow for 12 months: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-34106225

[DJRC]

Those of you still banging on about all of this do realise that nobody under the age of 40 had ever heard of Smith and Jenner till post ex Sir Jimmy right? You are talking about two pretty much non entities, the fat lethargic versions of Corbyn - another bloke pretty much nobody outside of left wing geekdom had ever heard of or cared about until recently.

The idea that Smith and Jenner had say St James' s Palace shielding them is rather amusing. They were party politicians protected by their whips because it meant they were easy votes. That's normal politics.