Paedophile ring - military, law enforcement, political fig
Discussion
Gargamel said:
Daniel Janner (QC) is after Tom Watson and I think Lady Brittan is demanding a copy of the report into operation midland. Hogan-Howe is trying to bury it, because it show the Met to have been simply incompetent in running even a basic investigation.
Janner defended Howeson:https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ch...
carinaman said:
I am unclear what you are implying here ? Janner is a QC I suspect he defends all kinds of people who are convicted. That doesn’t alter the attempts to pervert the course of justice by Carl Beech in respect of his accusations and the investigation (and the despicable behavior of the Police) into Lord Janner
Gargamel said:
This isn’t over by a long shot, the Police have not published the results of the inquiry into the investigation and their failures appear to be manifold.
It's not for them to publish. It's for the IPOC to do so. Gargamel said:
Including flying Met Police officers to Australia to interview a classmate of Beech, who Beech had told Police had been murdered.
A single officer, apparently. It doesn't sound unreasonable in the circumstances.
La Liga said:
single officer, apparently.
It doesn't sound unreasonable in the circumstances.
Hmm, perhaps a skype call might have done? Or perhaps ask the Australian Police to confirm he was in fact alive It doesn't sound unreasonable in the circumstances.
As to whether it is the IPOC - it seems not to me from this article
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/nov/17/me...
Surely this is the Met marking its own homework.
It also appears they applied for the search warrants for Leon Brittans home and were telling lies to get them ( The IPOC cleared the officers, although three ‘detectives’ retired before the formal investigation was concluded.
The Met can’t say for certain how much money they wasted, but 14 months and up to 37 officers on Operation Midland, no-one held accountable, no-one fired, sacked or demoted.
The Met have serious questions to answer about why they were frankly a bit s
t about running an investigation, and why they won’t be transparent now. Edited by Gargamel on Tuesday 23 July 23:55
La Liga said:
Gargamel said:
This isn’t over by a long shot, the Police have not published the results of the inquiry into the investigation and their failures appear to be manifold.
It's not for them to publish. It's for the IPOC to do so. Gargamel said:
Including flying Met Police officers to Australia to interview a classmate of Beech, who Beech had told Police had been murdered.
A single officer, apparently. It doesn't sound unreasonable in the circumstances.
Gargamel said:
Hmm, perhaps a skype call might have done? Or perhaps ask the Australian Police to confirm he was in fact alive.
We're talking about life sentence crown court offences for someone who has denied the entire thing, not a low-level missing person enquiry. I'm not sure the Australian police, even if they could collect the evidence in a way that'd satisfies our procedures, would fancy the chance of being called to crown court.
It's evidentially better to have one person and one line of continuity.
Gargamel said:
As to whether it is the IPOC - it seems not to me from this article
The IPOC investigated misconduct which means they'd have had to review the investigation. I guess it's possible there were parts outside the scope of the misconduct they didn't look at due to the Henriques report.
From what I read the redactions don't hinder the conclusion there were quite a few errors.
Gargamel said:
The IPOC cleared the officers, although three ‘detectives’ retired before the formal investigation was concluded.
That wound't alter their recommendations i.e. they'd say 'If X was still serving there'd be a case for misconduct' etc. Bigends said:
La Liga said:
Gargamel said:
This isn’t over by a long shot, the Police have not published the results of the inquiry into the investigation and their failures appear to be manifold.
It's not for them to publish. It's for the IPOC to do so. Gargamel said:
Including flying Met Police officers to Australia to interview a classmate of Beech, who Beech had told Police had been murdered.
A single officer, apparently. It doesn't sound unreasonable in the circumstances.
I get the impression from reading it that the detective who flew to Australia did a hell of a lot of work on that particular line of enquiry. I bet it felt good to finally box it off in person.
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 24th July 00:15
La Liga said:
ot a bad one, that's for sure.
I get the impression from reading it that the detective who flew to Australia did a hell of a lot of work on that particular line of enquiry. I bet it felt good to finally box it off in person.
I am forming an opinion that there is no aspect of the current criminal justice system which you will not defend. I get the impression from reading it that the detective who flew to Australia did a hell of a lot of work on that particular line of enquiry. I bet it felt good to finally box it off in person.
Still at least the publically funded body the Met police are transparent about the cost of the inquiry and the expenses.... Wait whats that, refused multiple freedom of information requests by journalists into the cost of Operation Midland. ? How very surprising.
Gargamel said:
I am forming an opinion that there is no aspect of the current criminal justice system which you will not defend.
As above, your limitations as to evidence gathering - suggesting Skype, for example, aren't my fault and can't be used to support what you have suggested above. Gargamel said:
Still at least the publically funded body the Met police are transparent about the cost of the inquiry and the expenses.... Wait whats that, refused multiple freedom of information requests by journalists into the cost of Operation Midland. ? How very surprising.
The journalists then need to use the legislative mechanisms to challenge that if they feel that FOI isn't being correctly denied i.e. complain to the ICO and go from there. The ICO look like they are doing the work of the Met, and the Met are not publishing the information in a transparent way.
The Met have hidden behind the need for the case to come to trial before publishing the report and are now hiding again.
They refused to discuss Operation Midland whilst the investigation and inquiry was being held, saying we should all wait. Now we must have the truth
Thinking more broadly, the only relevant question to the good and diligent Met officer needed to ask that guy in Australia was “are you still alive, or were you murdered by a gang of sexual deviants on an army barracks in the 1970’s ?”
To suggest that evidence could not have been gathered another way is to my simple laypersons mind a little odd.
Anyway, whilst its a slow grind, I think Watson and Hogan-Howe will have more of this to come.
The Met have hidden behind the need for the case to come to trial before publishing the report and are now hiding again.
They refused to discuss Operation Midland whilst the investigation and inquiry was being held, saying we should all wait. Now we must have the truth
Thinking more broadly, the only relevant question to the good and diligent Met officer needed to ask that guy in Australia was “are you still alive, or were you murdered by a gang of sexual deviants on an army barracks in the 1970’s ?”
To suggest that evidence could not have been gathered another way is to my simple laypersons mind a little odd.
Anyway, whilst its a slow grind, I think Watson and Hogan-Howe will have more of this to come.
Gargamel said:
I am forming an opinion that there is no aspect of the current criminal justice system which you will not defend.
Still at least the publically funded body the Met police are transparent about the cost of the inquiry and the expenses.... Wait whats that, refused multiple freedom of information requests by journalists into the cost of Operation Midland. ? How very surprising.
But surely you see that following the failures of the police to do anything about Saville, and the successful prosecutions of other historic abuse cases, the police had to be seen to take everything seriously, no matter how unlikely it may have been? For many people allegations of abuse against Rolf Harris seemed unbelievable, and yet they were proven in court. Had the Met given up on this investigation at an earlier stage, and even 1 part of it found to be true you would be asking questions about their investigation and why they gave up. Still at least the publically funded body the Met police are transparent about the cost of the inquiry and the expenses.... Wait whats that, refused multiple freedom of information requests by journalists into the cost of Operation Midland. ? How very surprising.
Lessons will be learnt and the world will keep spinning. It is better it is fully investigated than not. And yes, they are a publicly funded body, but given the overall government budget of £722bn, the £2.5m or whatever which was spend on this pales into insignificance. As long as lessons are learn't its not an issue.
Condi said:
But surely you see that following the failures of the police to do anything about Saville, and the successful prosecutions of other historic abuse cases, the police had to be seen to take everything seriously, no matter how unlikely it may have been? For many people allegations of abuse against Rolf Harris seemed unbelievable, and yet they were proven in court. Had the Met given up on this investigation at an earlier stage, and even 1 part of it found to be true you would be asking questions about their investigation and why they gave up.
Lessons will be learnt and the world will keep spinning. It is better it is fully investigated than not. And yes, they are a publicly funded body, but given the overall government budget of £722bn, the £2.5m or whatever which was spend on this pales into insignificance. As long as lessons are learn't its not an issue.
Beech had already been the subject of an investigation by Wiltshire Police in Operation Conifer. Lessons will be learnt and the world will keep spinning. It is better it is fully investigated than not. And yes, they are a publicly funded body, but given the overall government budget of £722bn, the £2.5m or whatever which was spend on this pales into insignificance. As long as lessons are learn't its not an issue.
They dismissed him as unreliable...
https://www.wiltshire.police.uk/article/4778/State...
I agree with you about the money, and of course, no Police Officer comes to work to do a s
tty job. But really you have to question the basic process of the investigation when they take six months to interview his wife or his mother .... What angers me is the arse covering and whitewashing. It was a s
t show from start to finish and transparency is required. Condi said:
Gargamel said:
I am forming an opinion that there is no aspect of the current criminal justice system which you will not defend.
Still at least the publically funded body the Met police are transparent about the cost of the inquiry and the expenses.... Wait whats that, refused multiple freedom of information requests by journalists into the cost of Operation Midland. ? How very surprising.
But surely you see that following the failures of the police to do anything about Saville, and the successful prosecutions of other historic abuse cases, the police had to be seen to take everything seriously, no matter how unlikely it may have been? For many people allegations of abuse against Rolf Harris seemed unbelievable, and yet they were proven in court. Had the Met given up on this investigation at an earlier stage, and even 1 part of it found to be true you would be asking questions about their investigation and why they gave up. Still at least the publically funded body the Met police are transparent about the cost of the inquiry and the expenses.... Wait whats that, refused multiple freedom of information requests by journalists into the cost of Operation Midland. ? How very surprising.
Lessons will be learnt and the world will keep spinning. It is better it is fully investigated than not. And yes, they are a publicly funded body, but given the overall government budget of £722bn, the £2.5m or whatever which was spend on this pales into insignificance. As long as lessons are learn't its not an issue.
Bigends said:
There was clearly some corroborative evidence in the above cases - not the case here apparently when his account and allegations were accepted without question
Indeed the three people he claimed to have seen murdered were all still alive ! He said he was taken from school by the group every Friday, yet his school register showed he was always at school.
Senior officers have presided over a terrible, invasive, expensive investigation with no arrests, no evidence, no actual crimes being committed and have frightened people, some of whom have died without being cleared/exonerated.
I think it is scandalous, and should lead to serious reform of Police procedure.
Gargamel said:
The ICO look like they are doing the work of the Met, and the Met are not publishing the information in a transparent way.
Which cost request is being denied? There have been FOI requests around the costs.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37027144
Gargamel said:
The Met have hidden behind the need for the case to come to trial before publishing the report and are now hiding again.
They refused to discuss Operation Midland whilst the investigation and inquiry was being held, saying we should all wait. Now we must have the truth.
Are you talking about the Henriques report or another one? They refused to discuss Operation Midland whilst the investigation and inquiry was being held, saying we should all wait. Now we must have the truth.
The report was published before the trial: https://factuk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Repo...
Gargamel said:
Thinking more broadly, the only relevant question to the good and diligent Met officer needed to ask that guy in Australia was “are you still alive, or were you murdered by a gang of sexual deviants on an army barracks in the 1970’s?”
To suggest that evidence could not have been gathered another way is to my simple laypersons mind a little odd.
It's better practice to have simple people complete a line of enquiry for various reasons. It matters less for less serious matters. To suggest that evidence could not have been gathered another way is to my simple laypersons mind a little odd.
I suspect that having someone available to go to court in person who could present primary evidence (the detective who met Masterson in Australia) would negate the need for Masterson or an officer from Australia having to potentially go to court.
Gargamel said:
Bigends said:
There was clearly some corroborative evidence in the above cases - not the case here apparently when his account and allegations were accepted without question
Indeed the three people he claimed to have seen murdered were all still alive ! He said he was taken from school by the group every Friday, yet his school register showed he was always at school.
Senior officers have presided over a terrible, invasive, expensive investigation with no arrests, no evidence, no actual crimes being committed and have frightened people, some of whom have died without being cleared/exonerated.
I think it is scandalous, and should lead to serious reform of Police procedure.
Not dissimilar to this case - flawed investigation where simple enquiries would have established no crime
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/20/police...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/20/police...
Gargamel said:
Senior officers have presided over a terrible, invasive, expensive investigation with no arrests, no evidence, no actual crimes being committed and have frightened people, some of whom have died without being cleared/exonerated.
I think it is scandalous, and should lead to serious reform of Police procedure.
It is scandalous, but so was the complete failure to even contemplate investigating Saville, and as with all these things the needle swings too far the other way for a short while due to the need to be seen to be making up for previous failings. I think it is scandalous, and should lead to serious reform of Police procedure.
Its massively unfortunate for the people accused, (I dont think that information should have been public, and I dont think any sex abuse defendants should be publicly identified until after a conviction), but as long as the police learn from it (which they will), then you're stamping your feet and making a lot of noise about something in the past which has already been learnt from. What are you hoping to achieve? The Met know they f
ked up, which is why they referred Beech to another police force, and themselves to the Police complaints commission. What else do you expect? It is hard to be certain whether that is the full report now or not.
It was first published in heavily redacted form in 2016.
http://barristerblogger.com/2016/11/10/henriques-r...
My understanding from the Telegraph article today, was that the full version had not yet been published, that maybe incorrect. Though Lady Brittan was asking for the full version.
On the expenses question, reading the BBC link above, they initially refused - they also refused an FOI request from the Times too. Stating that they kept no records of Officers time on cases...
Subsquently they named a figure. But why initially deny the requests ?
The Telegraph are all over this story, as are the Mail, I guess they smell blood (Watson).
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/vip-pae...
La Liga said:
It's better practice to have simple people complete a line of enquiry for various reasons. It matters less for less serious matters.
I suspect that having someone available to go to court in person who could present primary evidence (the detective who met Masterson in Australia) would negate the need for Masterson or an officer from Australia having to potentially go to court.
People on remand can give testimony to Court via video conferencing if its working. I suspect that having someone available to go to court in person who could present primary evidence (the detective who met Masterson in Australia) would negate the need for Masterson or an officer from Australia having to potentially go to court.
In that paedophile case an American perpetrator was brought to the UK accompanied by FBI officers to give evidence in Court:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-417705...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff