And this weeks allegations of child abuse are aimed at:
Discussion
roachcoach said:
desolate said:
PurpleMoonlight said:
The police should not be investigating alleged crimes where there is absolutely zero chance of the state securing a conviction against the alleged perpetrator. They can't prosecute the dead.
They can prosecute the people who ignored what was happening. They can change the system so it doesn't happen again.But I doubt that they will.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2419958/Po...
That he was tipped off by a lone corrupt police officer that is also dead is a nice convenient full stop. I reckon Goad had friends in high places and/or had some serious dirt on people in high places.
Former police officer Clive Drisoll mentioned documentation into other investigations going missing:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3173883/Cr...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3180644/I-...
It's a disgrace that good police officers are pressured to drop cases be it by their superiors or politicians.
PurpleMoonlight said:
roachcoach said:
Just because the man at the centre of the allegations is deceased, this doesn't mean all the facilitators are. But how will you know unless you go digging?
Oh a witch hunt you mean.
kING MINISTER of this country. A man who would have had 24/7 security and who was leading the country at a time of Cold War and other serious threats - do you think (assuming these allegations are correct) that he was in a position to wander around Kings Cross looking for some underage rent? Or do you think it's just possible (again, assuming that the allegations are correct) that other people in positions of trust would have been involved in procuring the kids in question?How can you not understand the need to investigate this (whatever the outcome)?
TTwiggy said:
Or do you think it's just possible (again, assuming that the allegations are correct) that other people in positions of trust would have been involved in procuring the kids in question?
How can you not understand the need to investigate this (whatever the outcome)?
Quite. How can you not understand the need to investigate this (whatever the outcome)?
IF there were multiple people involved, in this potential case (or the broader inquiry) that junior people were involved (hypothetically - let's say finding and obtaining children), then it is not beyond the realms of possibility that they are now in senior positions?
It isn't just about those that can no longer be charged due to death or very serious illness - it's about those that surrounded and possibly helped at the time (as well as for the victims to get closure)
Note to Snuffy: I am talking in this post about the general points of investigation, not just the one that this thread initiated.
snuffy said:
Where do I get that from ? Because you said "what about the victims ?" If you refer to them as victims then you must think there has been a crime and therefore it follows that he's guilt for a crime, i.e. you have decided he's guilty.
FYI Snuffy, you might want to get on to Kent police as well as they are clearly erroneously using "victim" as well in this context?A statement from Kent police said: “Kent police has today received a report of a sexual assault having been committed in east Kent in the 1960s. The victim has named Sir Edward Heath in connection with the allegation.
“Detectives are making initial inquiries and will obtain a full account from the victim.”
PurpleMoonlight said:
HoHoHo said:
I don't understand why a normal human being wouldn't want this investigated 
This is "possibly' a serious case of child abuse and if its true it needs to be uncovered to ensure it never happens again - before the pedants start I understand he's dead however I'm talking about learning lessons here.
The police should not be investigating alleged crimes where there is absolutely zero chance of the state securing a conviction against the alleged perpetrator. They can't prosecute the dead.This is "possibly' a serious case of child abuse and if its true it needs to be uncovered to ensure it never happens again - before the pedants start I understand he's dead however I'm talking about learning lessons here.
People said that they did not come forward to accuse Saville, because they would not be believed. Imagine trying to accuse the Prime Minister?
sooperscoop said:
"Why is it that Brits like f**king kids so much?"
Point your American friend in the direction of this Wiki page.The North American Man/Boy Love Association.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/B...
TTwiggy said:
Surely you have to understand the implications of this? We are not talking about a Radio 1 DJ with wandering hands here, we are talking about the PRIME fkING MINISTER of this country. A man who would have had 24/7 security and who was leading the country at a time of Cold War and other serious threats - do you think (assuming these allegations are correct) that he was in a position to wander around Kings Cross looking for some underage rent? Or do you think it's just possible (again, assuming that the allegations are correct) that other people in positions of trust would have been involved in procuring the kids in question?
How can you not understand the need to investigate this (whatever the outcome)?
kING MINISTER of this country. A man who would have had 24/7 security and who was leading the country at a time of Cold War and other serious threats - do you think (assuming these allegations are correct) that he was in a position to wander around Kings Cross looking for some underage rent? Or do you think it's just possible (again, assuming that the allegations are correct) that other people in positions of trust would have been involved in procuring the kids in question?How can you not understand the need to investigate this (whatever the outcome)?
TTwiggy said:
Surely you have to understand the implications of this? We are not talking about a Radio 1 DJ with wandering hands here, we are talking about the PRIME fkING MINISTER of this country. A man who would have had 24/7 security and who was leading the country at a time of Cold War and other serious threats - do you think (assuming these allegations are correct) that he was in a position to wander around Kings Cross looking for some underage rent? Or do you think it's just possible (again, assuming that the allegations are correct) that other people in positions of trust would have been involved in procuring the kids in question?
How can you not understand the need to investigate this (whatever the outcome)?
Right you need to stop and consider what you are saying. kING MINISTER of this country. A man who would have had 24/7 security and who was leading the country at a time of Cold War and other serious threats - do you think (assuming these allegations are correct) that he was in a position to wander around Kings Cross looking for some underage rent? Or do you think it's just possible (again, assuming that the allegations are correct) that other people in positions of trust would have been involved in procuring the kids in question?How can you not understand the need to investigate this (whatever the outcome)?
Heath is dead.
There will not be criminal outcomes here. The single datable allegation dates from the early 60s. Any involved in 'covering' up for him then would probably be pushing 80 by now.
There is an existing historical investigation (hydrant) yet we have 4 (count em!!) constabs running around conducting investigations... Into a dead man. Including Wiltshire who shamefully hung around outside Arundells pleading people to come forward, and hoping the house might be some kind of aide memoire.
Shocking.
And Madame Ling Ling who alleged stuff in the early nineties. She's now 67. Heath would have been 100 next year. The sums just don't add up.
This is a pointless witchhunt.
Ridgemont said:
TTwiggy said:
Surely you have to understand the implications of this? We are not talking about a Radio 1 DJ with wandering hands here, we are talking about the PRIME fkING MINISTER of this country. A man who would have had 24/7 security and who was leading the country at a time of Cold War and other serious threats - do you think (assuming these allegations are correct) that he was in a position to wander around Kings Cross looking for some underage rent? Or do you think it's just possible (again, assuming that the allegations are correct) that other people in positions of trust would have been involved in procuring the kids in question?
How can you not understand the need to investigate this (whatever the outcome)?
kING MINISTER of this country. A man who would have had 24/7 security and who was leading the country at a time of Cold War and other serious threats - do you think (assuming these allegations are correct) that he was in a position to wander around Kings Cross looking for some underage rent? Or do you think it's just possible (again, assuming that the allegations are correct) that other people in positions of trust would have been involved in procuring the kids in question?How can you not understand the need to investigate this (whatever the outcome)?
TTwiggy said:
Surely you have to understand the implications of this? We are not talking about a Radio 1 DJ with wandering hands here, we are talking about the PRIME fkING MINISTER of this country. A man who would have had 24/7 security and who was leading the country at a time of Cold War and other serious threats - do you think (assuming these allegations are correct) that he was in a position to wander around Kings Cross looking for some underage rent? Or do you think it's just possible (again, assuming that the allegations are correct) that other people in positions of trust would have been involved in procuring the kids in question?
How can you not understand the need to investigate this (whatever the outcome)?
Right you need to stop and consider what you are saying. kING MINISTER of this country. A man who would have had 24/7 security and who was leading the country at a time of Cold War and other serious threats - do you think (assuming these allegations are correct) that he was in a position to wander around Kings Cross looking for some underage rent? Or do you think it's just possible (again, assuming that the allegations are correct) that other people in positions of trust would have been involved in procuring the kids in question?How can you not understand the need to investigate this (whatever the outcome)?
Heath is dead.
There will not be criminal outcomes here. The single datable allegation dates from the early 60s. Any involved in 'covering' up for him then would probably be pushing 80 by now.
There is an existing historical investigation (hydrant) yet we have 4 (count em!!) constabs running around conducting investigations... Into a dead man. Including Wiltshire who shamefully hung around outside Arundells pleading people to come forward, and hoping the house might be some kind of aide memoire.
Shocking.
And Madame Ling Ling who alleged stuff in the early nineties. She's now 67. Heath would have been 100 next year. The sums just don't add up.
This is a pointless witchhunt.
Regardless of the age of some associates, if they are guilty then they need to be brought to justice, age is no barrier and you're either innocent or guilty.
I asked the policeman in a case I was involved in 'why' and those were the answers given, and do you know what, as someone who gave a statement against it made perfect sense.
However, if you've not been in that situation please feel free to carry on saying let's just brush it under the carpet and I don't for one think that's a good route to take.
Ridgemont said:
Right you need to stop and consider what you are saying.
Heath is dead.
There will not be criminal outcomes here. The single datable allegation dates from the early 60s. Any involved in 'covering' up for him then would probably be pushing 80 by now.
There is an existing historical investigation (hydrant) yet we have 4 (count em!!) constabs running around conducting investigations... Into a dead man. Including Wiltshire who shamefully hung around outside Arundells pleading people to come forward, and hoping the house might be some kind of aide memoire.
Shocking.
And Madame Ling Ling who alleged stuff in the early nineties. She's now 67. Heath would have been 100 next year. The sums just don't add up.
This is a pointless witchhunt.
The only sums that don't add up are yours.Heath is dead.
There will not be criminal outcomes here. The single datable allegation dates from the early 60s. Any involved in 'covering' up for him then would probably be pushing 80 by now.
There is an existing historical investigation (hydrant) yet we have 4 (count em!!) constabs running around conducting investigations... Into a dead man. Including Wiltshire who shamefully hung around outside Arundells pleading people to come forward, and hoping the house might be some kind of aide memoire.
Shocking.
And Madame Ling Ling who alleged stuff in the early nineties. She's now 67. Heath would have been 100 next year. The sums just don't add up.
This is a pointless witchhunt.
The reason 4 forces are investigating is that now the cat is out of the bag they can't hide he fact that they have received, and suppressed complaints.
And if it's the true that the woman who ran the brothel got off a charge because she threatened to expose him then don't you think that needs looking at?
If this turns out to be true it's really very difficult to overstate the importance.
I would imagine Ken Clarke is very pleased that the news has come out now as well.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 4th August 22:18
Ridgemont said:
TTwiggy said:
Surely you have to understand the implications of this? We are not talking about a Radio 1 DJ with wandering hands here, we are talking about the PRIME fkING MINISTER of this country. A man who would have had 24/7 security and who was leading the country at a time of Cold War and other serious threats - do you think (assuming these allegations are correct) that he was in a position to wander around Kings Cross looking for some underage rent? Or do you think it's just possible (again, assuming that the allegations are correct) that other people in positions of trust would have been involved in procuring the kids in question?
How can you not understand the need to investigate this (whatever the outcome)?
kING MINISTER of this country. A man who would have had 24/7 security and who was leading the country at a time of Cold War and other serious threats - do you think (assuming these allegations are correct) that he was in a position to wander around Kings Cross looking for some underage rent? Or do you think it's just possible (again, assuming that the allegations are correct) that other people in positions of trust would have been involved in procuring the kids in question?How can you not understand the need to investigate this (whatever the outcome)?
TTwiggy said:
Surely you have to understand the implications of this? We are not talking about a Radio 1 DJ with wandering hands here, we are talking about the PRIME fkING MINISTER of this country. A man who would have had 24/7 security and who was leading the country at a time of Cold War and other serious threats - do you think (assuming these allegations are correct) that he was in a position to wander around Kings Cross looking for some underage rent? Or do you think it's just possible (again, assuming that the allegations are correct) that other people in positions of trust would have been involved in procuring the kids in question?
How can you not understand the need to investigate this (whatever the outcome)?
Right you need to stop and consider what you are saying. kING MINISTER of this country. A man who would have had 24/7 security and who was leading the country at a time of Cold War and other serious threats - do you think (assuming these allegations are correct) that he was in a position to wander around Kings Cross looking for some underage rent? Or do you think it's just possible (again, assuming that the allegations are correct) that other people in positions of trust would have been involved in procuring the kids in question?How can you not understand the need to investigate this (whatever the outcome)?
Heath is dead.
There will not be criminal outcomes here. The single datable allegation dates from the early 60s. Any involved in 'covering' up for him then would probably be pushing 80 by now.
There is an existing historical investigation (hydrant) yet we have 4 (count em!!) constabs running around conducting investigations... Into a dead man. Including Wiltshire who shamefully hung around outside Arundells pleading people to come forward, and hoping the house might be some kind of aide memoire.
Shocking.
And Madame Ling Ling who alleged stuff in the early nineties. She's now 67. Heath would have been 100 next year. The sums just don't add up.
This is a pointless witchhunt.
Would you say it was pointless if you were one of the victims who was probably called a liar when reporting these crimes.
I don't I'll be putting my neck on the line by saying this is just the tip of the iceberg.
HoHoHo said:
Or you could say it was a crime then and it's still a crime now regardless of how long ago it was.
Regardless of the age of some associates, if they are guilty then they need to be brought to justice, age is no barrier and you're either innocent or guilty.
I asked the policeman in a case I was involved in 'why' and those were the answers given, and do you know what, as someone who gave a statement against it made perfect sense.
However, if you've not been in that situation please feel free to carry on saying let's just brush it under the carpet and I don't for one think that's a good route to take.
So the police investigate fully all crimes they're told may have taken place? By people who are dead? Regardless of how long they've been dead? I think there's a bit more to it than the answer you were given.Regardless of the age of some associates, if they are guilty then they need to be brought to justice, age is no barrier and you're either innocent or guilty.
I asked the policeman in a case I was involved in 'why' and those were the answers given, and do you know what, as someone who gave a statement against it made perfect sense.
However, if you've not been in that situation please feel free to carry on saying let's just brush it under the carpet and I don't for one think that's a good route to take.
MarshPhantom said:
The "stuff" as you put it was supply child prostitutes as young as 13, the earliest case is in the 60s, meaning Heath was active as a paedophile for at least 40 years if these allegations are true.
Would you say it was pointless if you were one of the victims who was probably called a liar when reporting these crimes.
I don't I'll be putting my neck on the line by saying this is just the tip of the iceberg.
You are muddying two separate casesWould you say it was pointless if you were one of the victims who was probably called a liar when reporting these crimes.
I don't I'll be putting my neck on the line by saying this is just the tip of the iceberg.
1) a 12 year old who claimed he was picked on the roadside by Heath and allegedly raped in his apartment and subsequently recognised him when seeing a picture of him next to Thatcher in the 70s. I'm not even sure how you even go about investigating that.
2) a brothel keeper who used his name to get off a prosecution in the early nineties, and who specialised in under age boys. 30 years after the earlier event when Heath was 80 odd. Really?
fine. An avalanche of supplementary evidence might be about to surface. I'd be very surprised if so, but frankly that is what hydrant is there for. This brass eye nonsense is utterly ludicrous. It's creating a travesty of justice in itself with the PHpaedosquad being a symptom of a wider malaise to turn police forces into some kind of historical truth and reconciliation commission.
0000 said:
So the police investigate fully all crimes they're told may have taken place? By people who are dead? Regardless of how long they've been dead? I think there's a bit more to it than the answer you were given.
Sorry and to clarify the case I was involved in was with a living person albeit over 80 and a crime over 40 years ago now (35 or so at time). I asked the question why spend time and money on new allegations of an old crime,The point I was trying to make is the entire case needs investigating to include those who possibly assisted or knew what was going on regardless of their age now.
Ridgemont said:
2) a brothel keeper who used his name to get off a prosecution in the early nineties, and who specialised in under age boys. 30 years after the earlier event when Heath was 80 odd. Really?
So don't you think that this allegation needs investigating? I am referring to the allegation that using Heath's name was enough to persuade the police to drop a prosecution for something unrelated to him.)Edited: And I am not a "paedogeddon" merchant. I am however quite interested to know if the great and the good have been f
king kids for the last 50 years. And I am as interested to know who has been facilitating the cover up.Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 4th August 22:35
Ridgemont said:
You are muddying two separate cases
1) a 12 year old who claimed he was picked on the roadside by Heath and allegedly raped in his apartment and subsequently recognised him when seeing a picture of him next to Thatcher in the 70s. I'm not even sure how you even go about investigating that.
2) a brothel keeper who used his name to get off a prosecution in the early nineties, and who specialised in under age boys. 30 years after the earlier event when Heath was 80 odd. Really?
fine. An avalanche of supplementary evidence might be about to surface. I'd be very surprised if so, but frankly that is what hydrant is there for. This brass eye nonsense is utterly ludicrous. It's creating a travesty of justice in itself with the PHpaedosquad being a symptom of a wider malaise to turn police forces into some kind of historical truth and reconciliation commission.
Brass Eye nonsense?1) a 12 year old who claimed he was picked on the roadside by Heath and allegedly raped in his apartment and subsequently recognised him when seeing a picture of him next to Thatcher in the 70s. I'm not even sure how you even go about investigating that.
2) a brothel keeper who used his name to get off a prosecution in the early nineties, and who specialised in under age boys. 30 years after the earlier event when Heath was 80 odd. Really?
fine. An avalanche of supplementary evidence might be about to surface. I'd be very surprised if so, but frankly that is what hydrant is there for. This brass eye nonsense is utterly ludicrous. It's creating a travesty of justice in itself with the PHpaedosquad being a symptom of a wider malaise to turn police forces into some kind of historical truth and reconciliation commission.
Heath would have been in his early 70s at the start of the 90s, just like the coke and hookers Labour peer recently.
Never heard the phrase dirty old man? Savile was still offending into his old age.
Edited by MarshPhantom on Tuesday 4th August 22:36
Ted Heath's deeply unpleasant personality has been known since his entry into politics in the early fifties. Very few people who have ever personally encountered him in any capacity have a good word to say about him, either professionally or personally. For most of the 1980s and 1990s, it would have suited the Conservative establishment for him to be personally discredited in either a sex or financial scandal (and there is far more circumstantial evidence pointing to the latter than the former)
The reality is that, in the sixty five years since his rise to public office, during which his sexuality has been constantly debated, no credible evidence has pointed toward any sexual scandal.
Do you really think that any 'establishment' conspiracy could remain 100% watertight for over half a century?
The reality is that, in the sixty five years since his rise to public office, during which his sexuality has been constantly debated, no credible evidence has pointed toward any sexual scandal.
Do you really think that any 'establishment' conspiracy could remain 100% watertight for over half a century?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff