Met Police probed over child abuse cover-up claims

Scroll to see replies

One of the things I have been saying is that these things work through an organisation's chain of command.

I don't think it needs to be at all wide-ranging. It simply needs the "right" people to be involved and those people do not need to be at the very top provided that are part of the correct channel through which the orders of those at the very top are normally communicated.

I do not think any member of the judiciary needs to have been involved.

I think at least one very senior policeman must be implicated. I don't think provincial chief constables need be involved at all if the officer or officers concerned are senior enough and in the right Met departments. Provincial Chief Constables will always defer to the right Met officers. For example if there is a royal visit Dyfed-Powys Police might provide the boots on the ground, but decisions about royal protection aren't made in Carmarthen.

I think at least one senior civil servant in the Home Office, Law Officers' department or DPP must be involved.

Did anybody catch panorama tonight about the Westminster paedophiles ring, or lack Of it?

Reply 61

Fullofsurprises

Original post by MatureStudent36

Did anybody catch panorama tonight about the Westminster paedophiles ring, or lack Of it?

Going to catch it later on iplayer, it seems that there is evidence that the Leon Brittan allegations were fabricated?

Looks like the investigating police are pretty fed up with the Beeb.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/oct/06/sex-abuse-claim-against-leon-brittan-began-as-joke-bbc-report

Understandably if they've completely been led up the garden path, but equally so if the BBC has been interfering incorrectly in a live investigation.

Reply 62

Fullofsurprises

Prince Charles has popped up again. In 1993, he protected Peter Ball, Bishop of Lewes, from charges involving abuse of minors and put him up in a cottage on one of his Duchy estates.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/oct/07/bishop-peter-ball-escaped-charges-mps-royal-family-intervened-court

Reply 63

nulli tertius

Original post by Fullofsurprises

I heard Ball (or his twin brother, but I think it was him) preach in the Sheldonian in the 1980s.

I remain nervous about this one. I think the government has welshed on a plea bargain because it has become politically inconvenient.

As he pleaded guilty after an adverse ruling by the trial judge he can still appeal his conviction. We may not have heard the last of this.

I do not think it credible that the caution he accepted was not designed to cover his whole criminality and only related to the specific assault referred to in the caution. There are similarities to the Downey Hyde Park bomber case.

Reply 64

MatureStudent36

Original post by Fullofsurprises

I fear this may be a case of the pendulum has swung too far the other way. At one extreme the ignore victims. At the other extreme they believe everything they've been told.

Sadly the boys (and girls) in blue get stuck between a rock and a hard place.

An interesting watch though.

Reply 65

interact

i hope prince charles does not turn out to be a peadophile, i'll be very sad.

Reply 66

interact

btw my great uncle used to say that the church does child sacrifices, and the tories do child sacrifices bladi blah blah but a priest once also told me that unfortunately child sacrifices are very common in the church!!!! I know I troll sometimes but I'm telling the honest to God truth that a priest told me that

Reply 67

@*=-+1!<>6

Original post by nulli tertius

(a) some months ago presumably when he was less at death's door;and
(b) possibly because they had more to put to him in interview over the rape allegation

Clearly more senior police officers did not believe it to be worthwhile.

Hmmm.

Reply 68

nulli tertius

Original post by @*=-+1!<>6

Hmmm.

As is now clear, the interview was not because they had more evidence about the alleged rape than the alleged child abuse but because the Met received more pressure over the alleged rape.

Reply 69

@*=-+1!<>6

Original post by nulli tertius

As is now clear, the interview was not because they had more evidence about the alleged rape than the alleged child abuse but because the Met received more pressure over the alleged rape.

Seems so, but didn't they confirm in the HASC the other day that it would have been highly unusual not to interview him?

Reply 70

nulli tertius

Original post by @*=-+1!<>6

Seems so, but didn't they confirm in the HASC the other day that it would have been highly unusual not to interview him?

I didn't see that.

Reply 71

knapdarloch

Lord Brittan abuse inquiry 'fully justified', review finds
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35517197

Reply 72

Fullofsurprises

Original post by knapdarloch

Lord Brittan abuse inquiry 'fully justified', review finds
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35517197

Either this is police butt-covering, or there genuinely was a no smoke without fire situation with Brittan and all the huffing and puffing over it and Tom Watson from Tory sources over the last couple of months was so much hot air.

Reply 73

knapdarloch

Original post by Fullofsurprises

Hot air either way surely, highly unusual for the police to not interview someone accused of rape, well most people.

Reply 74

democracyforum

Original post by Fullofsurprises

The allegations about Brittan began in the 1980s.

It's fully justified.

Reply 75

nulli tertius

Original post by democracyforum

The allegations about Brittan began in the 1980s.

It's fully justified.

Can you point to anything to suggest that these rumours date back that far?

Did Private Eye have anything in the 80s?

Reply 76

Fullofsurprises

Original post by nulli tertius

Can you point to anything to suggest that these rumours date back that far?

Did Private Eye have anything in the 80s?

The Mail in Oct 14 refers to a Thatcher-era story in the Eye about Brittan, saying that PE took the line that MI5 were running a smear operation against him following his plans as a minister to shake up the security services and (allegedly) anti-semitism in the latter. (Not hard to believe that one may well have been true.)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2816508/Are-vile-paedophile-allegations-against-Leon-Brittan-sinister-MI5-smear-plot-Labour-MP-uses-Commons-privilege-link-Tory-abuse.html

Reply 77

Fullofsurprises

This former Yorkshire Detective (later imprisoned for corruption) has stated in his book that he was told by Met officers of an investigation into paedophiles that led to Brittan but was squashed from on high.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Boopers-Tale-Graham-Storr-ebook/dp/B009K7C4N0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1455187712&sr=8-1&keywords=Boopers+Tale

No way of checking the veracity, but his book has been on sale for a long time and Brittan never sued, which is interesting in itself.

Reply 78

nulli tertius

Original post by Fullofsurprises

Self published and not published until 2012 although said to be written much earlier. It would be money pit libel for anyone who tried to sue. You wouldn't get an interim injunction and no doubt he would not be good for a costs order if you won. The best you could do would be to force it off the Amazon platform.

Of course the Met officer could simply have been repeating the stories to which the Mail referred without any inside knowledge.

Posted from TSR Mobile

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 79

nulli tertius

Original post by Fullofsurprises

That is a well balanced piece in the Mail. What is perhaps interestingly is that nothing further has come out to incline the story one way or the other.

I do not doubt that Brittan faced anti-semitism. The problem with the MI5 smear story is that coming on top of the Wilson Plot story, it is very difficult to see why a strong PM such as Thatcher would have tolerated such rogue behaviour. But did she? The entry for the next MI5 DG on the MI5 website shows he was a Cabinet Office outsider with a diplomatic background who carried out important reforms to working practices and personnel.

Posted from TSR Mobile