Police confirm former British PM would have faced paedophile enquiry

Now it's official - Ted Heath was an active paedophile

would have been sufficiently credible to justify interviewing

The articles say he would have questioned. And he was a former Prime Minister. Your title is quite clickbaitey.

Now it's official - Ted Heath was an active paedophile (the police report) and abused boys as young as 11.

"Wiltshire Police said seven historic claims spanning from 1956 to 1992 would have been sufficiently credible to justify interviewing the former Conservative Prime Minister under caution."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/sir-edward-heath-report-child-sex-abuse-allegations-investigation-inquiry-grounds-interview-caution-a7984256.html

This has long been suspected and the evidence is strong, not just one or two incoherent cases, but a large number of credible allegations.

The leader of the British Conservative Party and Prime Minister was sure to have been known by the security services to have been engaged in such ghastly and criminal behaviour. They would have reported it to leading Tories of the day, who evidently were happy to overlook it.

There can't be much doubt that it was knowledge that also circulated in the Establishment generally. Those were strange times.

Can you not see the massive leap to this:

A statement made by a police force under pressure to justify its enormous investigation into a long-dead person, from this:

By this standard you would appear to be happy to condemn any person who has ever been interviewed by the police, and I am quite sure you mean he should (if he weren't dead) lose his job over it.

Do you apply these rules of evidence and proof to yourself? You have let yourself, and your credibility, down massively.

Congrats, you've only avoided libel laws because the subject of your thread is dead.

The actual facts are that the police have been bullied and intimidated by the establishment over this, but Wiltshire police stuck to their guns and have produced credible evidence, not just (as repeatedly stated by the media tools of Toryism) random attacks or untruths.

My point as stated is that this must have been widely known and either it points to a wider paedophile conspiracy in the establishment of the day (not impossible, as we know such circles have existed in other major countries) or else he was 'left alone' as he was considered above the law. Either way, it is deeply sinister.

This merits far more investigation - in particular, we need to know who covered this up and why.

The actual facts are that the police have been bullied and intimidated by the establishment over this, but Wiltshire police stuck to their guns and have produced credible evidence, not just (as repeatedly stated by the media tools of Toryism) random attacks or untruths.

My point as stated is that this must have been widely known and either it points to a wider paedophile conspiracy in the establishment of the day (not impossible, as we know such circles have existed in other major countries) or else he was 'left alone' as he was considered above the law. Either way, it is deeply sinister.

This merits far more investigation - in particular, we need to know who covered this up and why.

I am reporting on a major police report. That's hardly libel, as libel is by definition false. This isn't false.

Again you are making assumptions and large, unjustified leaps. How can there have been a cover-up of something that has not been shown to have happened? How can something that may not have happened been widely known about?

Are you familiar with the witch trials of the seventeenth century? Simple accusation and claim were invariably believed with no rational examination and innocent people were tortured and killed.

I am reporting on a major police report. That's hardly libel, as libel is by definition false. This isn't false.

Of course he would have merited a fair trial were he still alive. The sad fact is, he escaped justice.

That is the libeller's defence - truth. To make it stick you now simply need to prove Heath was a paedophile. So let's hear your incontrovertible evidence.

Another leap. You cannot stop, it seems.

The police have said he would have been interviewed. There is a huge gap between being interviewed and being charged, and another between the charge and conviction.

An interview would have stopped instantly if he could have proved he was in a cabinet meeting at the time in question. Prime ministers' lives are very full and well documented by independent people, with little scope for nipping off down the back alley for some unwitnessed how's your father with a child.

I believe the multiple cases that the police have stated to be credible are a good guide. Then we have decades of stories circulating about him and all those visits on his yacht to the children's home in Jersey that Jimmy Savile also enjoyed hanging out in.

I believe the multiple cases that the police have stated to be credible are a good guide. Then we have decades of stories circulating about him and all those visits on his yacht to the children's home in Jersey that Jimmy Savile also enjoyed hanging out in.

You won't stop, will you? They have not said that at all. They have said they would have wanted to ask him questions, and on that basis you have bundled him up against a wall and shot him.

You have, rather disingenuously, changed your thread title without acknowledging that you have done so. This is totally intellectually dishonest.

Stop digging - you are in a hole.