Police confirm former British PM would have faced paedophile enquiry

Do you fancy this being you?


https://www.amazon.co.uk/Presumed-Guilty-teachers-solitary-battle/dp/1785901818


Will those video recordings be available in 30 years time?

There are legal/professional guidelines describing how long clinical records have to be kept. It varies with the type of record and the setting, but I do have retained records dating back over a decade so far...!

As for the book reference, I'm not sure what point you are making. That investigations can be traumatic for both accused and accuser? I'm very well aware of that, not least because I have been involved in giving evidence on both sides, in real life.

I certainly don't want those wrongly accused to suffer. Neither should survivors of abuse face obstacles to bringing their rapists to justice. The case under consideration here is one where, as I said originally, the balance of goods seems to me to weigh clearly on the side of demonstrating that no-one can use rank, privilege or the passage of time to evade investigation.

Savile and Heath were both regular visitors to Haut la Garenne, the now infamous Jersey children's home, where Savile preyed regularly on helpless kids.

This alone should be a cause for investigation of Heath. Savile was a keen recruiter of establishment paedophiles into his circle. Anyone who reads the excellent books about his activities now out will have grave cause for concern about Heath.

Imagine the headlines now in the right wing press if this had been allegations against Jim Callaghan or Tony Blair or Harold Wilson. They would be screaming the roofs down demanding blood.

But if there are victims of Ted Heath, they face one insurmountable obstacle to bringing him to justice.

It is unwise to think that, without access to the evidence, we can make a reliable judgement as to whether he was guilty or not.

However, I believe the police investigation was wholly justified. The risk of being detected is a significant deterrent to child rapists. A high profile case like this sends a strong message to current and potential perpetrators that no matter how thoroughly they may seek to cover their tracks, no matter how well connected they might be, no matter how much time has elapsed since their crime, they will not be safe from investigation.

Equally, it sends a hopeful message to survivors of child rape and abuse that even if they were abused many years ago, they will be listened to and they don't have to suppress the truth of their experience - as they have done for so long.

The same arguments against the police investigating and making this statement about Heath could be used about Savile - who also died before any charges were brought against him. Would that have been a good thing?

For me, if this case means that just one child is spared, it's well worth it.

Absolutely right. Neither they nor Heath will ever get justice. But what was the alternative?

Faced with allegations against this dead man, the police have a big decision to make.

1. They could just tell the accusers that they will not investigate at all. The biggest risk with this is that investigations might have uncovered connections to child rapists who are still alive and active, or to situations or processes that put children at risk now or in the future. In addition, it leaves the accusers in a situation of having come forward - perhaps at great personal cost - only to have their testimony ignored. Further, the police lay themselves open to the accusation that they are covering up and/or are not serious about investigating child rape.

In this situation, I think they were obliged to investigate. After doing so, they have a further decision:

2. They could refuse to disclose the outcome of their investigations. This is hardly better than not doing the investigation at all. They are obliged to share the outcome of the investigation with the individual accusers in any case, and this information would inevitably be passed onto the mass media, and inevitably this will be accompanied by accusations of a cover-up. So which is better - to allow this information to "leak", or to disclose it in as open and controlled a way as possible?

It seems to me that the police had to follow the course that they did. The upside is that by doing so, they reinforce the perception that child rape is a crime that they take seriously. The downside is that some people will misread the announcement as equivalent to a conviction. This is regrettable - but the alternatives are worse.

Perhaps the Met needs an archaeology branch.

This may not suit the Tories among us, but it's very much in the public interest.

I think the alternative is "We don't investigate dead men. If there is anyone with any evidence tending to show the involvement of any living individual in any sexual offences against children or adults whether or not also involving Mr Heath, please would you come forward and we will fully look into that evidence".

Any "ring" allegations against Heath and others were among the 37 allegations that were non-starters.

I think the police have to hold the line here or they get sucked into spending vast sums of money that can never resolve anything.

I think they should have been equally clear with the McCanns "Mr & Mrs McCann. do have any reason to believe that the person or persons who kidnapped and/or killed your daughter is or are within the jurisdiction of the English court? No? Then, we remain ready and willing to provide any assistance requested by the Portuguese authorities. Good day."

This may not suit the Tories among us, but it's very much in the public interest.

As you know, perpetrators often work with others, who may not be present at any one given offence, but who may be involved in facilitating roles - for example, in making perpetrators aware of a vulnerable child, providing transport and alibis, disseminating pornographic records of the abuse and so on.

Survivors - particularly if they were small children - are often in no position to know the names of these accessories, or the nature of their involvement, either because they never met them, or because they had no notion that the family friend who gave them a lift to the perpetrator's home was in fact a prime mover in the crime. These facts may only emerge after the testimonies of several survivors are put together by police and other agencies, and networks of relationships and patterns of behaviour become apparent. In this context, dead perpetrators may be no less helpful than living ones - I have been involved in more than one case where suspects have refused to give evidence implicating others, but where pooled information has helped identify and safeguard other children at risk.

Your formulation would deter people from coming forward by setting the bar too high. How would a survivor from childhood know whether an accessory was an accessory, or indeed, whether they were still alive? Just as for other heinous offences, the invitation should simply be "If you have any evidence that a crime might have been committed, please come forward". That it appears that the Heath case will not result in any prosecutions or findings of fact could only be apparent after an investigation. Pre-empting such a conclusion would be a thoroughly retrograde step.

As for the implication that it was a waste of money - if the police aren't there to deter, investigate and charge child rapists, what the hell are they for?

P.S. I can't believe you really think your formulation is sound. Removing the qualification of the type of offence makes this obvious - "We don't investigate dead men. If there is anyone with any evidence tending to show the involvement of any living individual in any...offences... please would you come forward and we will fully look into that evidence". You are shifting part of the burden of investigation to the witness. For one thing, they need to know for certain that the perpetrator is dead or alive. And what test are they supposed to be able to use to reliably judge whether their evidence "tends to show the involvement of any living individual" ? Worse, your deliberate intention is to deter people from coming forward. Or do you want to reserve this deterrent to witness for certain crimes - like child rape - only? I'm afraid your suggestion is pernicious in principle and unworkable in practice.

the seven remaining cases

I am sorry, looking for the unknown associates of a named, but deceased, suspect without any reasonable belief the suspect had any associates is wasting police time.

We have had a the case in Las Vegas of a dead criminal. The key difference is that the police chief believes it unlikely the gunman could have done this alone. In the Heath case there is no seemingly no suggestion from any of the victims in the in the seven remaining cases of any circumstances to suggest Heath acted with assistance. He is alleged to have groped someone in a garden. He is alleged to have groped someone at a public event. He is alleged to have hired rent boys. None of these need accomplices with the exception of the controllers of the rent boys. One wonders whether the rent boys who complained about Heath were asked for the identities of their pimps?

Far better to conduct a lengthy enquiry and find nothing untoward,

The Times has carried two reports that are salient. One from the police's own independent specialist consultant who reported to them and came under pressure when his report did not say what they wanted it to say (which was that Heath had committed crimes), and the other states that Heath's diary secretaries have never been interviewed by the police, and they claim that the claimed behaviour could never have been possible to be true (as does a member of his police security detail).

In a world where money grows on trees perhaps

Are you moonlighting as a tabloid hack?