Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Police confirm former British PM would have faced paedophile enquiry Watch

    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Changing your thread title does not detract from your opening sentence
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    - the police have bravely resisted this and clearly find the evidence compelling
    And so it goes on. They don't find the evidence compelling. They think it justifies having a formal chat with him. The same would probably apply if you were falsely accused of shoplifting by someone who misinterpreted you behaviour in Next. How would you feel about being described as an obvious thief online on that basis?

    You are demonstrating the use of irregular verbs here:

    I am bravely resisting corrupt attempts to silence me

    You are digging yourself into a needless hole of your own making

    They are scrambling frantically around for a glimmer of justification for the enormous sums they have wasted on investigating a dead bloke.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Now it's official - Ted Heath was an active paedophile (the police report) and abused boys as young as 11.
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    I stand by the facts,
    Clearly, you don't.


    I also find it utterly laughable that you'll call the police brave here yet will completely disown them as an entity elsewhere.

    Your lack of consistency and critical thinking is genuinely appalling.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    And so it goes on. They don't find the evidence compelling. They think it justifies having a formal chat with him. The same would probably apply if you were falsely accused of shoplifting by someone who misinterpreted you behaviour in Next. How would you feel about being described as an obvious thief online on that basis?

    You are demonstrating the use of irregular verbs here:

    I am bravely resisting corrupt attempts to silence me

    You are digging yourself into a needless hole of your own making

    They are scrambling frantically around for a glimmer of justification for the enormous sums they have wasted on investigating a dead bloke.
    From the Statement of the Chief Constable of Wiltshire:

    "I am satisfied that there were compelling and obvious reasons to investigate allegations made about Sir Edward Heath. As I have said, Sir Edward Heath was an extremely prominent, influential and high profile person who was arguably one of the most powerful people in the world commensurate with the political office he held. The allegations against him were of the utmost seriousness and from a significant number of people."
    http://www.wiltshire.police.uk/infor...constable/file

    "The report has been scrutinised by a number of stakeholders and contributors to ensure complete balance, accuracy and measure and only makes findings that can legitimately and realistically be made."

    " I also believe it signals a watershed moment for people and victims who have suggested or implied there has been a state cover-up for some senior figures who may have been involved in child sexual abuse. "
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Clearly, you don't.


    I also find it utterly laughable that you'll call the police brave here yet will completely disown them as an entity elsewhere.

    Your lack of consistency and critical thinking is genuinely appalling.
    I don't recall completely disowning the police as an entity elsewhere - can you give me an example?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    From the Statement of the Chief Constable of Wiltshire:
    All that quote does is act as an apologetic for the money spent on the investigation, emphasising that it was against a great deal of opinion that said it was a waste of money. It says nothing about his likely guilt, nor about the strength of any evidence.

    Again, all that has been said is that Heath would have been interviewed (as, indeed, would almost anyone accused of a serious crime, no matter the evidence against them). So, essentially, nothing has been said.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    From the Statement of the Chief Constable of Wiltshire:

    "I am satisfied that there were compelling and obvious reasons to investigate allegations made about Sir Edward Heath. As I have said, Sir Edward Heath was an extremely prominent, influential and high profile person who was arguably one of the most powerful people in the world commensurate with the political office he held. The allegations against him were of the utmost seriousness and from a significant number of people."
    http://www.wiltshire.police.uk/infor...constable/file

    "The report has been scrutinised by a number of stakeholders and contributors to ensure complete balance, accuracy and measure and only makes findings that can legitimately and realistically be made."

    " I also believe it signals a watershed moment for people and victims who have suggested or implied there has been a state cover-up for some senior figures who may have been involved in child sexual abuse. "
    This does not say there was compelling evidence. This says that there were compelling reasons to investigate. I am afraid I disagree. I think the money would have been better spent catching some real live criminals. I think the only justification for investigating Heath would be to see if he had been assisted in any criminal conduct by a living accomplice.

    42 allegations were made against him and the police did not think him even worthy of interview in respect of 35 of them which shows the number of spurious allegations by the dishonest and the fantasist. Someone has admitted making up three of the complaints. A criminal investigation into "Nick" who started this whole thing off, is ongoing.

    There were 7 complaints remaining. Three of them concern Rent Boys, two under age and one where consent was allegedly withdrawn. The other four concern alleged groping of one adult and three minors during chance encounters in public or quasi-public areas.

    What is very noticeable is that only one of the surviving allegations relates to the central period of his career. Between 1968-1990 there is only one surviving allegation, that he groped an adult male over clothing at a public event in Jersey in 1976. What that suggests to me is that these are merely the allegations where the public record, which will be greatest when he was in power, does not immediately disprove the allegation.

    What I think that this investigation ignores is the absence of contemporary rumour about Heath. He became Leader of the Opposition only two years after the Profumo Affair and at a time when homosexuality was still illegal. It is very difficult to accept that Conservative MPs would have elected him in a secret ballot if there had been any hint of scandal about him.

    Contrast that with Jimmy Saville and Stuart Hall where plenty of people knew about their activities but did not act because of the perception they were "untouchable", but nonetheless distanced themselves from them.

    No socialists smeared him, or have later claimed that they refused to smear him, which suggests they had nothing to smear him with.

    At no time during the Incredible Sulk did anyone on the Tory right smear him which suggests likewise.

    The report contains item after item of material studied and persons interviewed, none of which implicated Heath, leaving each allegation as one person's word against the assumption of what Heath would say if alive.

    The only relevant "fact" that the investigation appears to have discovered is that at some time in the 40 years between 1960 and his death Heath was sexually active but the report does not say whether this was homosexual or heterosexual in nature. Heath's only previously documented romance (from earlier in his career) was with a woman.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Having read the reports in the Times this morning, I am astounded at what the police have done and said. They have evidence that all but seven of many allegations against Heath are false, and those seven are the only ones they have not already rebutted completely. Even one of those has evidence against it, it seems.

    The interview they claim is justified would go along there lines:

    Police: Mr Heath, Mr X has said you did this on a date in 1961. What do you say to that?

    Heath: I didn't do that (or,even, No comment)

    Police: Thank you, sir, Goodbye.

    Not one has anything other than allegation (from people with an eye to compensation from the state) attached to it. The whole thing is a £1.5 million farrago.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    I couldn't believe the attacks those carrying out the investigation were coming under, absolutely disgusting, surely that would never have been allowed had it been your average bloke?

    Just goes to show how these things get covered up.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OxFossil)
    For me, if this case means that just one child is spared, it's well worth it.
    Perhaps, in say ten years time, you will volunteer your services to be investigated in a similar way, just so that investigatory powers can be highlighted as a refresher for all the paedophiles who will have forgotten the lesson by then. If one child is spared it will be well worth the opprobrium you will attract.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Perhaps, in say ten years time, you will volunteer your services to be investigated in a similar way, just so that investigatory powers can be highlighted as a refresher for all the paedophiles who will have forgotten the lesson by then. If one child is spared it will be well worth the opprobrium you will attract.
    As it happens, since I work with children who have been abused, not only are my activities with children regularly observed and supervised, but on occasion, I am video recorded.

    I don't suggest that this should be the case for everyone, of course. That would be silly. But if a child makes an allegation against me, or anyone else, I would expect and indeed demand that it be investigated. Anything less would mean an injustice might be done - either to me or to the child.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OxFossil)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    They would be screaming the roofs down demanding blood.
    As was pointed out by Nulli tertius, the fact that not a single political enemy of Heath, from left or right, has joined in the witch hunt demonstrates that politicians are not keen to make unjustified accusations in such circumstances.

    You stand alone.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    As was pointed out by Nulli tertius, the fact that not a single political enemy of Heath, from left or right, has joined in the witch hunt demonstrates that politicians are not keen to make unjustified accusations in such circumstances.

    You stand alone.
    They probably don't dare. Too many other bodies buried in the basements. Look at the Liberal Party as it then was for examples.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    They probably don't dare.
    Don't be silly. Plenty have dared defend Heath or attack the investigation. Look at the potential for embarrassment for them if actual evidence ever emerged.

    If any political enemy of Heath were aware of any dodgy circumstances they would certainly have come forward by now, as they did in the cases of Cyril Smith and, contemporaneously, John Profumo (who was even a cabinet minister, who would have been protected if anyone would).
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Don't be silly. Plenty have dared defend Heath or attack the investigation. Look at the potential for embarrassment for them if actual evidence ever emerged.
    Plenty dared defend Peter Ball.

    Much of what was said in the defense of Heath has since been proved wrong, he did drive and he wasn't asexual.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OxFossil)
    As it happens, since I work with children who have been abused, not only are my activities with children regularly observed and supervised, but on occasion, I am video recorded.

    I don't suggest that this should be the case for everyone, of course. That would be silly. But if a child makes an allegation against me, or anyone else, I would expect and indeed demand that it be investigated. Anything less would mean an injustice might be done - either to me or to the child.
    Do you fancy this being you?


    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Presumed-Gu.../dp/1785901818


    Will those video recordings be available in 30 years time?
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    19
    Shamefully misleading as usual and am glad other people have pointed it out.. It just undermines you.
    Police agreed they would question him as they are required to do when someone makes an allegation and they cant instantly dismiss.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the beer)
    Plenty dared defend Peter Ball.

    Much of what was said in the defense of Heath has since been proved wrong, he did drive and he wasn't asexual.
    The police failed to get to the bottom of whether he held a driving licence. He certainly owned cars but a man using a non-official driver would also do so. My view is that it is improbable that he failed to learn how to drive. He was in the Royal Artillery during the war operating with towed guns. Most officers would not want to be in the position where they were totally dependent on their men. In practical terms, he has official transport from the early 1950s and there is no substantive recollection of him ever driving.

    The police do seem solid about his sexual activity which suggests they have incontrovertible evidence presumably from a lover or close family member of a lover.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.