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

Police confirm former British PM would have faced paedophile enquiry Watch

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    The allegations that survived scrutiny seemed to me to be allegations incapable of being disproved by this sort of evidence;
    Well, for instance, all said that Heath was never alone without an aide and/or a security man, especially at public events.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Well, for instance, all said that Heath was never alone without an aide and/or a security man, especially at public events.
    When he was PM or Party Leader. The allegations being investigated pre and post date that period, as already discussed in the thread.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Public sector spending constraints: the age-old refuge of Tories eager not to have something important done that threatens their decrepit world view. Yet when Parliament needs new curtains or Buckingham Palace a makeover, a bottomless pit of money suddenly reveals itself.

    Reading your post higher up, can you clarify, the 'rent boys' you dismiss as of no importance, you're aware the allegations are about very young boys? Do you consider them to be able to decide about sexual contact with middle aged men on the grounds that they were given money? I ask, as it sounded a little from your tone as if you perhaps do.
    Decrepit world-view? Do you not think it is inappropriate to politicise such a sensitive topic?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Notorious_B.I.G.)
    Decrepit world-view? Do you not think it is inappropriate to politicise such a sensitive topic?
    The desperation of Tory news outlets like the Telegraph and the Mail to crush this enquiry speaks for itself. It wasn't me who invented the political angle.

    Actually, I think they are right to worry - it's hardly a minor issue that a former Conservative Prime Minister might also have been a serial paedophile, according to the police. Doesn't exactly put them in a good light.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)

    Reading your post higher up, can you clarify, the 'rent boys' you dismiss as of no importance, you're aware the allegations are about very young boys? Do you consider them to be able to decide about sexual contact with middle aged men on the grounds that they were given money? I ask, as it sounded a little from your tone as if you perhaps do.
    The rent boys are not "of no importance". The view of his aides that he was never alone is of no importance in regard to rent boys. His aides will not be lying at the foot of his bed and we have plenty of evidence of people under "constant" surveillance being able to arrange consensual sexual liaisons, hence my reference to James Hewitt but it could equally have been many others. Remember at the time, the age of the rent boy was irrelevant. It would have then been equally a crime if the rent "boy" had been 43!
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    The desperation of Tory news outlets like the Telegraph and the Mail to crush this enquiry speaks for itself. It wasn't me who invented the political angle.

    Actually, I think they are right to worry - it's hardly a minor issue that a former Conservative Prime Minister might also have been a serial paedophile, according to the police. Doesn't exactly put them in a good light.
    I thought you were addressing other TSR users, not the Daily Mail. Unless you think the EIC is regularly perusing your posts looking for the next big scoop.

    It is quite a serious allegation which needs to be dealt with delicately, not with political opportunism. It reminds me of another loud mouth, Tom Watson, and the Leon Britton affair. Serious harm can be done when these allegations are mishandled by over-zealous digits.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Well, for instance, all said that Heath was never alone without an aide and/or a security man, especially at public events.
    And I do not believe that is strictly correct. I attended an event with a Home Secretary in the 1980s. There were 100 or more people in the room, but he was escorted in by the host. I wasn't alone with him, but I suspect the host was. I am sure there would have been personal security officers on the premises and he would not have driven there alone, but he wasn't within sight of such officers at all times. As it was a "political" rather than a government meeting, his private office flunky was absent as they always are.

    Heath had no personal security at all in 1975 when a bomb was found under his car and that was when his security was permanently replaced.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Now we have direct confirmation from the current public enquiry that the security services actively protected Cyril Smith knowing him to be a serial abuser.
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-told-rochdale

    Thatcher of course gave Smith a knighthood, despite knowing about his sordid activities.

    Brian Altman QC told the inquiry: “I mention this knighthood here for two reasons. First, because it demonstrates that the Lancashire investigation and the RAP article had been considered at the very highest level of politics and seemingly did not prompt more than consideration of the DPP’s decision not to prosecute. Second, because it is important to bear in mind the extent to which Cyril Smith continued to involve himself in serious issues related to the welfare of children. A knighthood would only have reinforced Smith’s veneer of respectability and power.”

    Against this sort of background, is it reasonable to still believe that Heath would not have been closely protected in office by the establishment even if he were engaged in active abuse?

    Indeed, what is to prevent this from still going on now?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Skelhorn was apparently unconcerned about prosecuting leading paedophiles because it was not in the 'national interest'.
    What gives you that idea? The Guardian article clearly states he did not prosecute because of a lack of evidence.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    What gives you that idea? The Guardian article clearly states he did not prosecute because of a lack of evidence.
    Correcting this one to admit that Good bloke is correct.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Can I suggest you re-read it from the top? MI5 have admitted that the DPP lied about that.
    No. It pays to read carefully.

    The article says:

    the director of public prosecutions (DPP) at the time, Sir Norman Skelhorn, concluded there was not enough evidence to prosecute him.

    In other words, it reports that he did decide there was insufficient evidence, not that he lied and claimed there was insufficient evidence.

    The lies are about whether there was a file on Smith and whether the DPP had ever been involved. This is made clear here:

    The inquiry heard that when the DPP’s office was approached by the publication it said it had “failed to find a file relating to Cyril Smith”. A second approach produced the statement: “The DPP cannot trace such a case being referred to us but cannot confirm or deny receiving it.”

    The BBC reports the same thing, opening with:

    MI5 was made aware prosecutors lied to the press over the existence of a Cyril Smith child abuse file, an inquiry heard.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41547471
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Can I suggest you re-read it from the top? MI5 have admitted that the DPP lied about that.
    You are muddling up your DPPs.

    Skelhorn was DPP in 1970. He concluded perhaps rightly, perhaps not, that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute Smith

    Hetherington was DPP in 1979. He said that no papers were passed to the DPP in 1970. What has been said today is that was a lie. That means Hetherington wasn't mistaken when he said that. He knew it was untrue.

    Somehow MI5's legal adviser got consulted in 1979 and asked whether something should be done about this, He said not. MI5's job is threats to national security and lying DPPs didn't make it any more likely that Brezhnev would be moving into Buck House.

    There is no explanation of who involved MI5, why were they involved and how did they know Hetherington was lying? The natural places to complain about the conduct of a DPP is to the AG or to the Cabinet Secretary not to a bunch of spooks.

    There is also no obvious reason why Hetherington lied. "It is not the policy of the this office to discuss these matters". "Papers concerning allegations against Mr Smith were passed to the DPP to review. The DPP of the day decided that there was nothing in the papers that warranted him taking any further action". There were umpteen things Hetherington could have said that would have blocked further enquiry but did not involve a straight lie. So why did he lie? Was this a lie for the good of the country or a lie in someone's private interests?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    No. It pays to read carefully.

    The article says:

    the director of public prosecutions (DPP) at the time, Sir Norman Skelhorn, concluded there was not enough evidence to prosecute him.

    In other words, it reports that he did decide there was insufficient evidence, not that he lied and claimed there was insufficient evidence.

    The lies are about whether there was a file on Smith and whether the DPP had ever been involved. This is made clear here:

    The inquiry heard that when the DPP’s office was approached by the publication it said it had “failed to find a file relating to Cyril Smith”. A second approach produced the statement: “The DPP cannot trace such a case being referred to us but cannot confirm or deny receiving it.”

    The BBC reports the same thing, opening with:

    MI5 was made aware prosecutors lied to the press over the existence of a Cyril Smith child abuse file, an inquiry heard.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41547471
    Oh OK, fair enough. The reports do however indicate that Skelhorn decided not to prosecute, despite the police reports that Smith was acting abusively and therefore my basic point, that the establishment at that time appear to have actively protected leading paedophiles, stands.

    This is no surprise to anyone who has read deeply into the Saville case, where it's very clear that a mutual protection society of highly placed abusers and their friends acted to prevent the law from reaching these criminals.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    So why did he lie?
    Given that he did not personally scoot down to the archives to brush aside the dust and hunt for a file, I doubt it was a conscious lie. More likely a civil servant briefed him, dishonestly or mistakenly, that there was no file.

    So, civil service corruption, or civil service incompetence. But perhaps not political interference.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Oh OK, fair enough. The reports do however indicate that Skelhorn decided not to prosecute, despite the police reports that Smith was acting abusively and therefore my basic point, that the establishment at that time appear to have actively protected leading paedophiles, stands.

    This is no surprise to anyone who has read deeply into the Saville case, where it's very clear that a mutual protection society of highly placed abusers and their friends acted to prevent the law from reaching these criminals.
    Your conspiracy theory relies on your proof that there was sufficient evidence (that would stand up in court, and not be mere opinion or supposition) to prosecute, when the DPP said there wasn't. Bring hither your evidence!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Your conspiracy theory relies on your proof that there was sufficient evidence (that would stand up in court, and not be mere opinion or supposition) to prosecute, when the DPP said there wasn't. Bring hither your evidence!
    I can't - MI5 have suppressed it!
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Given that he did not personally scoot down to the archives to brush aside the dust and hunt for a file, I doubt it was a conscious lie. More likely a civil servant briefed him, dishonestly or mistakenly, that there was no file.

    So, civil service corruption, or civil service incompetence. But perhaps not political interference.
    You can't have an unconscious lie.

    The natural explanation is Hetherington was mistaken. He is mistaken whether a civil servant innocently or deliberately misleads him. It appears they have been very clear today that Hetherington lied. That means the most likely explanation is not the correct one.

    How does one know he lied? Perhaps because someone knew that there was a copy of the 1970 papers in front of Hetherington when he said there were no 1970 papers.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    So, civil service corruption, or civil service incompetence. But perhaps not political interference.
    I'm alleging 'establishment' conspiracy, rather than 'political' as such. I am sure that the PPL (Paedophile Protection League) is very accepting of all political brands within the wider cause of enabling the abuse of defenceless children for sexual gratification by leading upper class and upper middle class men with impeccable connections and reputations.

    If only Ted was still around, so that he could be investigated properly.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Thanks for this posting which is NOT at all deceptive in any way. Those of us in the legal arena who have practiced law realize an enquiry/inquiry means "questioning" NOT necessarily meaning charges would have been brought. A great many people are questioned(some are mere witnesses, some have no useful information, some may not have first hand knowledge, but through questioning, lead to other usable lead, etc.), and that is the end of things, and then others are questioned, and suspected, and then others are questioned and charged/indicted, only for the case to later fall apart or not be sustainable for whatever reasons, and then there are those who go to trial and are acquitted of all or some charges(or who have hung juries and may or may not be retried), and then those who charged, tried and convicted. (and of course, those who are convicted, can appeal, with success or non success.)

    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    "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...-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.


    Attachment 694184
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    You can't have an unconscious lie.

    The natural explanation is Hetherington was mistaken. He is mistaken whether a civil servant innocently or deliberately misleads him. It appears they have been very clear today that Hetherington lied. That means the most likely explanation is not the correct one.

    How does one know he lied? Perhaps because someone knew that there was a copy of the 1970 papers in front of Hetherington when he said there were no 1970 papers.
    It seems very implausible that he wasn't fully briefed on a case involving a well known member of Parliament.
 
 
 
  • 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.