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)
    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.
    This is bizarre. The BBC says:

    The first, dated 24 April 1979, recorded that Mr Hetherington "telephoned me today to say a man named David Bartlett, representing RAP in Lancashire, had telephoned about a gross indecency case involving Cyril Smith and boys at a hotel in Rochdale, which an unnamed senior police officer had asserted had been sent to the DPP in 1970.

    "After consultations, the DPP's press representative had untruthfully told Bartlett that they had no record of this case. In fact, their file closely accorded with the details given by Bartlett."

    It is Hetherington himself ringing MI5, and the DDP's press office that lies. The obvious questions are: (a) did Hetherington authorise the lies (or just learn about them), and (b) why did he report it to MI5, of all people?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    It seems very implausible that he wasn't fully briefed on a case involving a well known member of Parliament.
    Plenty of people are briefed inaccurately. But being in receipt of an inaccurate brief doesn't make you a liar.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    This is bizarre. The BBC says:

    The first, dated 24 April 1979, recorded that Mr Hetherington "telephoned me today to say a man named David Bartlett, representing RAP in Lancashire, had telephoned about a gross indecency case involving Cyril Smith and boys at a hotel in Rochdale, which an unnamed senior police officer had asserted had been sent to the DPP in 1970.

    "After consultations, the DPP's press representative had untruthfully told Bartlett that they had no record of this case. In fact, their file closely accorded with the details given by Bartlett."

    It is Hetherington himself ringing MI5, and the DDP's press office that lies. The obvious questions are: (a) did Hetherington authorise the lies (or just learn about them), and (b) why did he report it to MI5, of all people?
    Well, if you are a senior civil servant with a crap press officer, it is the first thing you do, isn't it; complain to the Secret Service's lawyer?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Lets put a timeline to this. The Labour government falls on 28th March 1979. Election day is 3 May 1979. The first story appeared in Private Eye 11th May 1979. The Rochdale Alternative published later that month.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Lets put a timeline to this. The Labour government falls on 28th March 1979. Election day is 3 May 1979. The first story appeared in Private Eye 11th May 1979. The Rochdale Alternative published later that month.
    But why would a Conservative government collude in hiding the peccadilloes of a Liberal MP?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    But why would a Conservative government collude in hiding the peccadilloes of a Liberal MP?
    I have no answer but why would the DPP's press officer, after consultations, lie about an old investigation into a candidate during a general election campaign?
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    But why would a Conservative government collude in hiding the peccadilloes of a Liberal MP?
    You make my point for me. Why? The obvious answer is most likely the right one - a mutual protection society of highly placed paedophiles.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Lets put a timeline to this. The Labour government falls on 28th March 1979. Election day is 3 May 1979. The first story appeared in Private Eye 11th May 1979. The Rochdale Alternative published later that month.
    Eg, they were busy protecting Smith after the Lab/Lib coalition had bitten the dust.

    We probably won't get to the bottom of this saga for a long time, but an interesting additional fact to consider is the way the Tories courted Saville in later years, even going so far as to have him as a personal guest staying at Thatcher's house just down the corridor from her young children. All very, very strange, given that she too would have had all the security service reports and we know that they existed on Saville from that enquiry.

    One strong possibility is that the paedophile network extended deep into the security services and this was the theory touted by the Eye for many years,
 
 
 
  • 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
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    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.