Beware The Backlash: The Media And The Politics Of Paedophila

I won’t stoop to counter the slurs and smears cast upon Tim Tate in the last couple of days.

I’ll just give him a voice.

I can only hope that those with ears to listen pay heed. Certainly anyone who really cares about this issue should.

BEWARE THE BACKLASH: THE MEDIA AND THE POLITICS OF PAEDOPHILIA

By Tim Tate

Capture

“We are at a vital crossroads.

The coming weeks and months will determine the course of how paedophilia is investigated and how children can be protected from those who seek sexually to abuse them.

For the first time in a generation the public is being relentlessly bombarded with stories alleging the existence of VIP paedophile rings, cover-ups (both governmental and institutional) and accounts of men and women of the abuse they suffered as children.

This very public pressure – both in the mainstream press and in social media – has forced the government to announce official enquiries into historic abuse and how the problem is presently dealt with.

We have been here before. And there are lessons which need to be heeded from past experience.

I have spent a quarter of a century making documentaries and writing books about the sexual abuse of children. It has not been easy. Not for the obvious reason that this is a miserable subject which inevitably leaves its mark, but for the less-recognised problem that our society has, in general, a preference for turning its eyes from the problem and – when unable to do so – all too frequently seeks a way to believe that accounts of child sexual abuse are in some way made up, exaggerated or maliciously prompted by outsiders.

Cast your mind back across those 25 years. Cleveland, Nottingham, Rochdale – each began in a blitz of screaming headlines about the appalling abuse of children, and collapsed under a sustained and vicious backlash (often by those newspapers which had so willingly published the original stories) suggesting that the abuse was a ”myth” or a “moral panic”.

And in this noise of claim, counter-claim and recrimination, children’s voices get drowned out. Worse, the comfort and promise of being protected is reneged on: the adult world rights itself and once again allows the needs of victims to be swept back under the carpet.

And there is a consistent factor in this: lazy, shoddy and cynical journalism.

We tend to be complacent about the role of the press and the media in this country. We somehow allow ourselves to believe that it is not terribly important. But it is.

How (and whether) the public gets to know about abuse is entirely dependent on the behaviour of the media. If – Cleveland being a glaring example – the newspapers and television collectively decide that the much-hyped allegations of abuse were untrue, that is exactly what the public will be led to believe. The fact – again, see Cleveland – that the evidence shows the complete opposite is neither here nor there: that traditional media mantra “never let the truth get in the way of a good story” is all-powerful.

Nor is it only the public which can be misled: the lessons of the past show that the police, the social services departments, the courts and the judiciary are equally pushed by the press to a (pre-)fabricated conclusion. In Cleveland, for example, one judge sitting in a case to determine the fate of a child whose social services record showed ample evidence of risk, announced that he could not help but be influenced by what he read in the press. Hardly surprising, then, that courts across the region simply stopped working and the children’s protection was left to ad-hoc deals worked out between opposing barristers.

For Cleveland read Nottingham, read Rochdale. In each case it proved easier to shoot the messengers – whether social workers, paediatricians or the children themselves – than face up to the painful truth. And what made it easier ? Shoddy, lazy, cynical journalism.

I have been one of those working – sometimes behind the scenes, sometimes in the press or via television news – to build up the head of pressure which has forced this government to hold new enquiries. Others have done as much – and more. All of us have patiently and carefully sought out witnesses, sources and those with a story which needs to be heard. We have then done that old-fashioned thing: sought confirmatory evidence or – where appropriate – evidence which undermines or disproves what we have been told. No supporting evidence ? Then no publication.

But there are others who – as in previous times – don’t bother. To them, it’s open season – a rolling news story that obviates the need for careful journalism. Social media – blogs, and Twitter accounts – carelessly publish rumour as fact and half-facts as gospel truth.

But it’s not just the outer reaches of the democratised public discourse.

Exaro News – run by a rag-tag collection of soi-disant ¬investigative journalists has promoted itself ceaselessly as the main source of truth about historic sexual abuse. Its editor is interviewed repeatedly on national television and quoted in mainstream newspapers.

Unfortunately, Exaro is also one of the most prominent offenders in publishing – and then hyping – inaccurate and over-sensational stories. Its story this weekend about the audio tape it acquired of a conversation between a former customs officer and a journalist [transcript published elsewhere on this blog] makes claims and deductions about a former government minister that are – to my certain knowledge – simply false. Worse, they obscure the real evidence which indicate that the man needs to be properly investigated.

Why does this matter ? Because these over-hyped, inaccurate and sensational stories will – if history repeats itself (and it will) cause a vicious backlash which will put back child protection (and the investigation of paedophilia) for years to come.

We can’t afford this. We must not allow it to happen. No government ever wants the truth about child sexual abuse to be uncovered: if the scale and impact of it are fully realised vast sums of new public money will have to be devoted to combatting it.

This is the politics of paedophilia. And my lot – my brothers in this vital trade of journalism – play with it like a careless infant with a cheap toy. That is irresponsible. And it’s plain wrong.”

Advertisements

57 Comments

Filed under Abuse

57 responses to “Beware The Backlash: The Media And The Politics Of Paedophila

  1. Pingback: Beware The Backlash: The Media And The Politics Of Paedophila | L8in

  2. Reblogged this on Thinking Out Loud and commented:
    Its so important that everyone recognises the need to ensure the CSA investigations are not in anyway diminished or sidetracked.

  3. Reblogged this on Desiring Progress and commented:
    ‘We have then done that old-fashioned thing: sought confirmatory evidence or – where appropriate – evidence which undermines or disproves what we have been told.’

    This latter clause is a good principle of both journalism and scholarship – always try to test your thesis at its most vulnerable, and never cherry-pick evidence which suits an a priori conclusion. Sometimes this will mean the conclusions are more provisional or modest, but this is a better option than weakly founded conclusions.

    A question I keep asking re Elm Guest House is whether some of those alleged to have visited there might have done so for discreet sexual liaisons with same sex partners, over the age of 16 (which would have been illegal at the time as there was a discriminatory age of consent, 16 for heterosexuals, 21 for homosexuals, but this law is little more just that then pre-1967 laws which criminalised homosexual acts altogether). Doing so might have left politicians open to blackmail or censure in considerably more homophobic times, but are nothing whatsoever to do with the abuse of children. Whether or not this was the case for some individuals I am not in a position to say, but I am concerned that people with no more evidence than I have do not want to countenance this as a possibility, as the result would be rather less spectacular than that which is anticipated/desired.

    • dpack

      blackmail and reward are a well tested method of control,that the law and attitudes were becoming more tolerant of being gay might indicate that other means were developed.what you say about some normally gay folk being tarred with the same brush as child abusers by being at egh is quite probable (i can think of at least one )but from what has been said of the place by a wide variety of people (if it is true) there was an element of the clients who abused children and a system to provide children to them.

    • Ian, as you will know, the Elm documents put online by Mary Moss were penned by Chris Fay (and – I don’t know to what extent – by John Oakes.) They are described as notes recording what Fay was told and shown by Elm proprietor Carol Kasir.

      Fay himself has commented that the presence of a name on the list doesn’t even imply that an *allegation* of abuse by that person has been made, let alone constitute any kind of proof of abuse. See, for example, the posts on this blog at: https://theneedleblog.wordpress.com/2013/08/23/elm-guest-house-mary-moss-files/ and https://theneedleblog.wordpress.com/2013/09/26/the-fake-elm-guest-house-list/ which are aimed at clarifying the context and significance of the lists.

      Regards the issue of assumptions of guilt on scant evidence, and the subsequent polarisation of opinion, I agree this is a real and dangerous issue – it severely impairs meaningful discussion and removes focus from the investigation and evidence wherever it occurs. Because the behaviour alleged is *archetypally* evil, and connects so deeply with our inner beliefs and values, rational judgment can go out the window. This is a time-honoured facet of human psychology that’s exploited again and again by war propagandists alleging atrocities by the enemy.

      Once the debate is polarised like this, anyone taking a different view can become “the enemy”, to be defeated by any means.

      Hence, disagreements about the evidence and its implications can become vicious circles of mutual accusation and recrimination (“troll!”, “shill!”, “witchhunter!”, “money-grubber!”, “ego-driven!”, “Internet lunatic!” etc.)

      What a waste that all the energy expended on such infighting cannot be turned to progressing our understanding of the actual events and actors that have occasioned it!

      • What really concerns me is that I can believe a lot of those who respond hysterically to claims made on the basis of third-hand, sometimes circumstantial, evidence, might be the same ones who would get involved in vigilante mobs.

        I do believe that a huge amount of abuse has gone on and has been covered up, but every single claim requires strong evidence. Abandoning presumptions of innocence and reverting to a type of mob rule, whether in cyber-space or real life, is to become akin to abusers. Abusive false allegations are pretty much as bad as abuse itself. Many are exploiting the fact that they can spread dirt with impunity on the internet, and they undermine the solidly researched work which does exist in the process, and provide grist to the mills of those prominent individuals who want to discredit the whole investigations/inquiry.

        Eileen Fairweather’s 2012 article on this subject is very good – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9668284/I-do-not-doubt-men-in-smart-cars-preyed-on-boys-but-justice-requires-detective-work-not-hearsay-.html .

  4. dpack

    well said mr tate
    the transcript was needed to blow away some of the smoke and
    it seems to have cleared enough to see the nature of this part of the fire.

  5. artmanjosephgrech

    This is yet another very important contribution to the dangerous situation in which we are in although it is also a necessary period of transition for the English nation although no longer a nation in terms of having a political, economic, social, religious and cultural identity to which the majority of the population can agree on let alone share in terms of their daily experience. We all need to face up to the reality of what has unfolded and in one sense grow up.

    The function of any UK government is to provide physical security, domestic stability, to maintain and if possible improve the material standards of the overwhelming majority of its people within a global economy in which the UK has few cards to play, weapons of mass destruction an exceptionally well trained and disciplined military/navy and airforce and a profitable domestic arms manufactory business, a flawed but recovering banking and financial services industry, a Hollywood tourism industry headed by the longevity of a hereditary monarch and a raft of science, technical research skills and enterprises which underpin a quality higher education services in demand from all over the world. However we have also become nations where major questions marks can be raised at the ethics and primary function of the printed press, where the rule of law no appears controlled by suspect politicians and judicial system increasingly geared to only those with the funds to pay and where the gulf between the governed and governing, the establishment as has become fashionable once more the separate institutions of national government, the point of becoming unbridgeable. What happens at Westminster Parliament is viewed with contempt by business leaders, the armed services and police, the main religions and most other countries, and with indifference by the majority of the people given participation in recent elections.

    Into this mix with the recent experience of Coalition government, the Scottish independence vote ahead, the General Election and the proposition that we would survive better outside of the EEC despite its imperfections or that the threat of leaving will change anything which would make difference to public opinion, we now have a situation where the nature of male sexuality in general is being exposed, with rape torture and murder, often of women and their children across centuries and the earth , Norman Tebbit has proved he is an honest man in admitting it was the natural order until the present Coalition and an increasingly effective Opposition fro the establishment to self protect and cover up as being in the national interest and this included using the Prerogative in relation to Bombers and Murders in Northern Ireland, and to using or accepting paedophiles because it was in he national interest to do so.

    Ok so now a lot more people know than was the situation before, what are we going to do about it? It should be self evident. Concentrate on stopping those who commit crimes of physical and sexual violence, whoever they are. Provide long term effective support to victims past and present through the reporting and judicial process and then through the rest of their lives as needed and requested and if that means significant changes in resources then lets do it. The protection and future welfare of the next generation should always be our greatest priority shouldnit? It also ought to be self evident that at such times as this individually or collective establishment institutions cannot investigate themselves and expect public confidence and this is where some independent over arching body independent any of the institutions which failed to protect was and remain a good idea, as long as everyone understand this will not change anything in practice. Its role will be one of catharsis and hopefully one of reconciliation.

    From my recent limited contact with survivors there is some satisfaction learning of names going down buy individual hey want justice in terms of the individual who harmed them personally, they want the truth, they want establishment not just to say sorry but to take action to stop it happening again and again. Real change will come from within each institution by institution and this will take time. Revolution change is always dangerous often with major casualties, wasted resources, the wrong people gaining power and authority and no evidence that things get better in he long run let alone the short. There is no quick fix for victims or society.

    However the first step must to remove from holding power over us at national local level anyone who commits such crimes. Those who were actively complicit must judge individually depending on the position in the hierarchies in which they are still involved. Telling the truth being allowed to tell the truth and saying sorry should make a difference. Collectively and individually we need to be able to look victims in the eye, say sorry and ask what one can do to help, then do it.

  6. Not bad, Tate, except for your attempts to conflate “diagnosis” of abuse on the basis of physical or behavioural symptoms – by doctors, social workers and child protection campaigners – with “children’s voices”. Take Cleveland as an example. Unless you are claiming that toddlers bottoms “speak” for them, there was very little in the way of children’s voices actually speaking accusations or crying out to be rescued from abusers. But children really do speak out, are heard, responded to and their abusers prosecuted in the mudane & routine cases that “pressure builders” like yourself frequently ignore and pretend do not exist – after a campaign such as Cleveland goes bust on you. The abuse is real, the public deafness to it is your own fantasy.

    • Tim Tate

      Actually – on Cleveland – utterly wrong.

      I obtained all the social services files provided to the Butler Sloss enquiry (for my film on the crisis – C4 1998). They contained immensely clear evidence – verbal, physical and otherwise.

      It really would help if posters did even basic research.

      • nuggy

        we have done basic research that’s why not what your saying isnt true.

        all the children now adults who have done interviews total y contradict your story and i can easly back this up.

  7. Geoff

    Some of this is sensible and well said. But from the perspective of someone who remembers 1990s tv journalism it is rather ironic that such sentiments should be expressed by Tim Tate.

    In answer to Mr Tate’s direct questions to me elsewhere, no we don’t know each other but I held executive responsibility at the time and well remember your reputation. I was indeed required to read your appalling book “Children For The Devil” (if memory serves that book had to be pulped after you were sued and forced to admit errors, so for you now to say it is still available on Amazon, presumably secondhand, is perhaps somewhat disingenuous). But I also read the so-called JET report and your credentials do not impress me as much as they do some others.

    Incidentally I have no dog in this current fight between Tate and Hencke (overclaimers both, imho, which tends to go with the territory) but share the general view that long suppressed crimes should be exposed.

    • Sadly Geoff you never bothered to check what you apparently were being told (by whom, I wonder ?)

      I think my record speaks for itself – multiple awards (does Amnesty reward those with a terrible reputation ? Likewise RTS, UNESCO and the rest ?) and 11 published books (one a best seller).

      The JET report to which you refer was never published because it was grossly defamatory. It managed – amongst other things – to completely reverse the evidence I was asked to give it.

      And yes, that book was withdrawn, but a little careful enquiry would have shown that this happened after a policeman complained not of the facts but of what he claimed was an inference people might draw from four paragraphs. My publishers were unable to defend this because Notiinghamshire County Council refused to allow them access to its employees (who had spoken out in the book)

      By all means criticise Geoff. But have the courage to state who you are and from whom you received your ‘information’ about my reputation. Otherwise you are, I think, just trolling

      • Geoff

        Press Association
        July 13, 1992

        LIBEL DAMAGES FOR ABUSE INQUIRY CHIEF

        A senior Nottingham police officer who headed a child sex abuse inquiry accepted “very substantial” undisclosed libel damages in the High Court today over allegations in a book that he concealed evidence and was responsible for a “dirty” campaign against social workers. Detective Superintendent Peter Coles led a 1988 investigation into allegations of abuse in the Broxtowe area of Nottingham. Ten adults were convicted and jailed, and the police were praised for their efforts. His solicitor, Mr Keith Schilling, said today that a book, “Children for the Devil: Ritual Abuse and Satanic Crime”, by Tim Tate, alleged the officer was responsible for deliberate concealment of evidence that wealthy individuals may have been involved in abuse. It said he was responsible for a dirty, dishonest and underhand campaign against social workers who were co-operating in the inquiry and for authorising surveillance of social workers’ private lives. As a result of his conduct, children remained trapped in the misery of ritual abuse. Mr Schilling told Mr Justice Drake: “The plaintiff was appalled, shocked and distressed to discover that the book contained such an outrageous attack upon his personal and professional reputation and that of his team of police officers. He was angered by the embarrassment caused to his family, friends and colleagues. Mr Tate and publishers The Octopus Group accepted the grave allegations were “utterly without foundation”. They retracted the allegations completely, apologised unreservedly and agreed to pay “very substantial damages” and all the officer’s legal costs. After today’s brief settlement hearing, Det Supt Coles refused to reveal the amount of damages, but said: “I am very pleased. It is all very satisfactory. One hopes that this will bring some reality back to the things that have been said about this case. “What was written was totally untrue. This has vindicated me completely.”

      • Tim,

        Can I ask that you have a look at this please?
        Three years attempting to get Scottish Police to even ask questions of an alleged abuser. I’ve demanded that they charge me with anything and everything within their power should they believe he accusations against the abuser are unsubstantiated. I have on record they have “no doubt” that the accusations are truthful.
        Lately, and unbelievably, I appear to have evidence that CPS (COPFS here in Scotland) are part of, if not directing, a cover-up.
        I have no idea why, other than speculation, and I’m no conspiracy theorist.
        I’m happy to furnish detail and communications with Police Scotland and COPFS as there ought to be nothing to hide.
        To date, very (most) senior police officer(s), MP, MSP, Solicitor General are all involved.
        I have confirmation that and area Superintendent is attempting to set up a private meeting with my own MP to discuss (letter from my MP confirms).
        I can be contacted at alanbowker@hotmail.com

        ****************************************************************************************

        ” Women who sexually abuse our children – why aren’t ALL child sex abusers being prosecuted?

        OPEN LETTER to Sir Stephen House, QPM, Chief Constable of Police Scotland
        January 2014.

        Dear Sir,

        Sadly, I find it necessary to address this Open Letter to you only after my own own MP has written to you directly, and repeatedly over an eight month period, by asking for action on Child Sex Abuse.

        Despite these representations, neither a meaningful response nor action has been forthcoming.

        Our concern is that despite senior officers of Police Scotland formally claiming that all child sex abuse reports are “taken “very seriously indeed”, the facts don’t support this assertion.

        As an example, with respect to this one incident, Police Scotland and yourself were made aware of a formal report in January 2013, and a formal complaint made in March 2013, yet despite evidence including a viable formal Witness Statement and Expert Psychological support documentation, the female suspect has been neither questioned nor interviewed.

        This is clearly not an isolated incident. Research findings by prestigious child protection organisations such as NSPCC/Childline/The Lucy Faithfull Foundation/Kidscape, together with findings reported in numerous academic journals, confirm that in between 5 – 20% of all occurrences female child sex abusers of child sex abuse, the abusers are women. (1)
        In a paper published in 1984, Petrovich & Templer reported that 59% of incarcerated (male) rapists had been sexually abused when they were children, by one or more women.

        Anecdotal evidence suggests that these research conclusions are accurate, and that the criminal justice system treats women who sexually abuse children very leniently compared with men who sexually abuse children.
        This is entirely consistent with my own research and personal experience.

        Within the past reported twelve months, it’s been confirmed that in my local policing area alone that there were NO instances of women been convicted of any of the 27 possible categories of sexual abuse of children. In the same area, over the same period, 78 men were convicted of such offences. The political party Justice for men & boys (and the women who love them) http://j4mb.org.uk is taking an increasing interest in the topic of women committing sexual abuse of children, and the reluctance of the police to prosecute them. (2)

        My recent Freedom of Information requests (FOI 2013-1171 & 2013-1447) via Police Scotland for statistics and data across all Scottish regions, and nationally, over three years, also confirms that convictions of female perpetrators of child sex abuse are insignificant.

        Not only is this a possible infringement of the Scottish Equality Act 2010, it’s also inconsistent with the public claim that Police Scotland take all child sex abuse offences “very seriously indeed”.

        References:
        (1) Bibliography of Female Child Sex Abusers
        (2) http://j4mb.wordpress.com/2013/12/10/women-who-sexually-abuse-children/

        Name and Address Supplied “

  8. Anon

    So, is this just a cat-fight between journalists or is one of them a government agent?

    The confusion and uncertainty serves no useful purpose, and does nothing towards getting equitable resolution for the alleged victims.

    If either of you have anything, then publish it now rather a constant drip, drip, drip of allegations and counter-allegations.

  9. Jeremy Stocks

    “Exaro News – run by a rag-tag collection of soi-disant ¬investigative journalists has promoted itself ceaselessly as the main source of truth about historic sexual abuse. ”

    That’s not a very nice thing to write.

    • It’s not a nice thing to write, nor is it true. I’ve been following Exaro News for a year and their journalists have gone where others feared to tread and I admire them tremendously.

  10. gw

    Its true – we are at a crossroads. We must not invest in our own assumptions and biases. Remember why we’re here! Stronger together…

  11. Just a follow up, to clarify about the current calls for an inquiry into allegations of historic abuse by members of government. There are no “children’s voices” in this instance? I’m not hearing people who are CURRENTLY under the age of 18, claiming that current or former members of your government sexually abused them? If there are, then direct me to those cases – I want to see this! Please try to be accurate, everyone, and refer to these complainants as adults alleging CSA (if their accusation was never prosecuted) or adult survivors of CSA (if their accusation was successfully prosecuted or litigated) and NOT as children at risk or “children’s voices”.

  12. chrisb

    A question worth asking: why would Geoffrey Dickens have given information on Westminster paedophilia to a leading politician, if he had believed that this politician was involved? The answer is that Dickens wouldn’t have, implying that Dickens did not have suspicions of that politician. There are many possible explanations for Dickens not to have had suspicions, including the total innocence of the politician concerned. What can not be a possible explanation is the suggestion that Dickens was extremely well informed about a Westminster paedophilia ring and that the politician concerned was at the centre of it.

  13. Tate – I did go through “Unspeakable Truths”, with a fine toothed comb. I noticed that you used an adult complainant, who was NOT one of the Cleveland case children, to speak for and represent those children – which is heinously disingenuous to say the least. And you are not trying to claim that the Cleveland child removals were INITIATED by spontaneous accusations from the children, are you? If you can prove that such accusations PRECEDED the anal reflex diagnosis of abuse, then publish your proof (with whatever redactions may be necessary).

    • If you had indeed watched the film as carefully as you suggest you would have seen that there were indeed prior disclosures by some if the children

      But you must also be aware that disclosure is not the only indicator (particularly for pre-verbal children) and that RAD was (and remains) one valuable sign. Not my words but those of the Association of Police Surgeons

      • My complaint was the conflating of “indicators” with “children’s voices”, Mr Tate. Those are not the same things, are they? I can respect your commitment to children’s wellbeing, as demonstrated by your work however flawed some of it was – I’m just asking that you stop accusing everyone who examines these cases with a critical eye, of ignoring or wishing to silence “children’s voices”.

  14. Tim,

    Remember the wise words of George Bernard Shaw- “I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.”

  15. Flat earth

    I’m reminded of the 1937 popular song “They all laughed”. It seems that some still cannot accept that the world is round, and are to be pitied.

    Well done Gojam. Keep up your excellent work.

  16. dpack

    a slight aside that may or may not be relevant to these matters but does reflect my deeply suspicious turn of mind when dealing with disputed information.
    in another place with comments on the “customs officer” story there is a poster with a rather rare surname (2 in the usa none i can find in the uk).
    the surname is quite commonly used as a job description in works of authors such as le carre .
    probably nothing significant( except the mistaken”internet nutter” ramblings of dpack )but it did remind me of various other “in jokes” that have been played with names which is i why i tried some quick google chi. (;>).

    my serious point about this is that there are those who attempt to confuse and divide to hide the truth and identifying the source and content of untruth helps reveal truth.

  17. YES to That!…. it’s a Great Job you do and Tim Tate. All these people that are up in Arms over this, WHAT ARE THEY DOING???????

    • If any of you know the world of opera fans (if you don’t, you’re probably lucky) you will have come across those who absolutely idolise some singers, are jealously defensive about every single aspect of them, violently despise anyone who voices the most minutely critical view, and also indulge in hate-campaigns (sometimes libellous) against their rivals. It’s not an edifying sight.

      Exaro have certainly done some very important work (though their claims to essentially have been the only people pursuing the stories, or to have been responsible for the explosion over the last few weeks, which their piece before Danczuk’s HSAC appearance was more designed to prevent, are nonsense) but the phenomenon which has appeared on Twitter, mostly from people uninterested in soberly evaluating claims and counter-claims that are appearing at a rapid rate, is unfortunately rather too reminiscent of those opera fans.

  18. Indeed. The disgraceful behaviour of some has been truly shocking and saddening to witness.

  19. Hello Tim. I believe I engaged in a conversation with you elsewhere and expressed a like and respect for your work. Could I ask that you give serious consideration to compiling all the press stories about paedophiles in positions of power, at varying levels, over the past few decades in to a long article or even a book?

    A lot of the MSM articles on this occur at the local media level and very rarely make it to the national stage. In addition, I’ve found it useful to particularly focus on those stories, the local press ones, where whistle blowers are interviewed and give rise to the stories. My point is when you begin down this more holistic path, with this idea of national networks in mind (and even international ones), it becomes very revealing and clearly not the case of ‘isolated’ corrupt individuals.

    I am not a journalist, although I would love to catch a break to become one, so I am perhaps not the best person to compile, analyse and graph these abuse networks and then cross reference the named individuals, with membership lists to other affiliation groups and ‘fraternities’.

    • Hello Lifeisnotanerror

      Thank you for your comment here (and elsewhere). It is kind and much appreciated.

      I am trying to do as you suggest, both by placing as many of my films on-line (via The Needle, Spotlight on Abuse and on my own company’s website: http://www.interestingfilms.co.uk). Not all, of course, are my copyright since I made them while working for Yorkshire Television.

      In terms of a book, I am working on a new and substantially updated edition of my 1990 book on Child Pornography (which included then – and the new edition will expand on this – much of the history of PIE and associated international paedophile organisations). No date for this yet, but if people here don’t mind, as and when it is published I’ll post a note here.

      Thank you again

      • Tim, if you will find it useful I can scour the web for news articles etc. of the type I allude to and compile a lit. Do you have an email I can pass said research onto?

      • To lifeisnotanerror – I like to keep collections of news articles on my own blog too – if you are able to send anything to me (ian AT ianpace.com ), I would happily put it up there. I’ve been planning an overview of articles from the last few weeks for a bit, and this would be most helpful (and would of course be fully accredited).

  20. MSM can be quite vacuous and in my mind I see them bowing easily to pressure and not venturing too far away from the ‘official line.’

    For these inquiries we really need access to a stream of quality information to prevent further cover ups. We need to keep the momentum going otherwise people forget as you say having convinced themselves that these heinous things could not have possibly happened which is by far the more comfortable position.

    If the MSM are not up to the job then what’s the likelihood of ever getting justice for the victims or an outcome that is effective in eradicating the problem for good – because logically we must assume it is still happening today, yet another story that will be broken by the MSM in later years (or not.)

    This is why Exaro seemingly has so much to offer, it’s dedicated to investigative journalism and seems to deliver the stories other outlets either bury or are not too bothered about because something else is headlining Personally, I was quite happy to discover it but now you suggest they might be prone to exaggeration and shoddy journalism. I still have decide if its a viable option though.

    On a separate note, much respect and admiration for the work you do, it takes great strength and courage. My best wishes.

  21. I posted the following questions on Exaro today (and e-mailed them to David Hencke and the Eaxro website). These questions relate both to the accuracy of Exaro’s reporting and to its attacks on those who question this.

    Should Exaro respond I will post their reply here.

    “Dear Mr Hencke

    I am sending this to you and to Exaro via e-mail. I am also posting it on the Exaro website and on The Needle.

    In recent days you and your Exaro colleagues have made a series of allegations concerning the story of ex-Customs officer, the Tricker tapes; you have also attacked those who put forward a different version of these events.

    In the interests of accuracy and transparency would you now please answer the following questions:-

    1. Your story on Sunday claimed that “The digital recording is of an ex-Customs officer who positively identifies a former Conservative cabinet minister as being captured on a video of child sex abuse.” Could you please highlight in the transcript of this recording exactly where the ex-Customs officer states or confirms that allegation ?

    2. Do you accept that on numerous occasions in the recording the ex-Customs officer refuses to discuss what might have been on the tape; further that he also repeatedly indicates he cannot remember ?

    3. In respect of your subsequent postings concerning the statement given by this ex-Customs officer to police, in which he identified the politician in question as having attempted to personally import child pornography (reported by me, inter alia, in the Daily Telegraph): you assert that this incident took place six years after the Tricker tapes seizure. Since the ex-Customs officer was unable to date this to police, what basis do you have for this assertion ?

    4. The only such claim of which I am aware was made by serial fantasist and convicted criminal Chris Fay: could you confirm that he was your source for this – and if so, what basis you have for accepting his word (since he had no direct involvement in any of the events) ?

    5. You have alleged that the police are in some way attempting to cover up the story of the ex-Customs officer and the former cabinet minister. (Twitter feed today: “The story that Met was desperate to stop”) Since the police’s version of events is that its interview with the ex-Customs officer highlighted the alleged attempt by this politician personally to import child pornography to the UK, is it Exaro’s position that by investigating this very serious alleged criminal offence, the Met is in some way guilty of a cover-up ?

    6. Shortly after I posted concerns about your story on Exaro’s website, your Twitter feed (July 21) stated: “Police/M15 agents and anonymous Twitter ghouls suddenly sprang up to denounce our story. Guess why.” Please advise whether you are accusing me of being a “Police/M15 agent” ? You will be aware that this is a grossly defamatory allegation and should be either supported with evidence, or (since there is no such evidence) must be withdrawn.

    I look forward to hearing from you”

  22. This will be (I hope) my final response to those posters here who have attacked my work and/or reputation. As Go Jam noted, wrestling with a pig is not the most rewarding of occupations, but some of the attacks here should not go unchallenged. And so:-

    Geoff: please identify yourself. Claiming (with no detail or foundation) to have held “executive responsibility” in television in the 1990s and to have heard about my “reputation” is – absent anything more concrete – simply unprincipled and defamatory recycling of unsubstantiated gossip. The more so since you say we have never met or spoken, and you plainly made no effort to establish the veracity of this gossip before posting.

    JustinSanity: I have never – as you claim – accused “everyone who examines these cases with a critical eye, of ignoring or wishing to silence “children’s voices”. The problem is that very few people actually do what I do and examine the evidence carefully and thoroughly. From your posts you don’t seem to have done either.

    Finally: to those who read this and those who post. Statements on a blog are just as much ‘published’ as those in a newspaper, a book or on the broadcast media. Bloggers are not exempted from the basic laws and principles which govern such publication. And so, two pleas.

    1. Don’t hide behind anonymity. It is rarely ever justified and damages your credibility (my name is always published and my e-mail address is freely available on the net).

    2. Don’t publish assumptions, gossip or state facts when you don’t know them. This is a serious business: if you want to be a pub bore, go to the pub.

    Best wishes

  23. Factionalism seems to be rearing its head, the strategy of tension alluded to on a previous thread.

    No need to trust anyone unconditionally including Gojam, Tim or anyone else, however, we all find ourselves here and should therefore assume that bona fides are intact unless evidence to the contrary is adduced.

    Gojam appears to put up with the entire spectrum of views, mine are tolerated !

    Is he running a State Sponsored dead end?
    Possibly although for what it’s worth I don’t believe so.

    Tim, running interference for and on behalf of the spooks?
    Possibly, I’m always prepared to believe the worst of journalists including Exaro.

    I would be even more biased against him if he has worked for the Crooked Report, they tried with State help to setup my comrades, Roger Crook the front man is after all nothing but a plum, it’s the researchers at the behest of the producers who do the work.

    I admit that I haven’t researched Tim or his work, however, Gojam’s faith in his bona fides is a sufficient starting point.

    Tim himself states the need for objectivity, there is a real and present danger of over reaching on this issue which would be a gift to the Establishment.

    • Sabre …. sigh: me running interference for the spooks ? I was the one who broke the story (Express and ITN) of the Home Office whistleblower alleging that the spooks (Special Branch) were behind the governmental funding of PIE. Hardly likely for a spook asset ?

      I’m also a life-long and solidly left wing socialist. Again, hardly spook territory !

      For the record, I’ve never (knowingly) met a spook and would never deal with one.

      As to the Cook Report: I left in 1990 and in the three series I worked on there was nothing I did which could in any way be characterised as a “set up” your “comrades”.

      Roger can speak for himself for his films after I left – but I really would be cautious about your description. Some of the work I am aware of was extraordinarily good and remarkably courageous.

      • Tim, I had assumed that you would have read it all.

        I stated that I had no knowledge of your work and that unless anyone had evidence to the contrary good faith was assumed.

        I can just see a Libel Trial starting, ” May it please your honour I am Quentin Hogwash QC I appear before you today on behalf of the Plaintiff Mr Roger Cook and the words complained of are Plum”

        You do seem very defensive for a veteran journalist and researcher, the context of the remark (interference/spooks) surely reads as possible rather than probable?

        There is no way that you are naive you must therefore believe me to be so when you offer the old ” left wing socialist” defence against spookery !

        As you are certainly aware examples of State Assets come from the Left, Right and everywhere between.

        There’s been more than one example of lifelong PIRA volunteers found in a ditch with .45 calibre shortcut through their crania post debrief?

        I started praising you with faint damnation.

      • Sabre

        Well, thank you for your praise via faint damnation (I think !)

        I have become distinctly thick-skinned over the years and am not, as you suggest, particularly defensive. But the suggestion (which Exaro also seem keen to imply) that I am a spook or a spook asset is actually professionally damaging.

        Think what you will, but publicly suggesting – even as a possibility – that I am in some way involved with the intelligence services is simply wrong and could cause difficulty in my job. I’m not a spook, never have been and nor is there any shred of anything in my life or work which would even hint at this.

        As I’ve said elsewhere on this site (thanks, GoJam) because you’re a blogger does not give you the right to libel someone. Publishing an allegation (or an implication) is the same whether you’re a blogger or – like me – a working journalist. And that means no publication unless you can prove (or at least support) your allegation.

        Please take this in the friendly spirit in which it is written. But please, people, think before you write ? Someone much brighter than me once said that “talking without thinking is like shooting without aiming”. Publishing damaging gossip, innuendo or speculation needs to be supported by evidence.

      • Tim,
        I apologise unreservedly for any comment that implies any kind of collusion whatsoever with the security services.

        Not only could my identity be checked by going through the headers of the internet server retrieving my IP address at any given date and time and getting a court order to require my internet provider to disclose my subscriber info, an even easier approach would be to ask Gojam for my email address which is composed of my name.

        The “handle” I use on here is not a serious attempt to hide my identity.

    • Strangely enough David Hencke has past connections to the “Crooked” Report, as you put it. In 1994.
      Small world eh.

  24. There are some principles with which historians and some other scholars (and lawyers) are well familiar, but don’t often filter down to bloggers and some of the more sensational journalists (though many of them rightly have to get things passed by lawyers before publications). These include: (a) don’t cherry-pick evidence which suits the argument you want; adapt your arguments around the evidence, not vice versa; (b) also test your thesis at its most vulnerable, look for the weak points, and if necessary tame it down if you cannot substantiate well your arguments; (c) always take an attitude of scepticism towards sources, be cautious about their accuracy, how representative they are, their context, the agendas of those who have produced, them and so on; (d) do not base an argument upon incidental or circumstantial coincidences without wider evidence.

    What we are seeing, continuously, as this saga unfolds, are lots and lots of people emotionally wedded to arriving at a particular conclusion, who will accept the slightest bit of evidence, however weak, when it supports that, and ignore anything else. Also a similar emotional weddedness towards certain individuals and institutions which leads people to drop all critical faculties. And names being bandied about cyberspace, done often by cowardly people who hide behind pseudonyms.

    As Tim has rightly said, this threatens to derail so much of this, and will be used maliciously by others trying to pour cold water over the whole business. I hear the version of the tape I have received (and I cannot be 100% sure this may not have been doctored, but may be able to get someone to micro-examine the audio to check) differently to Tim, and think the customs officer does indicate assent when the name of the ex-cabinet minister is mentioned; possibly he also names him at one point himself. But this is what appears to be secretly recorded hearsay, certainly unlikely to be admissible as evidence, and probably insufficient for most press/broadcast media’s lawyers to go ahead.

    Exaro are bigging this up (or bigging themselves up) a great deal over this, without any new evidence which was not in the possession of the Sunday Express in February. If they are so confident that this is the major breakthrough, why do they not name the cabinet minister themselves. Without that name, their article amounts to little more than an over-hyped version of what has gone previously.

    Please can we proceed with caution and scepticism, rather than loudly asserting major conclusions where there is any doubt about the evidence available.

    • dpack

      well put
      i got involved in this cos my pal had too much to do and i self tasked with seeking the truth of some early hypotheses we had chatted about and gathering data.
      until recently the basic method that most folk have employed here (and in some other places)has been scientific
      observe ,hypothesise ,collect more data ,hypothesise on the basis of that data and subject that hypothesis to peer review before formulating a possible theory which is then adapted or abandoned as further data becomes available ,this is a valid method of establishing” truth as we know it from the data available at this time”.

      my style of research has confirmed a few things i thought true and proved many others to be incorrect and exposed new truths but it has confirmed my belief in the strength of the scientific method.

      “Please can we proceed with caution and scepticism, rather than loudly asserting major conclusions where there is any doubt about the evidence available.”
      i hope quoting that is ok i think tis very good advice,until there is enough evidence to formulate a theory that can be considered true testing each hypothesis and gathering more data is the best way towards truth

  25. Reblogged this on Publicity Online and commented:
    A wise post from a wise man.

  26. Pingback: A new transcription of the audio tape of the interview with the customs officer – and some comments on the recording | Desiring Progress

  27. sami

    Im a member of the childrens panel, I deal with vulnerable children of all ages from bullying to sexual abuse. Young children being groomed in nursery/primary schools by groups of 5-6 adult males. 3 generations in a family sexually abusing the youngest & most vulnerable. I never realised how naive I was to what was happening within the elite, royals, government ect….., these are supposed to be people that you can turn to for guidance, support, protection for your country. Instead we have a nation of useless inbred, good for nothing paedophiles (except for a couple of descent law abiding members). These are the same upstanding people that run the country. God help us.
    There is something I would like to point out, since I have become more informed with doing some research, there has been mention of a small group of parents that were charged with selling their kids to paedophile rings for sex. If it were to be investigated that small group would become a very large group of parents selling their kids for sex.

  28. Pingback: Exaro News Reports On How MPs Voted On A Move To Ensure The Official Secrets Act Would Not Cover Historical Allegations Of CSA | ukgovernmentwatch

  29. Pingback: OF DEEP THROATS, DEAD POLITICIANS AND DANGEROUS JOURNALISM | theneedleblog

  30. Pingback: THE LOUSE & THE FLEA: PANORAMA, EXARO & THE VIP PAEDOPHILE SAGA | theneedleblog

  31. Pingback: Beware The Backlash: The Media And The Politics Of Paedophila | Real Troll Exposure

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s