Correction To Audio Tape Transcription.

We have now had a chance to listen to the tape ourselves and we are aware that there is a difference to the transcript we were given.

This is our interpretation of this passage.

At about 10.20 into the recording;

REPORTER
Cabinet

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
[inaudible] [REDACTED NAME] Yeah

REPORTER
So it was [REDACTED NAME], wasn’t it [brief cross-talk – inaudible] he was part of the EC at the time

21 Comments

Filed under Abuse, News

21 responses to “Correction To Audio Tape Transcription.

  1. IWTT

    To be honest Gojam, I would never have posted a transcript of an audio tape that I hadn’t checked for myself. I do a lot of audio transcribing but always offer the link for people to check for themselves.

    There is always the chance that some hears ‘sealed’ as ‘seized’ for example.

    I really want this suspicion of ‘each other’ to be laid to rest. We need to stand together – but without accepting mis-information, even if that was not intentional.

    I am happy to do an independent audio transcription if anyone would like me to do so. I would need a copy of the audio tape. You have my email address.

  2. dpack

    a slight but significant clarification ,well done ,the principles of science are a powerful tool.
    im still slightly unclear as to whether the ex customs officer was confused about what he was being asked
    it seems that the customs officer indeed referred to the “ex cabinet minister”that he stopped on a “bust” with tapes being imported in his direct possession.

    it seems that in relation to “an ex cabinet minister” tricker is a red herring, at least as to whether the minister is on the tricker tapes (no) and the ex minister was with tapes on a different occasion(yes).

    if my interpretation is correct there are several issues to be resolved ,the “ex minister” needs to answer to these accusations(he is innocent until proved otherwise in law) and the sources of and reasons for this confusion need to be identified to prevent further confusion.

    anyway the fly seems dead so im off hunting spiders.

  3. GMB

    I think you better to leave this one to the professionals ie the people with the original recordings unredacted and unchanged. Goodnight and Goodluck.

  4. GMB

    Comment 2 from GMB
    ‘Just noticed your ‘corrected’ transcript is still wrong! What are you doing? Again I refer to above comment’
    ‘I think you better to leave this one to the professionals ie the people with the original recordings unredacted and unchanged. Goodnight and Goodluck.’
    Posted on various sites had to post on NB again seems to have been left off

  5. So are we saying there was a tacit agreement to the namedropping after all?

  6. GMB

    The professionals ie the journalists who went to the mans house and did the interviews in person

  7. dpack

    considering the history of these matters “professionals” is a rather worrying term

    newsnight and others recently
    the msn in general
    righton
    the police,
    social workers
    waterhouse et al
    judges
    whips ,spooks n spiders
    etc etc ad infinitum
    all professionals be they corrupt ,fooled or silenced.

    a few professionals have constantly worked on the issues in hand ,most have not
    many professionals have joined in recently , some of them good and effective ,some not, and played catch up over the last couple of years but for the most part it is professionals that have been at fault.

  8. Angry Kevin

    “Nor does he name the ex-cabinet minister: only the reporter does so, repeatedly pressing Mr Solanki to confirm. Mr Solanki does not do so”

    https://theneedleblog.wordpress.com/2014/07/20/tim-tate-comments-on-exaro-audio-tape-story/

  9. Little Oboe

    I won;t goad people because everybody makes mistakes. But gojam your mistake over the Exaro item, and the Sunday Express, is huge. Sorry, but it just is. At least you have acknowledged that by making the correction, and you should be applauded for that.

    Where is Tim Tate today? It is a fair question to ask a supposed serious investigative journalist: how could he say he had listened “carefully” to the tape and failed to hear what we have all heard today?

    Did you just make that up, Tim Tate? And where is your proof of the “second” customs seizure?

    The credibility of both of you is very damaged. Any independent reader has to point this out today. But you both push for tackling abuse. So keep going – for the victims.

  10. dpack

    im even more confused now but that dont matter,whether on tape via tricker or with tape at customs the ex minister needs to have a chance to refute whichever allegations are being made.
    and i still think “professionals”have a dubious history regarding these matters.

  11. Andy Barnett

    The number one reason I have followed this blog for the past two years is because of Gojam’s cautious, skeptical and non-sensationalist approach to this subject. So while there are many other blogs that have far more sensational material than the Needle, I know that Gojam will always do his research and only publish a story that is well-sourced and credible. Occasionally, this will mean that he rejects stories that are not well-sourced but nevertheless true. Whether that has happened here, I don’t know. I’m sure once the furore has died down, Gojam will give us his revised and considered view of all this and tell us what, in his opinion, we can take away from this audio tape.

    For me, its that considered view that is most valuable. It avoids my being led into believing things that are not true – something we must avoid if the campaign itself is to maintain credibility. So if and when Gojam declares that the tape does indeed suggest that the Customs Officer saw evidence that a cabinet minister attended a child sex party, only then will I be inclined to believe it.

    Unless of course we get to hear the tape ourselves and we can make our own minds up.

  12. Here is the original Sunday Express article written after the interview was made

    Sunday Express

    February 23, 2014
    Edition 1;
    National Edition

    ‘Cabinet minister in seized child porn’

    BYLINE: James Fielding

    SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 18,19

    LENGTH: 181 words

    A FORMER Cabinet minister was featured in a video seized by customs officers during a child porn raid more than 30 years ago.
    The MP appeared on amateur footage shot in Amsterdam, the Sunday Express has been told. The video, discovered on a coach travelling from the Continent, was seized at Dover in 1982, following intelligence that the politician was involved. A number of child porn films were retrieved, including a video showcase of 34 British boys who had been smuggled into the Netherlands from care homes in Britain. Another video, with the title Amsterdam Tramway Museum, had a few minutes of tram footage before flickering into hardcore images of children being abused.
    A Customs source would not say whether the ex-MP took part in any abuse on camera but added: “This person, a member of the Cabinet, was involved and that’s why officers had to seize the video. Department heads later took over and that was the last seen of the material.”
    An HMRC spokesman said: “We can find no trace of these videos so are not in a position to confirm in any way if a prominent MP was involved.”

    I’m not really sure that the Exaro article adds very much to this.

    On balance, I think the tape probably indicates the customs officer grudgingly or slightly unwittingly indicating assent to the very leading questions put to him and endless repetition of the minister’s name, though this is hardly enough to draw the sweeping conclusions that some have. More to the point, where does this take us in terms of progressing things forward? Having spoken to various people in the mainstream media, at least some of them do not think there is enough to run a story, certainly not to name the ex-minister in question. And if Exaro think they have dynamite, why will they not do so themselves?

    This particular story will only likely progress when the ex-minister is publicly named, either in the media, in Parliament (now impossible before September) or through an arrest.

    So much has become reduced to a petty fight between bloggers, tweeters and an obscure news websites that few of the wider public have heard of. This is a waste of everyone’s time and energy – we have to find ways of getting the stories (including those involving many other than this ex-minister) out to the wider public through mainstream media.

  13. I just thought you should know that there is talk that the recording has been released/leaked online and is being downloaded by many people. I have yet to confirm myself as I have not searched for it yet.

  14. gw

    It doesn’t really reveal much of anything other then the customs officer did name the MP.

    I must admit; when I read the transcript I took “we” to mean that The Needle Team had listened to the tape rather then read one interpretation of a transcript. Somewhat of a moot point however.

    The situation is Tim Tate says X Exaro says Y. That’s pretty much all there is too it. X oyr Y the story will develop. I’m interested in “the truth” and I’m happy to wait for that.

    Till next time!

  15. GMB

    What had been arranged was for an independent group to listen to the evidence behind closed doors. That group were invited to ask any questions of the presenters. What they may do, either individually or collectively, will be up to them. A meeting should have taken this week but several individuals who were due to attend were unable to make the date. No alternative date has yet been arranged.

  16. Is this audio recording only available via private emails? Some are suggesting that it is more publicly available and is being downloaded. Has it been placed on a torrent or something? Personally, I am going to have to listen to it myself as it is now very difficult to just take anyone’s word for it. I wait in anticipation for access to said file or hints as to where it is on the Internet.

    • He says the ministers name quite clearly and explicitly. It is that simple.

      • dpack

        but was he confirming “on tape” or “with tapes”?
        after the newsnight fiasco (and other confusions) i am cautious about all “bombshell revelations” that are yet to be proven beyond reasonable dought to a jury.

        if it is “on tape”it might put a variety of things into their correct context ,if it is “with tapes” it is a different serious matter which also would have a context.

      • Still, I would have to hear it for myself to know for certain.

  17. Anon

    …. tumbleweed ….

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