For The Record: A Final Word On The Audio Tape Story

Five days ago on the 19th July Exaro posted this story to its usual grand fanfare HERE. I pointed out that this was not a new story, that the audio was from an interview done by The Express newspaper (their story appeared on 23rd February), I pointed out that the police were already aware of the details and that they had talked to the customs officer Solanki and that he had denied the suggestion that a video he had seized from Russel Tricker in 1982 contained footage of a former cabinet minister abusing young boys.

I felt the story was misleading as it implied that there was new evidence.

As a consequence, many people asked Exaro to clarify whether this was true or not. They refused to answer indicating that they could not as they needed to protect the names of the customs officer and the MPs. This was at best disingenuous as they had already named Solanki HERE and the MPs have been named in connection with many stories by Exaro in the past.

My suspicion was that they did not wish to name Solanki, for fear of revealing that the story was unoriginal, the product of another journalist’s endeavour, and that they did not want to name the MPs because they did not have permission to do so.

Exaro responded to these legitimate questions with a new story HERE which made it look even more like these were two separate audio tapes.

Why is this important ?

As I made clear, my own view is that the Russel Tricker/ Cabinet Minister abuse video story is untrue but if a second customs officer were to confirm that story, or if Solanki went on the record to confirm it then I, and many others, would have no alternative but to reappraise that view.

The purpose of posting the transcript of the audio tape was to demonstrate that the Exaro stories were misleading and the audio tape did not represent new evidence that the police did not have already.

If this were an isolated incident I may not have been so quick to publicly dispute it but it is sadly not and I am not alone in this knowledge, not by a long shot.

I should have been more surprised by Exaro’s next reaction but unfortunately I’m not. I’m told that the private smears and slurs made about me behind the scenes for daring to suggest that their story was misleading, far exceeded the public innuendo.

Capture1Capture

I’m pretty sure that if someone working for MI5 or the Met saw this they would have a very good laugh.

As everyone knows MI5 is the Deus Ex Machina of conspiracy theorists. I’ve seen it so many times on places like the David Icke forums but increasingly we’re seeing Exaro News adopt it whenever anyone disagrees with them. Very sad.

So, the purpose of posting the audio transcript was to demonstrate exactly what the audio discussed in the Exaro story was.

That was done. That point is now proven.

However, I took the transcript on faith without having listened to the tape myself and the transcript was not accurate. I should just say that the rest of The Needle Team, Daedalus, Greenlight, and Topaz urged me not to do so until we’d listened to the tape and so any responsibility for this mistake is solely mine. I knew full well that once the transcript was published it wouldn’t be long before the audio gained a wider circulation and so there was no point in trying to hide anything, in fact it was essential that as much information as possible be put in the public domain.

As my primary argument is that Solanki and the reporter are at cross purposes throughout the interview, both discussing different incidents (one true, one false) involving the same cabinet minister it was extremely important that I present every remark in the correct context of the conversation.

Having to make a correction, as I did at the soonest possible opportunity, was completely counter-productive as I effectively had to take that section out of context and as a consequence it now has a greater prominence than I think it deserves.

Anyway, I’ll carry on doing as I’ve always done.

I’m searching for the truth, I am not seeking to validate a conspiracy theory.

 

 

 

20 Comments

Filed under Personal

20 responses to “For The Record: A Final Word On The Audio Tape Story

  1. tazzdevil

    Thats the problem with society ,everybody acts,s before thinking????If you want the truth it will arise i assure you when least exspect

  2. Hello Gojam. I don’t think this saga has ended yet as I am working through it and providing a more detailed transcription above and beyond the rush transcript I have already posted to your site (as if I make a difference!). As you can see, I can render audible the bits you say you can’t make out and my analysis and interpretation is differing slightly, but importantly, from yours at points.

    I share your want to get to some ‘truth’ and as I have shown, people are mistaken to think Solanki actually says [name redacted] around the 10:10 mark onwards; there is cause to be suspicious at parts of this recording. However that recording, in my opinion, does justify calling said people to a committee meeting (a few customs officers and not just Solanki), so that the constraints of the OSA can be released.

    I am not pandering to conspiratorial musings here but think that this will be the only way to clear up the confusion. Further, Solanki is advanced in his years and if said committee meeting does not occur soon, it is unlikely that he will be around to take part. This would be a big problem as it would mean the confusion would just persist and the speculation and conspiratorial musings, pandered to.

    • I think we made clear that it was not ‘our’ transcript and we are doing the same as you.

      It still doesn’t change the fact that Solanki has denied it to the police since this interview took place.

      • What precisely was the denial and precisely how was it and the questions asked of him, worded? This is the problem, all information given is partial. Further, because there have been cover ups elsewhere and the Police caught propagating false hoods elsewhere, you can perfectly understand people’s reasonable cynicism.

      • And the media haven’t propagated falsehoods ?

        It is clear from the story in The Telegraph that the police spoke to Solanki following that audio tape and he denied that the Tricker/Cabinet Minister video story was true. He did tell them of a different incident which involved the same man.

        Ironically, while everyone is chasing this video which will never be found because iT simply does not exist, no one is looking at the other incident which involves the former minister himself attempting to smuggle CSA Images into the UK and for which there very well might be a paper trail.

        That is where I’m going to look. Frankly, if everyone else is looking the other way then there is more chance I’ll find the evidence first.

      • I agree the media propagate falsehoods too and I fully support your endeavors to track down the paper trail with respects to this alternate story. Please do not mistake my position, I think both versions of the stories could and should be followed up and there is no reason why they can’t be followed up in tandem.

        I find it erroneous, however, at this stage to dismiss these accounts and the different versions. Just as there is nothing to conclusively prove one above the other there is also nothing to conclusively disprove them either. I don’t agree with the sensationalism Exaro has engaged in and believe they rushed to print before doing a proper transcription and analysis.

        A suspended judgement, a critical mind and an open one willing to follow up all leads, is what is required in my opinion and I am glad that you and your collaborators are following some of this up! If I had the resources beyond just my my critical, analytical mind, I too would be devoting them to your cause.

  3. gw

    Somewhat relevent, I think:

    • gw

      I say this cause its a leap of faith for us “not in the know” to accept that either Exaro or Tim Tate’s stories are “impeccably sourced”.

  4. dpack

    mistakes and misunderstandings can be without malice , they are counter productive , but are part of human nature . they can also be caused deliberately,knowing which applies to a situation is vital to correcting them and obtaining a successful outcome.this especially applies to the quest for truth when the truth has serious implications for an individual or group.

    as to playing “who is the spook?” among one’s comrades(which often leads to a situation where paranoia prevents effectiveness)it is more useful establishing “who is achieving good results” .it might seem odd but sometimes the answer would be the same.
    something many “conspiracy theorists”assume is all spooks are evil and have evil intentions at all times the reality is spooks are people and some are good and try to bring about good things,even amoral or evil ones can be useful by furthering an aspect of good if it is in their interests to do so or they can be forced to do so to maintain cover. the strategy(and infighting as to what strategy is best) of spooking can be very complex and using that complexity is perhaps more productive to achieving good results than trying constantly to spot the spook in a flurry of paranoia which is disruptive and usually leads to confusion .
    spotting evil spooks doing evil is always a good idea and often fairly easy.

  5. godhelpus

    I think i’ll wait for what ever You uncover Gojam, Good Luck with the search……..

  6. dpack

    although the tapes and ” ex minister” im wondering several things that relate to the early 1980’s
    where the the tricker tapes siezure which seems fairly mundane became” including one of an “ex cabinet minister” story arose?

    if the burglar who sort of sort of shot the police officer at the video facility is relevant to anything or not?and if so what?

    im sure many interested parties follow these matters so :

    ken,what are “the brothel papers” that you mentioned in your book ?
    do they at least in part relate to a cabinet meeting?
    why was it important to keep them safe?
    are they still in safe keeping?

    would their keeper feel able to make them available?
    or are they still keeping you and various chums safe?

    i do understand that the latter might well be the case but sometimes personal safety or even political issues should be put below moral ones .

  7. dpack

    ps there should be an “are a little later” between the “ex minister” and im
    oops

  8. An enhanced version of the tape has been made which is easier to hear, and some questions raised about a possible edit at one point. I will blog about these, together with a new transcription, either later tonight or tomorrow.

  9. Andy Barnett

    Hi Gojam. Thank you for your considered ‘Final Word’ on all this and in particular your reflection on the mistakes you have made. Your capacity for such reflection, your preparedness to admit errors, along with your readiness to challenge others, demonstrates clearly how your commitment to Truth outweighs any instinct you might have for self-promotion or indeed any desire for an easy life.

    That said, I do note that you said nothing in this post about the contributions from Mr Tate. You might have reflected for example on whether including his unedited words in the body of your blog (as opposed to say the comment section) was a good idea. I am thinking in particular of the impact on your readers of his description of Exaro, using words such as “a rag-tag collection of so-called investigative journalists”. This served only to inflame the passions of those that are grateful for the role Exaro has played in broadening public awareness of CSA and in particular in getting the independent Inquiry. For Tim to then say he had “certain knowledge” that the claims made by Exaro about the audio tape were “simply false”, was to invite exactly the response that he and you then received.

    I fail to see any advantage to be gained by anyone involved in this campaign from engaging in personal attacks. Whether it’s questioning someone’s integrity (e.g. suggesting they are MI5 agents), calling them names (trolls, ghouls, idiots, etc.) or attacking their competence as journalists, it all amounts to the same – it is “playing the man not the ball”. It’s what you fans of Latin call the “ad hominem” argument. It achieves nothing other than inflaming passions and turning otherwise allies in the cause against each other.

    So please, continue to challenge the output of sites such as Exaro, and do criticise their actions when that’s appropriate. But always play the ball not the man – it is so much more effective.

  10. dpack

    the recent, sunday 27,comments about this tape on exaro are interesting,

    without access to a true copy of the original recording and the released version to run through using platinum,sound forge etc which do have the capacity to analyse audio in microsecond resolution (or a variety of other folk have done similar analysis) i wont know if the released tape matches the original or if the either has the edits(edits not redactions)that some seem to find on the released version.im not a pro but i can play about with sound software(i like making mad techno tunes but the principles of digital sound are similar for music or talking)
    what some folk are saying re potential inconsistencies on the released tape would show up on timeline graphic analysis ,if those inconsistencies exist their origin might be very educational ,if the original un redacted tape has a continuous time line that would also be educational.
    so far the various transcripts seem ambiguous .

    im not a professional reporter but if i want to know an answer i ask a direct question such as “do you think your uncle was murdered ?”and base my next statement or question upon the question or answer i get back.
    in relation to this taped interview a few direct questions stated clearly such as “did you seize a tape showing **** *******abusing a minor ?” and/or (depending on what you knew to be probable)”did you seize tapes showing csa from **** ******?” and “on what date?”
    might have been a professional way to conduct such an interview .
    it would either have got a”yes” or a”no” or a “fuck off” or a “no but….”as answers but conducted like that at least the customs officer’s data would have been unambiguous.
    having read and considered the various transcripts it seems the customs officer is both a bit reticent(which is understandable) and rather frail .
    if he seized a tape from or of a well known vip is not clear from the transcripts and the questions as to if the tape has continuity adds another level of confusion.
    i have some serious misgivings about this matter and until the original tape has been copied and peer reviewed the truth of the data provided by the customs officer interview tape will be obscured which is sad cos he seems to have wanted to tell what he knows.
    maybe the police officers have asked better questions and have a unambiguous tape and statement.

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

  12. GMB

    More to come. Appears Mangalal otherwise know as Morgan was not the only CO to seize videos at Dover…