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.
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.