A new transcription of the audio tape of the interview with the customs officer – and some comments on the recording

Desiring Progress

Since Saturday. July 19th, 2014, there have been a large range of heated exchanges online (though not in the mainstream media), primarily between the Exaro online news agency and the Needle blog, in particular following interventions from the veteran journalist and film-maker Tim Tate, who has made various features relating to the abuse of children over a period of almost three decades. This has also spilled over into social media.

See these links for the recent Exaro article relating to the tape (David Hencke, Mark Conrad and Alex Varley-Winter, ‘Audio file set to blow lid off paedophile scandal at Westminster’, Exaro News, July 19th, 2014 (do note the extensive comments underneath)) and the following for the responses on the Needle blog (including from Tim Tate) and a first transcript of the tape (‘Exaro Audio Tape Story’, July 19th, 2014‘Tim Tate Comments on the Exaro…

View original post 8,657 more words


Filed under Uncategorized

4 responses to “A new transcription of the audio tape of the interview with the customs officer – and some comments on the recording

  1. dpack

    it seems to be a basis for further investigation but does not provide a clear statement regarding exactly what was being discussed or in what context and at what date a seizure took place nor does it answer the question of “with”or”on”.

    from the analysis notes there is some ambiguity as to the continuity of the recording and whether or not any parts have been changed.
    if the anomalies are innocent artifacts from the recorder being in a pocket ,the recording being copied and redacted etc and the ex co being frail etc there is still the issue of the reporter asking about what they thought to be important and the ex co seeming to be partially answering about something else which he thought important.

    if the recording is a genuine record of the exchange between the reporter and the ex co i still would not make any definitive claims about what it “proves” but as stated above it does require further investigation of whatever the ex co was referring to.
    something that struck me as quite clear to the ex co was that he was not surprised that whatever he seized and whoever he seized it from the matter was dealt with at the time and did not lead to a prosecution etc.

  2. “There is enough in these recordings to justify calling people to give evidence at a Parliamentary committee meeting. This would include the journalists making such recordings in the first place, as-well-as other Customs Officers and officials that would have been involved.”

    This is the point. The recordings are basically worthless as evidence in a prosecution, so there’s no point arguing about them. All they do is lead to other questions, and you need to go there.