The Friday Night Song
The Friday Night Song
Filed under FNS
Many thanks to M
On the cards after the Daily Mail’s story last week.
I’ve no idea what they were thinking.
The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) is currently investigating allegations made by a complainant that he was sexually abused by a number of men including various high profile figures.
The Solicitor General, Robert Buckland QC MP, would like to remind editors, publishers and social media users that where an allegation of a sexual offence has been made, no matter relating to the complainant shall be included in a publication if it is likely to lead to members of the public identifying him. Publishing such material is a criminal offence and could be subject to prosecution.
In addition, while the Solicitor General recognises the legitimate public interest in the press commenting on cases of this nature, he wishes to draw attention to the risk of publishing material that gives the impression of pre-judging the outcome of the investigation and any criminal proceedings that may follow, or which might prejudice any such proceedings.
The Attorney General’s Office will be monitoring the ongoing coverage of Operation Midland and editors and publishers should take legal advice to ensure they are in a position to comply with their legal obligations.
If I specifically address today’s comment piece in The Times by David Aaronovitch, it is not because I have failed to recognise that other articles in other newspapers aren’t also misleading their readership by deliberately conflating genuine allegations of abuse with false ones, it is simply because the issues are already complex and it is easier to address the broad point using David Aaronovitch’s comment piece as an example.
David appears to tackle the subject of non-recent child sexual abuse allegations against establishment figures as if it were a formal debate at university in which the proposition before the society is ‘This house accepts that David Aaronovitch was right about Establishment Child Abuse allegations from the beginning’.
In such a debate both sides would speak, no quarter would be given to the opposition, and any concession would only be a tactical withdrawal from an indefensible point before bringing to bear the full power of one’s own argument – and on conclusion the assembled members would vote on which side had won. There would be a winner and a loser, the proposition would be carried or it would not.
Unfortunately, the issue of child sexual abuse is not very well suited to such a format. Each and every allegation must be examined on the evidence. This, of course, means that it is impossible to draw up hard and fast general rules, the kind so beloved of ideologists of every persuasion. Such ideological rule making abrogates the necessity for critical thinking – why trouble yourself to consider a complicated issue case by case when it is far less taxing to the mind to have recourse to a general rule that can be applied instinctively, once learnt by rote? Of course, that history has demonstrated time and again that such general ideological rules, when applied, can be dangerous, can be comfortably set aside – for the polemicist understands that such easy answers are tempting and each generation must learn for itself the folly of applying generalities to complex issues.
“A few of us (at the beginning, very few of us) watched this process with alarm. From Watson’s acorn — or alleged acorn because, of course, no names were named and no cases detailed — grew a forest of lusty oaks.”
I would suggest that at the genesis of this sturdy English oak metaphor lies a desire on David Aaronovitch’s part to be validated, an altogether different and more personal acorn if you like. So, let’s look at that. Has David Aaronovitch been one of the very few who has called this correctly right from the start?
David mentions Tom Watson’s PMQ. He writes;
Nearly two years have passed since the Savile scandal broke and — in its wake — the MP Tom Watson (now Labour’s deputy leader) stood up in the House of Commons and asked David Cameron to ensure that the police “investigate clear intelligence suggesting a powerful paedophile network linked to parliament and No 10”. In that time, the idea of a Westminster paedophile ring has entered the popular folklore of British politics. It has been deployed by social media partisans in the Scottish referendum campaign, in support of Ukip, and by just about anyone short of a stick to beat politicians with.
A few of us (at the beginning, very few of us) watched this process with alarm. From Watson’s acorn — or alleged acorn because, of course, no names were named and no cases detailed — grew a forest of lusty oaks. A phenomenon arose akin to a latterday McCarthyism, a general assertion that has relied on its own vigour to grow, rather than on anything as footling as evidence.
David is not the only journalist in recent weeks who has attempted to link Tom Watson’s original question to the Prime Minister [24 October 2012] and subsequent allegations of a ‘Westminster Paedophile Ring’ that have been reported in the media. Is it fair to do so?
Actually it is not – and conflating these entirely separate issues risks misleading readers.
Here are the facts
All in all, not a bad day’s work by Tom Watson and Peter McKelvie, his source…
The point that I’m trying to make is not that David Aaronovitch has been entirely wrong or that anyone else, including myself, has been entirely right. This isn’t a university debate and justice will not be the winner if it is treated as such. Each case must be considered on the evidence.
To conflate significantly different cases just because they might superficially resemble each other is just a way of duping readers. Yes, there have been a few false allegations that have been reported in the media in the last few years but there have been many more truthful allegations reported that have led to the convictions of child abusers.
On a subject where the public have been ill-informed for decades, don’t we owe it to them to make the effort to better inform them ?
The allegations that Nick has made that readers will be more familiar with have been against powerful establishment figures. A former Prime Minister, a former Home Secretary, a former Head of MI5, a former Head of MI6, a former High Commissioner in Canada, a former Chief of the Defence Staff, a former Master-General of the Ordnance, and Harvey Proctor a former MP – among others.
*Nick has also made allegations against Leslie Goddard, Adam Ant’s father who was convicted in 1987 of child abuse as part of the notorious ‘Dirty Dozen’ which also included both Sidney Cooke and Lennie Smith who were later convicted for Jason Swift’s death.*
[A correction is needed here. I’ve been informed that despite Harvey Proctor having mentioned Leslie Goddard in his own statement, the Op Midland witness Nick has never made an allegation that Leslie Goddard abused him. This information comes from a reliable source and I accept it as true]
Yet another man that Nick has made allegations against is Jimmy Savile.
This five minute extract from a documentary called Crimes That Shook Britain: Jimmy Savile which was first broadcast on the Sky Crime and Investigation Channel on 17th August 2014, contains an interview with Nick about his abuse by Jimmy Savile. The full programme can be viewed HERE.
Nick’s allegations against Savile are very unusual. I’m not aware of any other genuine allegation against him which suggests that he was a sadist or that he ever abused within a group.
I should explain that in this documentary ‘Nick’ is referred to as ‘Stephen’
Transcript from programme
Stephen was only seven years old when he began to be abused at home.
Filed under Abuse, Jimmy Savile, News
Post by @darrenlavertyx.
Source: David Rose and The Observer’s rape fabrications
A video which demonstrates that both Journalist David Rose and The Observer attempted to discredit a North Wales Survivor by illegally using a North Wales Police Statement and amending it to include very damaging, and entirely false, allegations of rape.
False allegations which have led Darren Laverty to face continued harassment to this day.
The article was published in 1992 at a critical time for the investigation into child abuse in North Wales care homes, including Bryn Estyn where Darren had been a resident.
Filed under Uncategorized
I just wanted to make a very quick statement following the release of the Metrpolitan Police statement regarding Operation Midland which can be found (HERE)
And it is this;
I stand by everything that I’ve published on this subject since the 25th August when Harvey Proctor made his own statement.
Before that point I had hardly commented on this police operation.
Those articles, in chronological order, are :
On The Harvey Proctor Allegations
Harvey Proctor And The ABC Of An Untenable Situation
Operation Midland: Statement Imminent
The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) recognises the media’s and the public’s interest in its historic child abuse investigations, and in particular, in Operation Midland. The focus of this investigation is on allegations of the homicide of three young boys. There are also allegations of sexual abuse but the MPS has made clear from the outset that this is, and remains, a murder investigation.
The historic nature of the allegations means this is a complex case where the normal avenues of evidence-gathering from CCTV, DNA and telephone data, are not open to us. These cases take time, but the public can have confidence that allegations from witnesses will be investigated thoroughly. We can all see the legacy that has been created by police and other authorities who appeared not to take allegations seriously in the past and the impact that has had on the confidence of victims to come forward.
There are particular challenges where details of the allegations and those facing accusations are in the public domain. This can create potential conflicts between media and criminal investigations, and have an impact on vulnerable witnesses and those accused. This has been especially true in Operation Midland, and we wish to highlight to the media and to the public the risks that our investigation may be compromised. We raised this concern when we initially appealed for more witnesses and it continues to be an issue. We also need to clarify our investigative stance in cases of this kind
Our starting point with allegations of child sexual abuse or serious sexual assault is to believe the victim until we identify reasonable cause to believe otherwise. That is why, at the point at which we launched our initial appeal on Midland, after the witness had been interviewed for several days by detectives specialising in homicide and child abuse investigations, our senior investigating officer stated that he believed our key witness and felt him to be ‘credible’. Had he not made that considered, professional judgment, we would not have investigated in the way we have.
We must add that whilst we start from a position of believing the witness, our stance then is to investigate without fear or favour, in a thorough, professional and impartial fashion, and to go where the evidence takes us without prejudging the truth of the allegations. That is exactly what has happened in this case.
The integrity of our investigation is paramount, and the public can have confidence that allegations of homicide are being investigated thoroughly. Our officers have the resources to test all the evidence, and we have not yet completed this task. It is then for the Crown Prosecution Service to make a decision on whether to prosecute. More significantly, only a jury can decide on the truth of allegations after hearing all the evidence. We should always reflect that in our language and we acknowledge that describing the allegations as ‘credible and true’ suggested we were pre-empting the outcome of the investigation. We were not. We always retain an open mind as we have demonstrated by conducting a thorough investigation.
In this respect, our approach in Operation Midland is the same as if we were investigating a contemporary rape allegation. Anyone familiar with the history of child abuse and rape investigations will recall that for many years, the first instinct of investigators appeared to be to disbelieve those making the allegations, which had a negative impact on people’s confidence to report to the police or other authorities. This undoubtedly led to crimes going unreported and un-investigated, and we do not want to return to that situation.
The media has shown in recent years how important they are in bringing issues concerning historic abuse to public notice and has been both challenging and supportive of the way in which police and the criminal justice system have adapted our approach. Reporting has also rightly questioned the official response to allegations. The media is also valuable in witness appeals and to show possible victims that they can have confidence their claims will be investigated.
What can be overlooked, at times, is that those making allegations are very often vulnerable individuals. A useful definition of ‘vulnerable people’ is set out in the Ofcom code for broadcasters (8.22). It is important to note that the police must take account of this vulnerability at all stages, irrespective of whether the allegations can be substantiated or not. We ask the media and those asked to comment to do likewise. We also think the press should consider following Ofcom’s approach by amending its code to recognise that vulnerability in reporting of crime is not just a matter of the age of witnesses or victims.
Our other main concern is the risk that media investigations will affect the process of gathering and testing evidence in our criminal investigation. In recent weeks, one journalist reporting on Operation Midland has shown the purported real identity of someone making an allegation of sexual assault to a person who has disclosed that they have been questioned by police concerning those allegations. This action has a number of potential impacts.
First, for those who have made allegations of sexual abuse, it is extremely distressing to discover that their identity might have been given to anyone else, particularly if that is to someone who may be involved in the case. Secondly, possible victims or witnesses reading the article may believe their identities could be revealed as well, which could deter them from coming forward. Ultimately, that could make it harder for allegations to be proved or disproved. This might not just deter those who could provide information for this investigation but also concern anyone thinking of coming forward with sexual abuse allegations. Finally, the potential disclosure by a journalist of a name may possibly hamper an investigation. Names will be disclosed by police to those involved in the case, but that will be at the appropriate time for the investigation depending on how those lines of enquiry progress.
We do understand that there are occasions when people making allegations of crime – including sexual abuse – disclose their own identity to the media and disclose facts associated with the case. Again, we ask that the media exercise care and caution when these are the circumstances and recognise our earlier point about vulnerability.
We would also like to make it clear that the Metropolitan Police Service does not name or confirm names of those arrested or interviewed. That is our clear policy. We will be as open as we can be about policing activity – for example confirming arrest activity – but not confirming the names of individuals. If a police employee revealed the name that would be a clear breach of policy and dealt with in the appropriate manner. Moreover, the Commissioner told the Home Affairs Select Committee in March that he supports the proposal for granting accused people anonymity until charge.
We expect the challenges for media and police alike to continue once witnesses start to give evidence to the Goddard Inquiry. We think it is important, therefore, to offer this context now so that journalists and police officers can continue to do their job, and pursue a shared interest in justice for victims and fairness to those facing allegations.
But The Telegraph investigation can disclose:
* Darren had been previously sentenced to two years in jail for making hoax bomb calls, nuisance and threatening calls about neighbours and criminal damage
* he falsely confessed to the murder of a prostitute in the midst of a high profile police manhunt in the 1990s
* a judge accused him of telling “some pretty whopping lies” at the conclusion of a court case 15 years ago
A senior source at Scotland Yard, which has been involved in the investigation into Darren’s claims, said: “We are between a rock and a hard place. We don’t want people to ever lose faith in coming to the police. We believe our victims and we support vulnerable victims who need our support.
“But this has been months of difficulties. We cannot prove categorically that he is lying but there is no evidence for his claims.”
The source added: “Darren needs proper help. That is absolutely fundamental.”
Police are furious that Darren’s claims were given publicity by the Exaro website before they could be investigated fully by officers. They believe that the glare of publicity has put Darren under more pressure.
“This is not Darren’s fault. This is a problem for the people at Exaro,” said the source.
Police were surprised that an Exaro journalist had accompanied Darren to a number of interviews with detectives.
First, an apology to readers; I will not be posting a link to the story that I’m writing about. This is for legal reasons.
I’ll explain. The article contains images and information relating to the police witness known as ‘Nick’ which is likely, in my opinion, to lead others to identify him. If this is so, then I could possibly be breaking the law if I were to knowingly direct others to that information.
The CPS states;
The victim in a case of rape or one of the sexual offences listed in the 1992 Act is entitled to ‘anonymity’ in the press. Once an allegation of one of the relevant offences has been made, nothing can be published which is likely to lead members of the public to identify the victim.
The IPSO guidelines are;
Clause 11 Victims of sexual assault
The press must not identify victims of sexual assault or publish material likely to contribute to such identification unless there is adequate justification and they are legally free to do so.
So you see, I can’t very well link to the article. From the moment that Nick walked into a police station and made a complaint of sexual assault or rape, he was entitled to legal anonymity. It makes absolutely no difference if the allegations are proven or not, that is his right as a complainant. This does not just cover the outright naming of an alleged victim, it also covers ‘jigsaw’ identification. In other words supplying pieces of information which when joined can lead to the alleged victims identification.
I personally believe that this is an important legal principle but there might be some, perhaps even some working for the Daily Mail, who disagree with me and think that this isn’t a fair law. They are certainly entitled to think that but nevertheless that is the law of the land and we can’t choose to obey the laws we like and disobey those we don’t like.
There are legitimate questions that need to be asked with regard to Nick’s allegations including Exaro’s relationship with Nick . I’ve made my own view crystal clear in previous posts that I do not believe that Nick’s allegations are correct but what is called for at this time is balanced, objective, and forensic journalism and I’m afraid that this latest story in The Mail was none of those things.
It read, on the whole, like a malicious rant, part of someone’s personal hate campaign and indeed there are some indications that behind the two journalists named on the byline, are a couple of people with axes to grind. If it were possible the article could be undermined even further, then including an unwarranted and thinly veiled political attack on Tom Watson MP, who was recently elected as Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, certainly went a fair way to achieving that end.
This story will set things back, not move them forward.
The Friday Night Song
White girls suffer less as a result of child abuse!
That is the bizarre though natural conclusion that emerges from the bonkers logic of the sentencing justification of the original trial judge, Judge Cahill, and the Court of Appeal headed by Mr Justice Walker and sitting with Lord Justice Laws and Mr Justice Mitting.
Nobody is suggesting that Jamal Muhammed Raheem-ul-Nasir, who was jailed for seven years at Leeds Crown Court last year for sex attacks on two Asian girls, aged nine and 14, should have received a lesser sentence but it is a cause for concern that it appears that he received a harsher sentence than if he’d committed exactly the same offences against two white girls.
The logic for this was that the Asian girls’ fathers might struggle to find a good match for their daughters when it came to negotiate their arranged marriages. Thus more harm was caused to the Asian girls than would have been caused if the children had been white.
Is the judiciary sending paedophiles a clear message that they’ll receive a lesser sentence if they rape white girls than if they rape Asian girls. Is the rape of white girls now considered a lesser crime ? This is, of course, similar logic to that used by the Asian grooming gangs that operate throughout the UK. Underage white girls are considered “white trash” or “white meat” which is OK for them to “practice on” . In short these abusers believe that white girls are less deserving of respect than Asian girls and it seems that the UK judiciary agree with them.
Regardless of the ethnicity of the child, boy or girl, a survivor of child sexual abuse is far more likely to have issues of trust and intimacy within the future adult relationships that they might have. It seems that first Judge Cahill and then the Court of Appeal have concluded that because Asian families often treat girls as property to be bartered during arranged marriage negotiations, and as that property has been somehow ‘damaged’ and therefore has less value, the crime is somehow greater.
The judiciary in the UK have always put property rights above human rights and so I guess that thinking about children as property that has been damaged, rather than girls that have suffered sexual abuse, has led them to see a more grievous crime ?
A senior judge has ruled a child molester was rightly given a tougher than normal sentence because his victims were Asian and so suffered more from his crimes.
Jamal Muhammed Raheem-ul-Nasir was jailed for seven years at Leeds Crown Court last year for sex attacks on two girls, aged nine and 14.
But the paedophile took the case to appeal, with his lawyers complaining that his sentence was unfairly inflated and ‘excessive’.
Senior judge Mr Justice Walker has now thrown out those arguments after hearing that the victims’ families feared they would struggle to find future husbands because of the abuse.
The move has been criticised by children’s charity the NSPCC, who insist justice should be blind to the race of victims.
Filed under Abuse, Judge Mental !, News
Disclaimer: This is just pure speculation.
Of all the new IPCC allegations that have been listed HERE the one that is the most intriguing for me is number 4.
4) Allegation that an MP was only charged with specimen charges for child sex offences and not more numerous or serious offences.
The key word is ‘charged’. An MP was charged with child sexual offences. If an MP has been charged then there is no reason why the media couldn’t have reported it but I don’t know of a sitting MP that was reported to have been charged with a child sexual abuse offence. Perhaps I’m missing something obvious, in which case please inform me but I can’t think of one.
Even if the IPCC find that the allegation can not be proven, it is still remarkable that an MP can be arrested AND charged and there not be a peep about it in the media. Somebody must know something !
Anyway, this is just a guess but I wonder if allegation number 4 and perhaps allegation number 5 also;
5) Allegation that paperwork and evidence relating to child sex offences involving an MP disappeared and the MP was released without charge.
Might they relate to this reminiscence from Jonathan Aitken;
I knew Peter Morrison as well as anyone in the House. We had been school friends. He was the best man at my wedding in St Margaret’s, Westminster. We shared many private and political confidences. So I knew the immense pressures he was facing at the time when he was suddenly overwhelmed with the greatest new burden imaginable – running the Prime Minister’s election campaign.
Sixteen years in the House of Commons had treated Peter badly. His health had deteriorated. He had an alcohol problem that made him ill, overweight and prone to take long afternoon naps. In the autumn of 1990 he became embroiled in a police investigation into aspects of his personal life. The allegations against him were never substantiated, and the inquiry was subsequently dropped. But at the time of the leadership election, Peter was worried, distracted and unable to concentrate. (Aitken,Margaret Thatcher, pp. 625-626).
Is it possible that Sir Peter Morrison had actually been arrested and then “only charged with specimen charges for child sex offences and not more numerous or serious offences” ?
And is it possible that the ‘paperwork and evidence relating to child sex offences involving [Sir Peter Morrison] disappeared and that he was released without charge ?’
Or as Jonathan Aitken prefers to put it “The allegations against him were never substantiated, and the inquiry was subsequently dropped”.
Is this a plausible explanation for the IPCC allegations numbered 4 and 5 ?
Update: I’ve just spoken to Jonathan Aitken and he has no recollection that Sir Peter Morrison had been charged but he was good enough to suggest who I might ask. I’m grateful for his help.
By my calculation that makes 26 allegations against the Met that the IPCC are investigating or are doing so. Please see previous IPCC statement HERE. Plus one allegation against Essex Police announced today.[Correction: 29 IPCC allegations]
Sep 17, 2015
The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) is to manage a further 12 investigations detailing allegations of corruption in the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) and one allegation detailing corruption in Essex Police. All relate to child sex offences dating from the 1970s to the 2000s.
The investigations are to be conducted by the MPS Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS) but will be overseen, and have the terms of the investigation set, by the IPCC. The majority of the investigations stem from allegations made by retired MPS officers.
This is in addition to the 17 investigations announced earlier this year. All relate to allegations about:
- Suppressing evidence;
- Hindering or halting investigations;
- Covering up the offences because of the involvement of members of parliament and police officers
IPCC Commissioner Jennifer Izekor said: “We are continuing to receive further referrals from the Met and have now assessed that a further 12 require management by the IPCC in addition to one from Essex Police. Our investigators will now oversee these investigations and ensure they meet our robust standards.”
These 13 referrals are:
1) Allegation that a prosecution against a government official who was in possession of indecent images of children was not pursued following instruction from senior officers and lawyers.
2) Allegation that an investigation into a paedophile ring in south-west London in the 1970s was shut down prematurely on instruction of senior or high-ranking officers.
3) Allegation that evidence, relating to child abuse at a youth club in 1980s and 1990s that involved politicians and council officers, went missing from a London police station.
4) Allegation that an MP was only charged with specimen charges for child sex offences and not more numerous or serious offences.
5) Allegation that paperwork and evidence relating to child sex offences involving an MP disappeared and the MP was released without charge
6) Allegation of a failure to investigate child sex offences involving an MP due to instructions from senior or high-ranking officers.
7) Allegations about attempts by Special Branch in the 1970s to interfere in an investigation that would have revealed an MP to be involved in child sex offences.
8) Allegations an investigation into a west London paedophile ring in the 1980s had evidence removed and was threatened with closure by senior officer if it uncovered evidence against VIPs.
9) Allegation that an MP was arrested and then released without charge on the instruction of senior officers following an investigation into a south London paedophile ring in the 1980s. Also alleges officers were threatened with breaking the Official Secrets Act if they spoke of the events.
10) Allegation that an investigation into child sex abuse in central London in the 1980s was halted when it became apparent that an MP was involved.
11) Allegation that an investigation into child sex offences committed by an MP was taken over by officers from Special Branch and then not progressed.
12) Allegation that an officer serving with the MPS was involved in a paedophile ring in north London and that evidence was covered up by Special Branch.
13) Allegation that intelligence was provided by a witness, during a separate investigation, indicating an MP was involved in child sex abuse and that this was not investigated. (Essex)
Filed under Personal
For me there are four points of note in today’s Sunday Times story
Last week it was reported in the Daily Mail that police had “grave doubts” over allegations by a second witness, known as “Nick”, who claimed to know of three murders by the gang, but officers could not find a “shred of credible evidence” to substantiate them.
In addition, a source has told The Sunday Times that Operation Midland — a separate investigation by the Metropolitan police into the alleged Westminster ring — is “going nowhere” because detectives can find no evidence to corroborate the stories of witnesses.
Last month Mark Williams-Thomas, the former police officer who exposed Jimmy Savile as a serial sex offender, warned that many of the current allegations against political figures were unsubstantiated and could undermine efforts to tackle child abuse.
Darren made his claims in an interview with the investigative news website Exaro, in which he claimed to have fallen into the hands of the VIP paedophile ring at the age of 15 when he undertook work experience at Thornham Magna estate in Suffolk.
At the time, he said, the known paedophile Peter Righton was renting a house on the estate after his conviction for possessing child pornography in 1992.
He claimed Righton was involved in the killing of a man in his thirties on the estate and that he knew of a girl who had died during a VIP paedophile party at the Dolphin Square apartment block in Westminster where Righton took him on a number of occasions in 1993.
But Suffolk police have investigated all the claims and found no evidence to support his account. In fact, police sources say Darren had never come into contact with Righton or worked at the estate when Righton lived there.
Watson had claimed in October 2012 that Righton, a member of the Paedophile Information Exchange group who died in 2007, was a key figure in the alleged Westminster paedophile ring.
Darren said he was abused by Righton and Charles Napier — who was jailed for 13 years in December for sex attacks at a boys’ school — while working at Thornham Magna.
Friday Night Song
Jonathan King has been desperately attempting to suggest that he has been the victim of false allegations similar to those that have been circulating in the press recently even going as far as coming to Edward Heath’s defence as a character witness in The Spectator (Yeh, right!). This Sunday he wrote:
We see these pathetic stories crumbling, started by mentally unstable characters in a fantasy world wanting attention, sympathy, believing their own stories (reminds me of the man who started my witch hunt, who, it transpires, made money as a teenager telling people his mother was dying of cancer and forcing her to call the donors to deny the tale and apologise)
– carried by media sources desperate for “great stories” (like the wonderful Exaro) – picked up by millions as a “great story” – forcing under funded police forces to spend millions on investigating stupid tales that, a few years ago, would have been dropped in seconds – stirred up by media howls (“Savile WAS a pervert – ignored for years”) expanding unproveable stories and encouraging further mad tales by unhinged “victims”.
It only serves to highlight the dangers of false allegations in the media when they can be used by a man like King to muddy the waters but it seems that he’s not fooling the police – and he certainly doesn’t fool me.
It has been plausibly suggested (though unconfirmed) that the other men arrested with Jonathan King are Deniz Corday (86) who started the Walton Hop Teen disco in 1958 and former Hop DJ Robert Randall (77)
The former music industry figure Jonathan King has been arrested on suspicion of historical child sex offences, the BBC understands.
Mr King, 70, was arrested at his home in Bayswater, west London, by Surrey Police officers on Wednesday morning.
Two other men, aged 77 and 86, both from Walton-on-Thames, were also arrested and are being questioned.
The arrests were made in connection with allegations linked to the Walton Hop Disco in Walton-on-Thames.
An ongoing investigation, titled Operation Ravine, is looking into allegations of sexual offences against children connected with the disco in the 1970s and 1980s.
Surrey Police said specialist police officers were searching the men’s properties.
Former Bishop Peter Ball was offered only a caution by the CPS in an arrangement that the then Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey, now Lord Carey, was party to.
Surely, that raises important questions that deserve answers, not least, how many other such deals have the CPS made ?
A former bishop has admitted sexually assaulting two young men in the 1980s and 1990s.
Peter Ball, 83, former Bishop of Lewes and Bishop of Gloucester, pleaded guilty to two counts of indecent assault at the Old Bailey.
He also admitted misconduct in a public office between 1977 and 1992.
Ball faced allegations of abusing boys and young men in Litlington, East Sussex, after a review by the Church of England in 2012 prompted police action.
He had failed in a bid to get his case thrown out on the word of a former Archbishop of Canterbury.
It was argued Ball and Lord George Carey had been assured in 1993 that there would be no future action over the allegations.
But Mr Justice Sweeney refused to dismiss the case earlier this year.
The court was told the church avoided scandal in 1993 when Ball accepted a caution for a single allegation of gross indecency and resigned, despite Gloucester Police being aware of allegations from two more men.
Ball’s lawyer, Richard Smith QC, suggested the Crown Prosecution Service may have settled on the caution to avoid the publicity of a bishop in the dock.
The court heard Lord Carey also sought assurances the case was closed.
But allegations resurfaced when the Diocese of Bath and Wells reviewed the cases, prompting Sussex Police to reopen the investigation.
The Sussex force later charged him with misconduct and a string of sex offences.
1: Grouping, categorising and then implying that all victims of child sexual abuse- regardless of whether their allegations are proven, genuine, or false – are just out to make money. Examples of clumpensation are almost always followed by denials of clumpensation, qualifications or disingenuous caveats. Example
2: A tactic used by some to try and dissuade victims of child sexual abuse from coming forward by suggesting that their motive is financial and thus making them feel guilty.
1: The general trend in the media, most notably in newspapers to clumpensate.
2: Also used by lawyers defending alleged perpetrators of sexual abuse and those representing institutions, including local councils, that might face liability.
Filed under Abuse
We returned our copy of ‘The Dust Has Never Settled’ by Robin Bryans to the journalist that generously lent it to us (but not before we made our own in-house digital copy to refer to).
Want to try and understand CSA in Northern Ireland and on the mainland? Mountbatten and Kincora ?
I should warn you that the author Robin Bryans is infuriating.
1st read = What ?
2nd read = Err…
3rd read = Hmmm…
4th read = Ahhh!
5th read = OK, I get it!
“The greatest conspiracy book written that nobody has heard of.”
A very rare copy has come up on Ebay HERE
Filed under Abuse