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
theneedleblog 
Looks like the higher you go the bigger the shit you get ..
The only files open to the public should be the lies about Lady Diana death , them 2 sons should be asking the question who killed thier mother .The spineless b——–
Another interesting pair of files relating to the MPs Michael Colvin and Nicholas Fairbairn and the murderer Hindley:
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C11448397
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C11448598
These files are now open to the public.
File on the 7th Lord Henniker (father of Henniker 8).
The summary indicates that the contents of the file are financial in nature, and perhaps related to Henniker’s will and testament.
But why is the file closed for 84 years, and will only be opened in 2065?
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C11373668
& Stand by your publications, you most certainly should.
This is the most rational medium in which these topics have been frankly & openly debated as far as is legally possible.
You have shown that you are up for a fair debate & those debates have been very stimulating. There are a wide variety of commentators, some of whom have much closer insights or inside knowledge that the rest of us and there are also some key pointers for those willing to read between the lines with a discerning open mind.
Exaro have been very foolish by leading very vulnerable victims into arenas which are likely to weaken them further. I’ve moved on from thinking they are shills of the spooks. Their actions are too clumsy. Victim Jockeys would be a more apt description.
Woodward & Bernstein used two sources. Exaro, one.
We should seek the truth, whatever it may be. Not what we want it to be.
We shouldn’t have called VIP paedophile ring claims ‘credible and true’, say Met Police.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3244053/We-shouldn-t-called-VIP-paedophile-ring-claims-credible-true-says-Met-Police.html
Quiet_Observer:
These are all fair points, but as I see it, they don’t address the flaws and unanswered questions in Nick’s narrative. For example, Nick has claimed that he continued to attend school throughout his ordeal and on some occasions was picked up at the school by limousine to be left back the following day. So the conspiracy must at the very least have involved teachers at the school turning a blind eye or being complicit. Has he identified the school to detectives? Have teachers at the school from that era been interviewed? Just some of the unanswered questions.
That is an interesting point. And perhaps any marks on him seen during PE.
That is a good point, tdf.
I don’t know the answer to that. I think only the police and Nick can answer that question.
Maybe the teachers were complicit, and the police are investigating.
Or maybe the teachers were lulled into a false sense of security, thinking that such powerful and respected members of the establishment could surely be trusted (similar to the parents who let Sir Cyril Smith spend time unsupervised with their kids).
We should also keep in mind that in the 1970s and 1980s, there was more deference towards members of the establishment than there is today.
Back then, a lowly teacher or school employee might be unwilling or even intimidated at the prospect of challenging an MP, senior military officer, or cabinet minister.
These are just guesses; as I admitted above, there is no way to know exactly what Nick has told the police, and what they are investigating.
Personally, and just judging by information published in the news media, I get the feeling that Nick is telling the truth.
I might be wrong, but here are my reasons for believing Nick’s allegations:
1) The police (including a Detective Superintendent) considered Nick to be a sufficiently credible witness to execute searches of the homes of very powerful people, and to question those people under caution.
The police frequently deal with fantasists, insane persons, and deranged individuals who make fantastic claims, so they have plenty of experience in separating nonsense from allegations that are worthy of being investigated.
When dealing with members of the elite, the police are likely to be even more careful, yet they chose to believe Nick.
2) The squeals coming from various sections of the establishment (journalists, politicians, etc) indicate that certain powerful people are desperate for Operation Midland to be discredited.
3) We know that past investigations of VIP child abusers have been shut down. There have been plenty of reports about this in the media; hence the 47 IPCC investigations now underway.
4) Nick isn’t the only person making claims of abuse. Jimmy Savile’s grandson and others have corroborated some of Nick’s claims.
5) If Nick was simply seeking attention, he probably would have named current Cabinet ministers and MPs or members of the Royal Family, to receive maximum attention from the media.
Instead, the 9 persons he named are long-retired politicians, army officers and intelligence chiefs. At the time Nick approached the police, most of the persons he named were already dead, and therefore received less media attention than if Nick had named current Cabinet ministers or MPs who are old enough to have abused him when he was a child.
That seems to indicate that Nick was not simply seeking attention, and in my view, that lends credence to Nick’s claims.
Why does everyone treat this as a binary question – either his claims are true or he’s lying? He might be mistaken in his identification of the abusers. There may have been a different blond man involved, for example, that Nick now believes was Proctor. Likewise with all the others he’s identified.
So what happened is true then. The characters may be real, or vicims of mistaken identity, but the events are true?
I think the issue of whether Ted Heath talked Proctor out of castrating a boy seems pretty binary to be honest!
I am not in a position to judge, Andrew. I’ll leave that to the Police, the CPS and the jury (should it get that far).
What would it take for you to no longer believe Nick claims?
Unfortunately I might know who some of the doppelgangers in this play are. And other players, waiting in the wings, who have yet to come on stage.
Act 2 will be more revealing I think.
Surely that gets judged in the light of whatever emerges in the fullness of time? If he presents you with a prescribed list are you going shopping for him?
Sabre,
Not quite a shopping list. Just trying to ascertain whether people would believe the police if the operation was wound down in the same way they believe the police currently that the allegations are “credible and true”.
i don’t know why he doesn’t just pretend to be dead like im doing.
Reblogged this on VICTIMS OF THE STATE.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Reblogged this on perfectlyfadeddelusions.