Media advisory – complainant in Operation Midland

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.


Filed under Abuse, News

34 responses to “Media advisory – complainant in Operation Midland

  1. Meanwhile, no one in UK is talking about the real victims of the documented pedophile cult:

    “For decades, Peter Blenkiron remained silent about the abuse he had suffered at age 11 at the hands of his Catholic CHRISTIAN BROTHER teacher. [emphasis added]
    Earlier this year, Mr Blenkiron relived the horror of his school days, telling an inquiry into child abuse about how he would be pressed against the wall at the back of the classroom while his teacher physically and sexually abused him, with the other students ordered to look away”….

  2. dpack

    it might be that such behavior was tolerated ,encouraged and noted as a leverage tool of both reward and blackmail in order to guarantee the loyalty of important members of the uk elite(and others)especially during the cold war but probably either side of it as well.

    many of the above postings are probably true ,at least in part ,but organizing truths into context is the best weapon we have to try to make some important changes

    • Aardvark

      It’s hard to imagine why, someone like Blunt and his ilk, who liked to waft around the Courtauld, eulogising about the work of Poussin, while enjoying all the other rarefied, privileges an aristocratic background has to offer, could ever have been a Communist. In the context you discuss, an even darker secret seems very likely.

      • tdf

        Aardvark and anyone else interested in Blunt,

        Can I recommend the film the Whistleblower? It is a very under-rated Britflick from the eighties. John Gielgud’s Sir Adrian Chapple character Is obviously based on Blunt.

      • dpack

        blunt is a huge rather complex subject,communist maybe,wrongun almost certainly,even after his “confession” he was still useful to the dodgier side of spookdom which may well be related to what he knew about the activities of various folk (especially mcgrath)as well as due to his influence because of his background / patrons and because of his anglo irish masonic links.
        at what point he was rumbled as a wrongun and by which side first is unclear but the official version as stated by thatcher seems to have some major inconsistencies with other data.

        ps he was, in the conventional sense, a rubbish spy ( at bletchley/dept of economic warfare he had a poor reputation as moody and useless), he was “caught “as moscow’s man and “made a full confession”etc etc )unless he was a triple which is plausible in which case he was actually rather good.

      • Aardvark

        Thank you for your insight. It does seem very odd that Blunt was not seen to be punished for being a traitor?

      • tdf

        On Blunt, on balance, I’d be inclined to go for Occam’s Razor on this (“Among competing hypotheses that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected”) and suggest that while it’s possible, certainly, that Blunt was a triple agent, it’s equally possible that he was protected for longer than other members of Cambridge Spy Ring only because of his status in society and his connections – and that when Thatcher’s press agent Bernard Ingham said that the reason she named Blunt in Parliament was basically to put manners on the senior civil service, he was pretty much telling the truth.

        As for Blunt being useless as a spy – well, I’d believe that, but frankly, most of the Cambridge Spy Ring were pretty much useless as spies also.

        Incidentally, communist sympathies were not as unusual as one might have thought among the upper classes of that period (*) – it’s a running theme in Anthony Powell’s ‘A Dance to the Music of Time’ series (fictional, granted, but based on people Powell had known and/or encountered).


  3. Ragdale1

    Interesting. I gave my video evidence in June, although my lot are all dead so of course it cannot be a court case. Apparently I am filed away in Operation Hydrant and will flag up if anyone comes up with the same names. I have been trying to get people to listen since the mid 70s and had thought now it would happen. It is like wading through wet clay.
    I just want to get the truth out there and the public to know how it all started and why. I am so sick of reading sycophantic biographies about these men that are not the truth. History should be the truth.
    Sabre is right with his 27 Sept 3.34pm post about the laws they are using to wheedle out of it.

    • Aardvark

      In an earlier post you described how, ” the extremely high profile abusers organised themselves into the VIP abuse ring, calling themselves a Gentlemen’s Club, in 1959/60 they aimed to change the laws within a twenty year plan. ” and that they relied on an “apathetic” public to be able to carry out their plans. It is this apathy among the public, which is the hardest thing to understand. It is one thing for the public to be uninformed or to be incredulous, but apathy in relation to Child abuse! What does that say about our Society and what needs to change?

  4. Ragdale1

    To Aardvark
    We are constantly being told that British law is the best in the world, likewise our Parliament. In my opinion both need a severe overhaul. True freedom of speech for both the public and the press is simply not there.

    To Quiet_Observer
    At the moment the Government, Intelligence Services and the Judiciary are getting themselves into a mad flap in order to make the public think that all accusations against them are hogwash. The reason for this is that, long after those who began this VIP abuse club are dead; their names are so powerful in our history that even today they cannot risk the truth coming out. There will no doubt be a few men who were much younger in the original group still alive today, probably ensconced in their favourite seat, wrapped in ermine in the House of Lords, or sat by their fireplaces smug in their belief that they are highly respected members of society and incredulous at what they think they have got away with. Once outed this scandal will reverberate world-wide and Great Britain will be shown to have been the biggest risk to Western security during the cold war. Forget the Government currently saying that they will leave no stone unturned to get to the bottom of the scandal, they just mean the 70s and 80s. They have absolutely no intention of letting the investigation go back to its original source. The Establishment is basically shitting itself at the moment – and well they might.

    • Broadly agree with you, however, the part about Britain being the greatest threat to western security during the Cold War could be argued either way IMHO. The security services are NEVER going to held to account publicly, if they did they would probably argue that a few uncared for vulnerable children is a small price to pay for precisely the degree of leverage and control necessary to ensure compliance with the directions of those truly in control.

      • Ragdale1

        I know they didn’t/don’t care about the children. I also know that a lot of the evidence will have been destroyed. This involved a small handful of men in power who were driven by such an obsessive compulsion that they put the west at risk to sate their appetites. They manipulated and drew around them so many others in positions of power who, once implicated, had no option but to help carry on the cover up. Luckily they were disrupted to a great extent by a national scandal that could easily have exposed them so they did not manage to change the laws they wanted.

    • QUOTE:”At the moment the Government, Intelligence Services and the Judiciary are getting themselves into a mad flap in order to make the public think that all accusations against them are hogwash. The reason for this is that, long after those who began this VIP abuse club are dead; their names are so powerful in our history that even today they cannot risk the truth coming out.”

      I agree.

      There are probably numerous members of the VIP abuse rings who are still alive and who’s names are not publicly known, since the media refuses to report their names.

      The establishment know that the British people’s trust in the establishment will be severely damaged and possibly irreparably destroyed, if/when the British public realizes that some of the highest figures in the land abused children and were allowed to get away with it by the other elites.

      It is very interesting that until early to mid August 2015, it looked like the victims were finally getting justice, with the Edward Heath disclosures getting widespread attention and VIP abusers being named every few weeks, and reports of the police investigations progressing.

      Then in mid to late August 2015, something changed. The media narrative turned sharply against the victims, the effort to discredit Nick and other victims gathered momentum, and media reports on Operation Midland have been almost entirely intended at discrediting the allegations.

      It is possible to observe a clear and noticeable change in the behaviour of the media toward Operation Midland and other VIP abuse allegations, starting in mid August.

      I wonder what happened. Did the investigation get too close to exposing something big, so it needed to be derailed?

      The full-scale media assault against the credibility of Operation Midland and the victims who came forward is reminiscent of psychological warfare. The media and intelligence services are trying to convince a target population (the British people) that truth is lies and vice versa, through relentless attacks on the credibility of the victims.

      This should not be allowed to happen, but unfortunately there is no easy way to solve this problem, since the deck is stacked in the favour of the establishment.

      The security services, the judiciary, the police, the media, parliament, and all other levers of power are controlled by the establishment.

      That the Goddard Inquiry was set up is nothing short of a miracle, considering the power wielded by the establishment.

      And the establishment is determined to prevent the truth about VIP sex abuse from being revealed, at any cost.

    • Aardvark

      In reply to Ragdale1. I guess you must be talking about the Macmillan Government and the Scandal you discuss is the profumo affair? If so it would seem very important to discuss the members of the Government and the political milieu to get to the truth, was Macmillan himself compromised by the likes of Boothby? There are questions about Macmillan’s own sexuality and he gave Boothby a peerage even though Boothby had a long term affair with Macmillan’s wife? How compromised was the Government by blackmail? Was the previous Government compromised regarding Britain’s role in the Suez crisis?.

  5. Further to my above comment, less than a day later, comes evidence of how Britain’s draconian libel laws shield alleged criminals from public exposure:

    Former MP is to be questioned under caution by police on suspicion of repeatedly raping a 6 year old girl.

    Amazingly, the victim waived her right to anonymity and is named in the articles, yet the cowardly former MP who is accused of sex abuse is NOT named, since he is hiding behind British libel laws.


    It is completely intolerable that senior public figures accused of sex crimes against children, are allowed to remain anonymous under British libel laws.

    Don’t the British public have the right to know which of their MPs is being questioned under caution by police for allegedly repeatedly raping a 6 YEAR OLD CHILD?

    Obviously, being questioned does not imply that the former MP is guilty, which must be decided in court.

    But surely the British people have the right to know who this former MP is, if the police consider that there is enough evidence to question him under caution?

    Or maybe I’m wrong, and our posh journalists are right, and all these victims (Nick, Darren, Esther Baker, and numerous others) are all lying in a horrible attempt to smear the distinguished reputations of our Right Honourable MPs and Lords, who would never even think of harming anyone and in fact have never committed ANY crime, EVER.

    I have an idea! Since we all know that Noble Lords and Right Honourable Members would never commit these alleged crimes, there should be a law BANNING all plebes from making any allegations of sex abuse.

    Any plebe who accused an MP or Lord of sex abuse should be immediately arrested and sent to prison for daring to tell lies and ruin the reputations of our esteemed rulers.

    That would prevent our wonderful elites like Leon Brittan and Harvey Proctor from being smeared by scurrilous “fantasists” and “liars”.

    What do you think? Should we start a petition for this new law, before the reputations of any more Honourable Gentlemen are unfairly impugned?

    • Your new law doesn’t go far enough. Any attempt to impugn the integrity of any member of either house, any crown law officer, any commissioned officer in HM forces, any police officer over the rank of ch supt and any member of the first division civil service including members of the diplomatic corps will render culprit guilty of an offence punishable by up to 12 years imprisonment. We should review such a law from time to time with a view to granting protection to members of supra national bodies and global corporations that could be economically disadvantaged by the damaged caused by having their reputations impugned. It shall not be a defence to argue that the ‘words complained of’ are true.

  6. Ragdale1

    When the extremely high profile abusers organised themselves into the VIP abuse ring, calling themselves a Gentlemen’s Club, in 1959/60 they aimed to change the laws within a twenty year plan. They started by the various professions giving a series of lectures to exchange information to best learn how to go about it. This was long before someone came up with the acronym PIE. They wanted to gain more authority over the children of our nation and reduce the age of consent. They regarded the public as apathetic and as long as they didn’t spook them they thought they would be guaranteed to get the age of consent reduced to the age of twelve by the end of the twenty year period. They hoped for the age of eight and some even wanted to go for four, but the age of twelve they thought would be guaranteed.

    One of the things that the judiciary lectured on was the availability of the libel laws. They said that if anyone did start to cause them problems they would bring our punitive libel laws into play and that nobody would dare risk being bankrupted. The libel laws in this country most certainly do need rethinking as they allow the rich and powerful – unfortunately often the most corrupt – to get away with virtually anything they like. Real justice often does not come into it.

    • Aardvark

      Yes exactly, but how can anything change whilst the judicial system is still controlled by the puppet masters of the establishment? The power is in their hands and their libel laws, will not be revoked as they are essential for them to hide behind, for the continuation of that power.

  7. I truly hope that this isn’t a repeat of previous instances in which the media either willingly complied or was forced to cooperate with cover-ups of top child abusers such as Lord Robert Boothby in the 1960s, and numerous figures during the 1970s and 1980s, including Leon Brittan.

    It is not wrong for the news media to report when VIPs or famous persons have been questioned by the police.

    Being questioned does not imply that the individual is guilty.

    The public do have a right to know who is being arrested and/or is the subject of police investigations.

    If the media was only allowed to report the names of persons who have already been convicted, then that would make it infinitely easier for powerful people to use their connections to influence the judicial process to make sure that they are never convicted.

    Can you imagine what would have happened if the media had been forbidden to report on Greville Janner? He never would have been investigated, let alone charged with child abuse.

    It is absolutely crucial that the news media, as well as bloggers and commentators, are free to mention the names of people who are suspected child abusers.

    Simply being named as a suspect does not imply guilt, which can only be decided in court.

    It is highly suspicious that some MPs and other important people are pushing for anonymity for rape/sex crime suspects.

    It is reminiscent of how Solicitor-General for Scotland Sir Nicholas Fairbairn QC MP wanted the government to have the power to ban newspapers from discussing the private lives of MPs.

    Of course, Sir Nicholas Fairbairn had a personal reason for fearing public investigation/discussion of his activities:

    The British public should be extremely wary of attempts to grant anonymity to suspected/alleged rapists and sex offenders.

    Granting such a privilege to suspected criminals would be completely contrary to the values of a free society, which should welcome open debate and discussion.

    Britain already has ridiculously draconian libel laws, which have a chilling effect on free speech and benefit persons with something to hide.

    There is a big difference between completely fabricated lies, and allegations that may be true but unprovable.

    It is inconsistent with the idea of a free society that nobody can accuse anyone of anything unless they can prove their accusation 100% beyond doubt.

    How many accusations can be backed with cast-iron proof? Very few.

    Even in court, a verdict is often decided based on who’s word the jury/judge decides to believe, when there is no physical proof.

    In most other civilised countries, the idea that individuals accused of serious crimes should be immune from being named, would never even be considered remotely acceptable.

    In America for example, it is extremely difficult for “public figures” such as politicians, Senators and Members of Congress to win libel cases. Under American law, “public figures” they must prove that the accuser had “malice” when they made the allegation. That is nearly impossible to prove, which means that American politicians and celebrities cannot hide behind libel laws when they commit crimes.

    That is the way things should be. Nobody has the right not to be criticised.

    If Proctor is actually innocent, he should have nothing to fear, since Nick’s allegations are simply claims; they have no legal force, unless proven in court.

    If people like Harvey Proctor lived in the United States and tried to complain that he should be immune from being named unless he is convicted, he would be laughed out of court.

    Britain’s libel laws should be more like those of America and many other developed countries. A politician, celebrity or other “public figure” should have to prove that an accuser intended “malice” when they made an allegation. If they can’t prove that in court, then they should not be protected from allegations in the media or on the internet.

    Nick should be free to make his claims, and Harvey Proctor should be free to deny them. The public should be allowed to decide who they believe.

    There is absolutely no justification for Britain’s existing draconian libel laws, which prevent the public from knowing what their rulers get up to.

    Giving alleged sex offenders anonymity, either through a new law, or through unofficial “accepted practice” within the media and blogosphere, would only assist the guilty in getting away with their crimes.

    • Owen

      There is a justification.

      When Mick Hume and LM effectively accused Penny Marshall, Ian Williams and Ed Vulliamy of lying about the circumstances of their visit to the Prijedor concentration camps in Bosnia, refused to withdraw their accusations when asked to a number of times and then conducted a misleading campaign to persuade the public that a major media organisation was using its size to deny a small journal the right to free speech, the libel laws allowed the journalists to defend their professional reputations and gave the inmates of the camps an opportunity to have the truth about their terrible experiences confirmed to the British public by the camp doctor who’d spoken with the journalists at Trnopolje.

      Sometimes it’s important for a libel not to be fed the oxygen of free circulation..

      • QUOTE: “Sometimes it’s important for a libel not to be fed the oxygen of free circulation..”

        On the contrary, if a statement is false, it should be freely discussed, so it can be discredited in the “marketplace of ideas.”

        Individual member of the public should be free to weigh up the arguments on each side, and decide which side to believe.

        Free, honest and open debate is impossible if the powerful and influential in society use libel laws to effectively shield themselves from criticism.

        If an accusation is false, the person being accused should have nothing to fear by discussing the accusation in a free and open environment, without the threat of a libel writ.

        Instead, what we see in modern Britain is powerful elites using the threat of libel to prevent the public from knowing who is being questioned by the police under caution, who is a suspected child abuser, who is named in various secret documents, etc.

        As the Good Book says, “the truth will set you free.”

        We can only find out the truth of these child abuse allegations if free and open discussion is possible, without MPs and Lords threatening libel writs against anyone who criticises them.

        • Owen

          You said there was no justification for the libel laws. I offered you an instance where there was. You’ve come back with claim “The truth will set you free”. A phrase plucked from the Good Book and chanted in the “free marketplace of ideas” is no more trustworthy “as is” than any secular bon mot. Yes, the truth can set you free, but the unvoiced premise is that the truth has first to be known.

          Up to the last paragraph, I could have imagined myself reading Claire Fox. The idea that the “marketplace of ideas” is a mechanism that must inevitably identify an absolute truth is the ideological underpinning for the efforts of Spiked (LM’s reincarnation) and the rest of the “survivor bashers” to undermine the credibility of allegations of abuse and discredit them with counter-accusations of fantasy and compensation seekings.

          The “free marketplace” of ideas or anything else is an environment where the voice of the powerful and determined prevails. Certainly access to the protection offered by the law of libel is skewed, in the same way that access to many areas of the law is skewed. That’s a consequence of the imbalance of power, which doesn’t simply disappear when you dismantle the law. The powerful in our society have a whole warchestful of ways to skin a cat. If you don’t believe me, read Brendan O’Neill or Suzanne Nundy or any of the other self-appointed “truthsayers” currently at work muddying the waters.

      • “… Sometimes it’s important for a libel not to be fed the oxygen of free circulation… ” Quiet_Observer effectively countered your position. The logic of the quoted part of your statement is amazing, a libel isn’t a libel until it’s been a) subject to some free oxygen of circulation and b) litigated and determined to be libellous ! You are actually arguing for pre-emptive censorship by gatekeepers acting on behalf of vested interests !

  8. “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.”

    For instance if anyone says the complainant is credible and true…

  9. Mark Hunt

    So why doesn’t the Solocitor General grow a pair and prosecute the Daily Mail? I doubt any of us would have slept so easily if we’d plastered the same clumsy information all over Twitter.

    • I’m inclined to agree.

      I wonder who this part is referring to ?

      Care to guess ?

      “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.”

      • Hint: Perhaps someone who tweeted WHEN Harvey Proctor is arrested and not IF

      • Mark Hunt

        I suspect he’s already drawn the conclusion that any related cases have already been discredited. The DM have done their dirty duty and all the accused march off merrily into the sunset until denentia sets in or sudden cancer strikes.

      • Mark Hunt

        HP tweet. Yes. Interesting to see how that pans out!

      • This is a similar statement to the one Willie Whitelaw issued after Sutcliffe was arrested and charged and West Yorks. Police were grinning for the TV Cameras and talking about being ‘delighted’- words to the effect of, “I would like to remind everyone that in this country, everyone is innocent until proven guilty.”