We’ll update this timeline when more information becomes available.
November 2012 – Complainant ‘Jane’ first makes allegation of rape against Lord Brittan to South Yorkshire Police. As the alleged incident took place in London in 1967, it was passed to the Metropolitan Police (MPS). [3]
December 2012 – Jane first meets with Tom Watson. [4]
July 2013 – Police seek ‘early investigative advice’ in respect of Leon Brittan. [1]
1 August 2013 – Early investigative advice provided. The reviewing lawyer’s advice was that in her view there was insufficient evidence. The lawyer advised that whether or not he was arrested and interviewed was an operational decision for the police.
Email also sent asking if the police intended to arrest and interview. No response received. [1]
4 September 2013 – DCI Paul Settle decides that the investigation into Leon Brittan over the rape allegation made by ‘Jane’ should not proceed. [2]
11 October 2013 – Exaro publishes ‘Police pursue new leads in paedophile case against ex-minister’ story which alludes to Jane’s case. HERE
3 February 2014 – Email sent from police to reviewing lawyer informing her that the police had taken no further action, but that the victim was unhappy with the decision and was seeking a face to face meeting or explanation in writing from the reviewing lawyer.
The CPS lawyer responded on the same day that as this had been a police decision the police were responsible for explaining the decision to the victim.
The case was now closed [1]
10 February 2014 – DCI Paul Settle meets with Tom Watson MP and explains decision not to proceed with Jane’s rape allegation. [2]
17 February 2014 – Meeting between complainant [Jane] and the Senior Investigating Officer [DCI Paul Settle] in the case to explain the decision to take no further action. [1] [2]
Late March 2014 – Tom Watson meets Jane for the second time. According to his evidence at HASC he asks Jane to reflect and then write to him. [4]
April 2014 – Commander responsible for the Sexual Offences Unit, Graham McNulty, who was at that point unaware of the complainant’s reaction, requested an update on the investigation into the allegation concerning Lord Brittan. [3]
28 April 2014 – Letter sent from Tom Watson MP to the DPP [1]
28 April 2014 – Following the update, Commander McNulty asked for a review of the rape investigation from an experienced investigating officer who had not previously been involved in the case. [3] According to DCI Paul Settle this review did not look at his decision log. [2]
1 May 2014 – Tom Watson’s letter to the DPP received. [1]
2 May 2014 – Email from Head of CPS London RASSO Unit to MPS advising the CPS had received correspondence from an MP regarding the allegations against Leon Brittan and seeking confirmation that a file had not been submitted by the police.[1]
6 May 2014 – Response from the Senior Investigating Officer [DCI Settle], confirming that a file had been submitted for early investigative advice and that subsequently he had made the decision to take no further action as there was insufficient evidence.
The case was still closed [1]
17 May 2014 – Exaro publishes ‘Tom Watson asks DPP to review rape claim against ex-minister’ story. HERE
17 May 2014 – Exaro publishes a 5 part account of Jane’s story. Part 1- HERE Part 2- HERE Part 3- HERE Part 4- HERE Part 5- HERE
17/18 May 2014 – The Sunday Mirror publishes ‘Tory cabinet minister accused of rape “protected from arrest in a murky establishment cover-up.” ‘ story. HERE and ‘Tom Watson blasts police failure and demands urgent inquiry into Tory cabinet minister accused of rape’, story HERE
19 May 2014 – According to DCI Settle the MPS begins its review. [2]
Alternatively;
19 May 2014 – According to MPS review (started 28th April) findings,The review concluded, it recommended that Lord Brittan should be interviewed under caution. [3] According to DAC Gallan it was decided at the time of the review that Detective Superintendent David Gray take over from DCI Settle [5] According to DCI Paul Settle, he was informed when he made representations on the matter of the correspondence and his position to have no more to do with the investigation. [2]
20 May 2014 – Exaro publishes ‘ “Rapist” ex-minister named in Tom Watson’s DPP letter’ story. HERE
23 May 2014 – Exaro publishes a video of Jane’s account. HERE
27 May 2014 – Exaro publishes ‘Police smear woman who alleged rape by ex-minister’ story. HERE
28 May 2014 – Exaro publishes ‘Met “breached guidelines” in rape investigation into ex-minister’ story. HERE and ‘Detectives fail to see how ‘Jane’ refused consent in rape case’ story. HERE
30 May 2014 – Lord Brittan was interviewed under caution and by appointment at his solicitors. He denied the offence and stated that he did not believe he had ever met the complainant.[3]
2 June 2014 – Commander McNulty received from the CPS a copy of the letter from Mr Watson to the DPP. [3]
2 June 2014 – Email sent from Detective Sergeant to reviewing lawyer,resubmitting papers via email and informing her that Leon Brittan had now been interviewed (on 30 May 2014), and requesting that she review the case in light of the interview.
The email should not have been sent direct to the lawyer as the case had been closed
Email sent from then Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor Jenny Hopkins to Commander Graham McNulty enclosing the Tom Watson letter.[1]
3 June 2014 – Email sent from RASSO Unit Head to MPS Chief Superintendent noting that the case would not be reviewed until it had been signed off by a police supervisor confirming that it met the evidential threshold for submission. A request was made for him to look into the matter.
3 June 2014 – Email from Detective Superintendent David Gray to RASSO Unit Head confirming the investigation is still live and asking for a decision to be based on the merits of the allegation, bearing in mind it is a year since the original advice was given.[1]
3 June 2014 – Response sent from RASSO Unit Head to Detective Superintendent Gray stating that early investigative advice had been provided on 5 August 2013 and as far as the CPS was concerned that was an end to the matter, and explaining that there is a difference between early investigative advice and submission of a full file for a charging decision and this case was no different than any other insofar that the Director’s Guidance must be followed when submitting a file.
Essentially the officer in charge would need to confirm the investigation is complete; the MG3 would need to be signed off by a supervisor to confirm the evidential threshold has been passed and then a full set of papers would need to be submitted.
RASSO Unit Head commented that that any supervising officer may struggle to show that it meets the threshold bearing in mind the reasons given by the Senior Investigating Officer for the NFA which were that they could not advise on the case until the actions above had been completed.[1]
3 June 2014 – Email from Commander McNulty to then Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor Jenny Hopkins stating that the investigation was still live and the decision to interview Leon Brittan was made by an independent Detective Chief Inspector on the MPS Sapphire team based on the original CPS advice.
5 June 2014 – email sent from Detective Sergeant to RASSO Unit Head, saying the case has been reviewed by an Evidential Review Officer at Detective Sergeant grade who supported its submission.
5 June 2014 Response sent by RASSO Unit Head commenting that before the case could be accepted an officer of equal rank to Detective Chief Inspector or above needed to certify that the case had met the evidential threshold for submission to the CPS. In that submission information would also be required as to why that officer thought the original Detective Chief Inspector’s decision was wrong.
In addition, confirmation was needed that the investigation was now complete, for example there was clearly material that had not been supplied and needed to be explored further. Following that, the case should be correctly submitted in line with agreed police/RASSO procedures, that is, a paper file submitted with copies of all the relevant material, not sent via email to a personal email box.[1]
5 June 2014 – the MPS submitted the evidence to the CPS which now included the statement from Lord Brittan and a record of the interview. [3]
5 June 2014 – Exaro publish ‘Met complains about Exaro’s “overly intrusive” investigation’ story. HERE
13 June 2014 – DPP responds to Tom Watson MP and says the matter will be referred to Supt Gray.[1] According to Tom Watson the letter stated that the DPP felt that “procedures had been followed.” [4]
17 June 2014 – Letter of response to Tom Watson MP sent by the then Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor Jenny Hopkins to Commander McNulty’s staff officer, for the attention of Supt Gray.[1]
6 July 2014 – Lord Brittan was named in the media as being under investigation for a rape allegation.
7 July 2014 – Exaro publishes ‘DPP forced Scotland Yard to quiz Leon Brittan over rape claim’, story. HERE In which it is reported that “According to well-placed sources… the Met has replaced the officer in charge of the investigation [DCI Paul Settle]”
7 July 2014 – According to Met Deputy Commissioner Craig Mackey in a letter to HASC (HERE) DAC Rodhouse becomes the Gold Commander in charge of Operation Vincente (the investigation into the allegation against the late Lord Brittan) [3]
30 October 2014 – Email from police liaison officer based at CPS London office to CPS legal manager, that she had received a submission of papers on the full code test in respect of Leon Brittan and was preparing to pass it to CPS for advice. Response from CPS legal manager was that this case was not suitable to be sent via the mailbox in the usual way and should be referred to RASSO Unit Head.[1]
12 November 2014 – Papers resubmitted by police into RASSO police mailbox as per procedures for standard written advice cases and referred to Head of RASSO Unit. Papers included endorsement from Supt Gray.[1]
22 November 2014 – ‘Triage’ of papers undertaken by RASSO Unit Head and case rejected on the basis that ‘neither the endorsement by Supt Gray or a Detective Sergeant satisfy the criteria set out in the Director’s Guidance, insofar that they are satisfied that the Full Code Test has been met. As the case has previously been NFA’d by the Police, as previously stated, we would additionally need the reasons why the decision made by the Senior Investigating Officer previously was wrong’.[1]
21 January 2015 – Leon Brittan dies of cancer.
22 January 2015 – According to a letter to the HASC from DAC Rodhouse (HERE) “In response to media questions, the MPS confirmed on 22nd January 2015, the day after Lord Brittan’s death, that an investigation into a rape allegation in which a man in his 70’s had been questioned was ongoing. On the same day, a statement from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said, ‘A charging decision has not been made in this case and the matter remains with the police.’”
23 January 2015 – Deputy Assistant Commissioner Rodhouse wrote to then Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor Tim Thompson asking the CPS to consider giving advice in the circumstances.[1]
27 January 2015 – Operation Fairbank Gold Group meeting. DAC Rodhouse repeats request to RASSO Unit Head to review the Leon Brittan file. CPS RASSO Unit Head refuses and refers to the triage completed and previous contact, reiterating that before considering the file the following should be completed:
- An officer more senior than first Senior Investigating Officer to certify the case meets the evidential threshold to be submitted together with reasons why the earlier decision was wrong
- Confirmation that investigation is complete
Supt Gray stated that this had been done by him and submitted to the CPS. Subsequent email sent to Supt Gray from RASSO Unit Head states that his previous review of the case did not cover those points and if there was a further document which did, could he send it. No response to email received.[1]
27 January 2015 – Email sent from then Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor Tim Thompson to DAC Rodhouse saying that the issue would need to be considered centrally as it was not for the Area to decide an ad hoc departure from the Director’s guidance.[1]
28 January 2015 – Email from then DCCP Tim Thompson to Chief Crown Prosecutor Baljit Ubhey and DPP’s Private Office, setting out the issue.[1]
2 February 2015 – Area notified that the general issue was to be considered by the Director’s Legal Advisor and Strategic Policy and Accountability Adviser.[1]
12 February 2015 – Meeting between DAC Rodhouse and the Chief Crown Prosecutor Baljit Ubhey and the Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor Tim Thompson. The CPS confirmed again that it would not revisit this case and explained that the Directors guidance and any change to it would have to be dealt with nationally.[1]
theneedleblog 
Pingback: Exaro Is Finished | theneedleblog
Pingback: Operation Midland: Context And Consequences. | theneedleblog
The Independent Jersey Care Inquiry has unearthed some interesting stuff, including in relation to this person:- http://www.theislandwiki.org/index.php/Wilfred_Krichefski
Click to access Day%2097%20-%20Haut%20de%20la%20Garenne%20Non%20Staff%20Alleged%20Abuser%20Non%20Oral%20Evidence.pdf
The ongoing Independent Jersey Care Inquiry has unearthed some interesting stuff.
Inter alia, the death of former Jersey senator, the first head of Jersey’s ‘Channel TV’ and a former president of the island’s Defence Committee, Wilfred Harold KRICHEFSKI in a car crash near Jersey Airport in December 1974 wants looking at, or at the very least the events in the years leading up to it.
Click to access Day%2097%20-%20Haut%20de%20la%20Garenne%20Non%20Staff%20Alleged%20Abuser%20Non%20Oral%20Evidence.pdf
re mann’s copy (or originals) of some “dickens documents” it may be real,real but selective or faked.
faking documents from 30 odd years ago can be done however to fake such things in a way that will stand full forensic scrutiny and cross referencing with other data is very tricky to do .it requires there are no weak points in the deception and would be a risky tactic unless it was intended to be rumbled as fake.
selective but genuine ,in order to blame the dead, is less risky but might still be a poor tactic for those who wish “to keep a lid on it”.
real and handed over by the compiler/or archivist who is angry at recent (and past)events seems plausible especially as they might be quite elderly and feel they can take the risk in order to have a clear conscience about telling what they know.
i keep an open mind about such things but favor the last option at the mo.
it might have been better for a genuine “whistleblower” to publish the data with an explanation of the provenance but some folk dont see things like that as being the most effective way to get results and protect themselves.
without provenance or full forensic analysis of both medium and content tis impossible to know the truth at this stage.
There is a lot of other evidence now that will back up those names.
i recon you may be correct but without the documents it is at best a good guess
Using them, on their own, as evidence in a trial, would be impossible, but as a guide, like the EGL, it is very useful. especially with the knowledge there is now. There are names under suspicion now, but finding the weak link in the chain is the main problem. In those days, everyone knew everyone in those circles.
If as I understand the Palace asked for an official briefing about the Gates case and the more general issue of Child Protection with the document now published on the Cathy Fox site it would be surprising if there have not been further demands for official briefings given the public disclosures since
After the extract number 7 on rumours without evidence in the telegraph October 34rd when Saville Morrison and Brittan are mentioned it would be surprising if clarification/amplification has not already been requested. Her biographer has been given unlimited access to all available documentations both sides of the Atlantic
It is surprising the Tories are not attacking the Telegraph for publishing their picture of Leon Brittan and quoting the rumour that although he as married he was an homosexual and child abuser, Why have they single out Tom Watson one must ask?
Great article, thanks. For what it’s worth I think Settle’s “good point well made” comment was basically “you’ve stumped me”. Except bloke-ier.
Tricia makes some good points (though I am sceptical of point 3. Andy explains point 4, and his comment about Mann’s copy is not too fantastic, imo.
Heads up for dpack as he is the spookery expert here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ronnie-krays-association-with-tory-peer-and-fellow-hunter-of-young-men-sparked-mi5-investigation-and-a6704401.html
thanks ,a bit more of the context,i think boothby was probably the “lord” the twins took home to meet mum.(im still looking to identify their judges as there are a few very lurid rumours about them).
re driberg there is a photo( on page 421 of blackmail and whitewash.bryans) of them socializing (probably a club)where they look very friendly and “crazy” kray’s companion appears to be a teenage boy .that still creeps me out.
Indeed we should all be creeped out by the fact that some of out most vulnerable children were /are still considered expendable in the interests of the state? How many took their own lives re John Allen Homes North Wales and where Waterhouse was told not to investigate trafficking by the Welsh Office under William Hague as it can be assumed the still secret Macur review confirmed otherwise why has Justice Macur not reported?
i recon macur has not reported as yet because of the pallial cases which are getting convictions,so far it has mostly been staff but there are a number of “visitors” and “associates” awaiting trial as well and many awaiting due process as even with the extra staff it is a huge caseload for the folk in the police and cps and court.
iirc correctly there are over 200 witnesses due to be called in various cases and around 50 defendants(although there could be more ) still to be brought before a jury .iirc it is over a year from now that the court diary has a timely space for one rather crucial local vip.
some things should be done in the correct order to make sure there are no legal loopholes for the guilty to escape through.
i had to word that carefully and mention no names or other stuff i have been told cos much like the police/cps/court system (seem to want )i want it to be fair cos the survivors deserve to present their evidence at a series of fair trials rather than at no trial on the grounds of prejudice.
there are multiple related issues that connect to the situation including other areas and persons,money,a few “unexplained deaths”,jillings,waterhouse , the pickfords fire,missing medical records,etc etc but again no comment is perhaps best at this stage.
after those trials are over the issues of multi area transfers ,follow the money etc etc will have solid conviction data as well as evidence to base further actions upon.
Thanks for the info. Given that a Welsh MP has ask why the delay and others it is surprising that there has been no formal statement by the Ministry of Justice or May when she coordinated the government response that the Inquiry will not be published, published only when all the current police investigations and prosecutions end or that the report will first or only made available to Justice Goddard Inquiry.
This also reminds of one development earlier than expected. This is the publication in the telegraph of extracts of the second volume of the official biography of Margaret Thatcher number 7 3rd October2015 in which their is reference to Saville Morrison and Brittan headed Dealing with rumours without evidence. It can be assumed that all the background papers re this will have already been passed to Justice Goddard. It would therefore be surprising if there was also reference to Edward Heath.
Reblogged this on Floating-voter.
the timeline is interesting and does seem to indicate the origins of the build it up to have it knocked down (along with various parties involved)elements of the way the media presented it.
i have no idea if “jane”is truthful or not but without solid corroborating evidence a legal action would not be brought whether it involved an ex cabinet minister or a member of the public as it would not meet the evidential tests etc.
I think the context has to be viewed with regards to “Jane”. As I understand it and I could be way off kilter here however here goes. in the light of the laws’ definition of rape being changed Jane stepped forward and saw herself as a victim of a crime. hat is, at no time did she give any sort of verbal consent to the actions she claimed Brittan carried out. It matters not a jot that Brittan’s apologists claim “he never asked for sex, blah blah, if s asexual congress occurred and Jane did not verbally pro-actively consent then, under law as it stands now, she was legally “raped”. However, Brittan would have been charged under the aegis of the law that existed when the offence took place and as such, no matter what evidence there was to suggest it was a “rape” then Jane’s testimony simply would never succeed in seeing a guilty verdict.
Again this is speculation however, I do wonder if the police thought there might be some case that would hold water involving not specifically the sexual assault rather, some nifty legal sidestep where Brittan could have been charged for another offence pertaining to how Jane ended up in the situation and circumstances she claims she did. Look let’s be totally clear about this all. If this was just some person making claims with no evidence save their verbal testimony, the chances are it would never have made it past the first hurdle. Something Jane told the police convinced them that she was telling them more than just a ma e up story.. Otherwise one has to then seriously look at the police quite deliberately setting this up to fail for some reason as yet unknown.
As such , my suspicions are as follows. Jane could identify Brittan by some particularly unique physical aspect and that and that alone was the reason the police pressed ahead with their enquiries. The moment the CPS caught wind of this they actively sought a reason not to prosecute and found out that Jane’s case was based wholly on her word versus Brittan’s and that her never saying “no” fatally flawed a possible prosecution. At that pint Brittan was never going to be summoned to an identity parade or asked to show that unique physical aspect of himself Jane had described and that was that. . That would explain all the buck passing and the prevarication that has gone around the case.
I might well be totally wrong however, currently, that seems to me, to be the narrative that most closely matches what has occurred so far.?
This time needs to be bviewed as part of the time re all the police investigations re Lord Brittan and the work of campaigners and vivctimsd
Please note the police and the crown prosecution service are not interested in this on any case if the victim is speaking the truth but can they can prove the alleged perpetrator broke the law existing at the time of the even and it is also un the public interest to prosecute.. This why Justice Goddard has placed ermphasis on the truth project and where the Inquiry has just announced a pilot truth project
Excellent. There are two timelines which will be of interest to the Goddard Inquiry. That involving all aspects of the police inquiries into Leon Brittan and those in relation to the groups campaigning for action in relation to Leon Brittan
How long did it take to arrest and convict those that took part in riots a few years back.
Exactly. I think the biggest takeaways from the hearing yesterday were
1) The pace at which things move it will be years if not decades if at all that victims will see justice.
2). Vas obvioulsy thinks he is untouchable.
3). MSM and several bloggers are part of the cover up and will twist any and everything to destroy CSA.
4) Why did TW allow the meeting yeterday to be limited to Jane? His quoting of ‘evil’ comment was to do with LB child abuse – he could once they brought this up expanded the scope of the discussion.
5). I suspect in the not too distant furture for TW to say he is steeping back from CSA as too much work being deputy leader.
6). While not part of yesterday’s hearing there is something about John Mann that doesn’t sit right. For years he is tweeting this that and the other re csa! but so far nothing has come of any of it
Re: John Mann and apparently part of one of the missing Dossiers yesterday, mentioned in only a few of the MSN papers.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/child-protection/11946177/Missing-dossier-on-alleged-paedophile-ring-handed-to-MP.
htmlhttp://www.ibtimes.co.uk/westminster-paedophile-ring-missing-dickens-dossier-alleged-child-abusers-handed-john-mann-mp-1525093
links again:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/child-protection/11946177/Missing-dossier-on-alleged-paedophile-ring-handed-to-MP.html
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/westminster-paedophile-ring-missing-dickens-dossier-alleged-child-abusers-handed-john-mann-mp-1525093
a couple of the observations here are relevant to the dickens papers that were handed to mr mann.
Can’t help suspecting that Mann has been given a fake dossier that will be soon be found to contain nothing but rumour and falsehoods – to be easily discredited by Police, so ‘proving’ Dickens was a fantasist and the Westminster Paedophile ring a fantasy.
Now that Chris Fay has recently found the Holy Grail, hidden inside the Elm Guest House List, the dossier will help to find even more links. The Chris Fay find, has moved the inquiry back to Elm Guest House.
Hi Tricia. Your fourth question is very pertinent. However, anyone in front of a Select Committee has to obey the rules laid down, otherwise they may be subject to Contempt of Parliament charges.
What Vaz’s justification for this scope was, I don’t know. Maybe it was to protect ongoing investigations. It was very telling though that he was happy to go beyond that scope when it suited him, but closed TW down the minute he tried to do likewise. It seems that the real reason for the scope being restricted to ‘Jane’ was to focus questions in areas where TW’s record is weakest, and to allow the impression, which all the media (BBC included) are giving, that the Police have cleared Brittan of ALL charges.
Interesting to note Vaz’s support for TW as Deputy Leader. Maybe he guessed that as Labour Deputy, he would have the might of the Tories and the Press against him, providing the opportunity for Vaz to question TW’s record and, by association, the credibility of all VIP CSA allegations.
The Home affairs Committee as do all such committee have legal advisers. who would have read the riot act. They were treading on dangerous ground holding the inquiry especially if the family of Lord Brittan plan to sue or refer police handling to the IPCC. PS the response to the rioting as with all public order offences is treated difference. Those of participating in violent civil disobedience demonstrations were arrested charge appeared in court and dealt with within a couple of hours with the notable exception of the Harrington Direct Action Committee demonstration where one of those participating was the daughter of a judge so we were held in remain those who did not accept bail from the Saturday to the Monday when a lawyer represented. It has to be remembered that we pleaded guilty to whatever charge the police chose usually obstruction of the highway by laying down and refusing to move and then refused to pay the fine and enter the recognisance to stop protesting. , In the instance of the Holy Loch demonstration in 1961 the authorities arrested all the leadership except me because it was not in the public interest to do so despite the six week march and demonstration being the idea of myself and another Operation Foulness and help to organise the Scottish end of the demonstration. In the same way former Chairman of the Direct Action Committee and Secretary of the Committee 100 has never been prosecuted for his part in helping the spy George Blake to escape from Wandsworth and to Russia where he still lives. You also have to remember that Harold Wilson used the Royal Prerogative so that the double agent and relative of the Queen mother was not prosecuted but new Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher used a Labour MP at a PMQ’s to out him because according to Bernard Ingham she did not believe in cover ups. It was also Harold Wilson who covered up the child abuse activities of Lord Boothby and Tom Dribery both friends of the Krays.
Tricia’s 4th question is indeed particularly pertinent, and Andy, you are right, there is a huge double standard in that Vaz went outside his own scope in that he referred to matters outside of the ‘Jane’ rape accusation.
Interesting to see Andrew Neil, a sceptic on allegations a ‘VIP’ abuse network, acknowledging (@7:40) – “…there are still investigations going on with Leon Brittan, as with many others, on the child abuse side…”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p035xlgy?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=daily_politics&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=news_central
Very similar to the circumstances of the Lord Janner case then, Public pressure, and pressure from MPs changed the mind of the CPS. Plus the fact that certain police officers knew that ‘not enough evidence’ was not in itself conclusive, as other investigations against Leon were also in the pipeline. Perhaps the words of Lord Nelson are appropriate, ‘I have only one eye, I have a right to be blind sometimes… I really do not see the signal!’, or, ‘Our country will, I believe, sooner forgive an officer for attacking an enemy than for letting it alone.’.
Useful links to the written evidence pdfs of the witnesses to the HASC http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/home-affairs-committee/inquiries/parliament-2015/lord-brittan/
Pingback: Timeline For The ‘Jane’ Investigation Into The Late Lord Brittan | Real Troll Exposure
1992 to the present day and the foreseeable future, Obfuscate, lie, prevaricate, avoid, give false leads so long as it guides people away from any connection between Peter Righton and high ranking government home office officials in the 1980s……