Bananas Are Not The Only Fruit

As the press continue to look into the Operation Midland allegations and the sole witness making them, known as Nick, they are revealing that the allegations hold as much water as a macrame bucket. The allegations against Lord Bramall, Harvey Proctor and others are fantastical and grotesque.

Eventually, the truth will out, it always does, and there is a grave danger that there may be a backlash against genuine victims of childhood sexual abuse (CSA). It is important to be clear that the vast majority of allegations of CSA are genuine. There are estimates, very difficult to prove, that up to 10% of allegations against Jimmy Savile are false but let’s not lose sight of the fact that even if true in this most high profile and most publicised of cases, 90% of the allegations are absolutely genuine. The less of a profile the alleged offender has the higher the percentage of genuine allegations there are and overall it is estimated that 99% of allegations of rape and child abuse are genuine, even if 99% of cases do not result in charges or convictions.

As one very high profile case dominates the headlines for all the wrong reasons, it is best not to lose sight of the fact that there will be thousands of genuine survivors who will be angry, frustrated, and disconsolate by degrees that their own integrity may be called into question as a result. This would be one of the most deplorable consequences of this unfortunate development. The genuine survivors must never be allowed to feel that it is hopeless to speak out and I will always support them on The Needle when I can.

Many of the news stories in today’s papers refer to a documentary that Nick appeared in which was broadcast back in September 2014 on the Sky Crime and Investigation Channel called Crimes That Shook Britain: Jimmy Savile.

Below is an extract which includes Nick, here referred to as Stephen and below that one of today’s newspaper stories.

The man who accused war hero Lord Bramall of sexually abusing him had originally claimed to be a Jimmy Savile victim while appearing on a TV documentary.

The man known only as ‘Nick’ was interviewed on a show on the Crime and Investigation satellite channel in 2014 where he made no mention of abuse by a political or military figure.

Allegations by Nick sparked the Metropolitan Police’s Operation Midland investigation, which was set up to tackle an alleged VIP paedophile ring that ran in Westminster and involved high ranking officials.

Nick claimed to be abused by D-Day veteran and former army chief Lord Bramall from 1976-1984, at a military base.

A group of 20 police officers raided the home of Britain’s most decorated soldier, 92, last year but found no evidence.

It was later revealed that the case against him was so weak that a file was not even submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service.

As well as Lord Bramall other high profile figures accused of abuse by Nick were Sir Edward Heath, the former prime minister and Lord Brittan, the former home secretary.

On the TV show ‘Nick’ had his identity protected by a silhouette and went by the name of ‘Stephen’.

The Mail



Filed under Abuse, News

40 responses to “Bananas Are Not The Only Fruit

  1. We cannot speculate on the credibility of one of the witnesses in an ongoing murder inquiry. However if Nick had not gone to the police, there would, now, be no murder inquiry taking place. We also cannot talk about doppelgangers, but the only photo’s available are of well known people, who may have been known to a boy thirty years ago.

    It is right that all child abuse/murder allegations are investigated fully. Lord Bramall, being an Army man, understands duty. I am sure that he would expect, and demand, that the police do their duty.

  2. Pingback: Bananas Are Not The Only Fruit | Alternative News Network

  3. Carol Bonington

    Sadly it has been shown that ONE of the Duncroft allegations of abuse by Jimmy Savile is false, (Anna Raccoon blog exposed it). The result has been that the blogger and commentators have been abusive about ALL of the Duncroft girls accusations and stated that none of them were victims and they only spoke lies about a dead man to try to get money. Apparently no one was paid for their interview by the ITV Exposure show, yet they have been publicly (on the Internet and MSM) attacked verbally, they are victims.
    It is very sad that some people have found it necessary to falsify some evidence, this does not make all of the accusations false. If we are going to change societies attitude to CSA we must first accept that at least 90% of all the allegations are truthful.

    • Hi Carol,

      Thank you for posting. You’re quite correct. To extrapolate, as AR has done, that because one allegation is untrue all allegations are untrue is foolhardy or dishonest

      • Gojam – we have crossed swords on this subject many time – so I know you are aware that I have NEVER said that because one allegation is false all allegations are untrue. It is nonsense to suggest that I do think that – or have ever said it.
        I exposed that one false allegation (and several others since), at a time when the accepted wisdom was that ALL allegations were true, simply by virtue of being allegations, and that no investigation was required of the allegations – the Savile estate should immediately ‘pay out’.
        My stance has always been that all allegations should be thoroughly investigated.
        Neither you nor I even know what all the Savile financial claims are – they have been shrouded in secrecy via Osborne Clark, and thus neither of us know whether there are any other patently and obvious false allegations like Bebe Roberts’.
        *Hi Carol!!!

      • Owen

        Your relentless contempt for the victims you happily lump together as “compo-seekers” tends to suggest that the conventional wisdom you respect is that any allegation is good for a laugh or a sneer – even when your associates have been tried and found guilty.

  4. dpack

    to establish the false allegations as false is a valid way to establish those ones that are not easily shown to be false as possibly true and deserving of every effort available to prove the truth of them if they are true.
    to extrapolate from one false allegation that all allegations are false is either flawed logic or deliberate obstruction.

  5. iantoosmart

    The video testimony does feel like a considered performance by someone quite adept. It reminds me of Kevin Eldon in Chris Morris’ Jaaam and also Neil Maskell in Utopia. Is this man a thesp? Is there verifiable biographical material for him?

    • Parsonage

      “But “Nick”, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, lost his £55,000-a-year NHS management job before he spoke to the Met in 2012.”

      Perfect training for spouting fanciful bullshit

      According to the Sunday Times yesterday the obnoxious brute Tom Watson is “Nick’s most outspoken supporter”, so more questions need to be directed at him; particularly as to why he has never uttered one word about

      “significant similarities to Rotherham”

      According to the Mail today Hogan-Howe is going to get his contract renewed

      “Harvey Proctor, a former Tory MP implicated in allegations of a murderous Westminster paedophile ring, has suggested that the Metropolitan police wants to postpone the collapse of the investigation until its commissioner, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, has secured an extension of his contract”

      Just shows once again that there is no accountability in this country

      “Proctor told the Observer that he also believed that Hogan-Howe “should apologise to Lord Bramall on his knees” for Scotland Yard’s conduct. “The Metropolitan police service launched Operation Midland on the basis that their witness was ‘credible and true’ and they declared him to be credible and true before they had any corroborative evidence. And the evidence they sought was not done in the normal way but by going on television and radio and appealing for victims to come forward, who they said would be believed. On the basis of that false policing they then, for over a year, kept getting it wrong,” said Proctor.”


      • iantoosmart

        If his evidence is bullshit and part of some disinformation campaign, then he is performing this role. Other options are that he is trying to make a name and/or money for himself somehow, although that seems unlikely. The third option is that he is mentally ill/suffering from possibly serious abuse from someone else. The Sun story just says things without providing any evidence. When will this legal protection end? With the end of Operation MIdland?

      • Andy Barnett

        The only way Hogan-Howe could use Op Midland to secure an extension to his contract is if they had found sufficient evidence to harm the Tories – either via prosecution or a leak to the media. To continue this costly investigation with nothing to show for it is damaging only for the Police.

      • You keep saying, ‘Proctor said’, but he is not running this case. I suspect that most accused people would want investigations against them stopped, don’t you?

    • tdf


      As I understand things, and others can correct me if I’m wrong, anyone who makes allegations of CSA has anonymity for life (unless they voluntarily chose to waive it).

  6. Owen

    We do all seem to be taking our lead from Harvey Proctor all of a sudden. Is that wise?

    • tdf

      “You may be partly correct, but things changed, and the tide of he investigation changed. If there is a cover up, it is a very complexed one, and it will have involved not only MI5, but the French Secret Service as well. This is not a simple case.”

      Complete bullshit.

    • tdf

      ^ Shite, Owen, utter shite.

      Nobody is ‘taking their lead’ from Harvey Proctor and you know that damn well. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. At this point, there’s dick all evidence of the extraordinary claims that ‘Nick’ has made.

  7. I repeat, ‘he is not the sole witness’. This is a very complexed case, it is not, ‘open and shut’.

  8. No one has been ‘arrested’ in all this. Why did the UK Tory Press, put these interviews, house searches, in their newspapers. The same press that is now complaining about the publicity given to the Lord Brammal/Harvey Proctor interviews. And may I remind you that it was Harvey Proctor’s Legal team who ‘demanded’ that he was ‘interviewed’, ‘twice’, not the police.

    • chrisb

      Perhaps because the allegations have no foundation and TPTB know they are false and because the allegations were investigated to discredit other investigations that do have foundation. HP is more likely to demand to be interviewed if he knows that the police have no firm evidence because he knows the allegations are false.

      • You may be partly correct, but things changed, and the tide of he investigation changed. If there is a cover up, it is a very complexed one, and it will have involved not only MI5, but the French Secret Service as well. This is not a simple case.

  9. gw

    David working under the assumption that you commute to Earls Court every morning and evening, can you tell us anything more about the French… connection? haha

    I have heard interesting things but understandably I am sceptical. If you shed any light on the below that would be nice, I suppose?

    – The murder of Pastor Joseph Doucé in 1990
    – That the French “special branch” seized a video of a certain cabinet member and that a “customs officer” has confirmed this to Simon Danzchuck in the presence of um..err.. Chris Fay (I am very spectical about this for so many reasons!!)
    – the apparent confusion between the Nievre parish and a “Father Nicholas Glencross” who on some blogs is perhaps wrongly named as “father Peter Glencross”


  10. You should never make assumptions. Can I remind you that,
    ‘well over half’ of the Midland inquiry is ‘not’ in the public domain.

  11. I can’t say how I know, but if you look online, you will see that Commander Hogan-Howe has said it himself, several times !

  12. tdf

    Joseph Doucé

    ^ Interesting case, the wiki article carries the suggestion he was murdered by French police who appointed themselves judge, jury and executioner.