Why Operation Midland Should Have Interviewed Nick’s Ex-Wife.

Before continuing I need to make a quick correction. I’ve written before that there were around 60 detectives working on Operation Midland. In a story today the Daily Mail gives the number at 27. I’m happy to accept that I was wrong, and correct that mistake now.


Last Thursday BBC Radio 4 broadcast an episode of The Report entitled Lord Bramall: a failure to investigate. It can be listened to on BBC iplayer HERE but we’ve also saved a recording on Youtube which I’ve embedded at the foot of this post. The programme contained the first interview with Lord Bramall, it also highlighted some extraordinary shortcomings of the Operation Midland investigation, not least the failure of the 27 detectives to interview Nick’s ex-wife.

This post is an attempt at trying to explain why this omission is so difficult to understand.

In one of Nick’s own blog posts published 4th May 2014, which have since all been removed, he gives us a timeline of disclosure.

“I first disclosed that I had been abused 6 years after it had finished, and this was just to acknowledge that I had been hurt. 15 years or so after it ended, I was able to say that I had been raped but on both occasions I kept everything else to myself. 30 years after the abuse stopped, I finally disclosed everything.”

We know from elsewhere in his blogs that he claims his abuse ended when he was 16 years old, circa 1984, and so we can deduce that Nick disclosed physical abuse circa 1990, sexual abuse circa 1999, and the entire allegations that were investigated by Operation Midland, including rape, sadistic torture, and murder by VIPs circa 2014.

In his blog published August 10, 2014, Nick goes into significant detail about the circumstances in which he first claimed to have been sexually abused. This was during a one to one session with a marriage counselor  and if Nick is consistent we can therefore date this to around 1999. The second person that he disclosed to was his then wife:

“Eventually it affected our relationship and she demanded we go to marriage guidance. I could not bear the thought of being alone, so agreed to go. But of course the counsellor wanted to know what was at the route cause of my intimacy issues. Eventually in a one to one session, I told her that I had been abused, and she had already suspected that it was the case. The counsellor encouraged me to tell my wife the reason so she could understand and help me work through things. So I did and that was the end of our relationship.”

It isn’t strictly true that that was the end of their relationship, the marriage didn’t break up for several years and in the intervening period they had a child together. I’m not going to quote more extensively from that post as I believe it would be unfair and hurtful to Nick’s ex-wife. Once a marriage breaks up there is always bitterness, blame, and recrimination and it is impossible to get a clear picture from just one of the parties involved.

What should be clear is that Nick’s ex wife would be able to shed a great deal of light on the circumstances in which Nick first claimed to have been sexually abused as a child. It must have been a desperate time for Nick – “I could not bear the thought of being alone”, he writes.

So, why didn’t Operation Midland interview Nick’s ex wife ?


Filed under Abuse, News

15 responses to “Why Operation Midland Should Have Interviewed Nick’s Ex-Wife.

  1. Anon

    I see now the new sport for Politicians is Abusing Policemen.

    They should be careful since Policemen are big and strong enough to protect themselves.

    • Aardvark


    • Aardvark

      Maybe the term ‘to do a McAlpine’ will come into regular use in the English Language, after all, it appears to be a very popular phenomenon for those in a tight spot, very Machiavellian indeed!

  2. Roger Gough

    The matter of “Early complaint” is surely relevant here.

  3. Parsonage

    Plod didn’t take any notice of Nick’s Mum either

    “The country’s most senior police officer is to be called before a committee of MPs to be grilled over the “inexplicable” delays in contacting key witnesses which meant that false child abuse claims against Lord Bramall hung over his head for almost a year.
    The Telegraph can also reveal that the mother of the man who made the claims against Lord Bramall told police almost two years ago that her son’s claims were false”


    . Why did Hogan Howe and other top plods fall over themselves to take up the cudgels on behalf the appalling brute Tom Watson MP, Paedo-Finder General, in the first place? Watson’s sordid motivation is obvious enough – he wanted a smokescreen to cover up Rotherham style group/grooming in the Black Country and of course much wider afield. Labour’s blind eye to grooming as it hoovered up very large “Asian” bloc votes has been apparent for several years now. In the wake of the 3rd Rochdale trial of 2012 the scandal of the very wide scale grooming epidemic could no longer be contained, this was an issue of acute embarrassment to the Labour Party – about which only Ann Cryer had been honest and brave enough to break cover.

    A few months after that we saw Watson opening the first salvos of his campaign in the Commons – likewise we saw the now utterly discredited Danczuk heroically naming Smith as a paedophile in the Commons, except of course that Cyril’s proclivities had been in the public domain for many years and that knowledge had not prevented Danczuk attending a blue plaque ceremony in Rochdale for Cyril 12 months before.

    Plod had a stake in this game – the raid on Sir Cliff Richard’s home at the behest of SYP took place only days before the Jay Report was published.

    Were then Op Midland and related police ops always just a smokescreen, a miasma of fantasy and lies, using convenient and deluded tools to safeguard the prevailing narrative of diversity and community cohesion and to take the spotlight away from Labour’s grooming/votes nexus?

    It’s undeniable that Operation Elvedon mentioned in the Mail article above was politically motivated – kicked off by Keir Starmer who became a Labour MP(for services rendered?) it seems to have targeted Sun journalists almost exclusively in terms of media prosecutions

    “He is, after all, the police chief who spent around £14 million on Operation Elveden — a highly controversial investigation into the payment of whistleblowers and other public officials (especially police sources) by journalists.

    No fewer than 70 detectives were assigned to the inquiry, and 62 journalists were arrested. Yet despite 29 being charged as a result, only one case went to trial resulting in a conviction — though not a jail sentence — which is now being appealed. (One other reporter pleaded guilty under a 13th-century law of misconduct in public office, and received a suspended sentence.)”

    The delay and procrastination over Midland is understandable – having bought Watson’s pig in a poke bureaucratic back covering would soon cut in
    when they discovered what a grotesque fantasy they had become part of.

    But why rush to embrace this in the first place? That’s the question which of course isn’t going to get answered in front of the HOC Select Committee.

    These are very deep and dark waters here.


  4. GOG

    There is no reason why the Police shouldn’t have spoken to the ex-wife. She should have been spoken to at the first opportunity for no other reason that she may have a) corroborated Nick or b) shown him of what he was at an earlier stage and saving £2 million

  5. IM

    I can’t see any reason why police would not be able to interview the ex-wife. Issues of compellability arise only when the spouse is charged with certain crimes, which is not applicable here – he’s not charged and they seem to be no longer married. She would however be low on their list as she did not know him during the period in which the abuse is said to have happened, therefore immediate family members, doctor, teachers would be more important.

  6. Before police are allowed to contact a relative or ex spouse of a witness/victim, they have to get their written permission. If that isn`t given, then I`m not sure they can contact them! I gave permission for police to interview anyone they liked about my allegations, and they have interviewed several family members.

    • Thank you Penny.

      That is very interesting !

    • GOG

      This simply isn’t true, Police can interview and speak to who they want when they want, the notion that they have to seek written permission is ridiculous. They should have spoken to her as one of the first actions they took, failure is either some pathetic attempt to placate Nick or just plain incompetence.

      • Many thanks GOG,

        I’ve just very quickly checked with someone in a position to know the truth of this and I can say that you are correct on this matter.

      • Really? I was told by police that, in cases of potentially embarrassing disclosure, that they needed permission! There was a printed form they gave me to sign. Operation Hydrant officers told me that they had heard Nick and Exaro`s other victims were unwilling to sign this!

  7. IM

    I would have expected Police to interview the wife as she is a witness to his having provided details before recent events. It seems to me that the wife, despite the divorce, was generally supportive (cf. donation) of Nick. I hope the Police sought the counsellor’s contemporaneous notes.

    I am concerned by the allegations made by James Reeves and Andrea Davison re Bramall and hope that if there are witnesses out there supportive of Nick that they have given evidence to police and inquiry.