Hogan-Howe Announces Judge Led Inquiry Into Operation Midland

By announcing this broader inquiry into VIP abuse investigations, Met Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe cleverly heads off calls for a specific Operation Midland inquiry once it closes, which would be extremely embarrassing, and at the same time the findings, when they are eventually published, will be diluted.

Nobody ever said BHH was stupid. He knew it was coming and he’s set the agenda on his terms.

55328062_012891583-1

A picture paints a thousands words…

The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, has asked a former High Court judge to examine the way non-recent sexual allegations against public figures are investigated.

Sir Richard Henriques has agreed to conduct the independent review of a number of investigations and make recommendations about whether there are ways to improve the process for all of those involved in it in the future.

The key findings of the review and the recommendations will be published later this year, but the full review will contain confidential and sensitive information and will be a private report for the Commissioner.

The Commissioner said: “We are not afraid to learn how we can do these things better, and that’s why I’ve announced today’s review in to how we have conducted investigations in to non-recent sexual allegations involving public figures.

“I am pleased that Sir Richard brings an independent legal mind to advise us whether we can provide a better balance between our duty to investigate and the interests of suspects, complainants and victims.”

Sir Richard will agree in advance with the MPS which investigations will be part of his review.

The Commissioner is clear that the MPS wants the benefit of Sir Richard’s expertise and advice on handling investigations into non-recent allegations where the suspects are publicly identified – including those that have recently been in the public eye. This will include Operation Midland.

The Hon. Lowell Goddard, who is chairing the Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse, has been notified of the review.

The Commissioner added: “The review will focus on police procedures and will not reach judgments on the evidence. That is for the Public Inquiry to do, should they wish to examine any of the investigations covered by Sir Richard. A full copy of the review will be given to the Public Inquiry.”

Sir Richard Henriques conducted the independent review relating to the Lord Janner case.

New.Met.Police

Advertisements

17 Comments

Filed under Abuse, News

17 responses to “Hogan-Howe Announces Judge Led Inquiry Into Operation Midland

  1. Pingback: Hogan-Howe Announces Judge Led Inquiry Into Operation Midland | Alternative News Network

  2. dpack

    he is a very sharp chap with some high profile cases behind him in a variety of capacities

    what he found regarding janner after it was too late

    https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwia1JWju-3KAhXBPxoKHcPRBKMQFghEMAk&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuknews%2Flaw-and-order%2F12107660%2FLord-Janner-CPS-and-police-were-wrong-not-to-prosecute-earlier-says-official-report.html&usg=AFQjCNEiKiFaT47gapCiT6lEXhVKoXb6Fg&sig2=aijjvq5Ju406piM-thJdIQ

    and an informal chat with the local paper

    http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news/crime/confessions-of-a-high-court-judge-richard-henriques-1-6255257

    his love of blackpool fc seems harmless saturday afternoon relaxation swapping wig and law book for woolly hat and pie on the terraces .

    if he is a decent chap im sure his forensic mind will discover the truths of many aspects of the issues he is inquiring into now and he will mention these in his findings ,hopefully in time for some legal remedies.

  3. jsc

    I’ve just heard Proctor being interviewed on LBC. The Telegraph had this yesterday:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/12149260/Detectives-did-not-put-name-of-boy-allegedly-murdered-by-VIP-paedophile-ring-to-only-suspect.html

    The piece says that Martin Allen’s brother Keith was told by Midland detectives that they were ”80% sure” that Martin was killed by the people alleged by ‘Nick’ to have killed three boys, who include Proctor, and yet the piece also states that Midland detectives never put Martin’s name to Proctor.

    It also says ”Initially the witness (Nick) claimed not to know the names of the victims but in February last year wrote on a blog that he had “accidentally” discovered the identity of one of the boys.” ”He wrote that he was desperate to learn more about “his friend” who had been killed adding “I miss him so very much”.”

    If Nick became close enough to ”his friend” i.e. one of the boys whose murder he alleges he witnessed, to ”miss him very much” then it seems strange that Nick did not know the boy’s name, but perhaps his account to police explained why he did not know the boy’s name.

    The Telegraph says Nick ”accidentally” discovered the identity of his friend and it leads us to believe Nick identified the boy to Midland detectives as Martin Allen and Martin’s brother Keith says he was told by detectives they were ”80% sure” Martin was one of the three boys murdered in front of Nick.

    But given that they do not have sufficient grounds to prosecute Proctor, (the only living person accused by Nick of the murders he witnessed), I wonder if it was fair or appropriate for detectives to tell Keith Allen they are ”80% sure” of how Martin died and of who killed him? Nick’s account of the murders he witnessed are graphic and horrific and would be terrible for the Allen family to read in the light of what the police said to Keith. But what actual evidence is there that Martin died in the way Nick says?

    • I did look at that and was aware of the details for some time before.

      It’s what happens when someone with Munchausens is in contact with someone with Munchausens by proxy.

      Very sad really and I didn’t want to write anything about it.

      • jsc

        Are the public and Martin’s family to conclude that the police are no longer searching for those responsible for Martin Allen’s disappearance, if Keith Allen was told by Midland detectives they are ”80% sure” he was killed by one of the men accused by Nick, and in the manner described by Nick?

      • It’s a hard case. MA disappeared in 1979. This all comes down to whether you believe there is any truth in what Nick says.

        No comment.

      • tdf

        ^ yes it has to be that, ultimately the only explanation that makes sense. One would have hoped that police are supposed to apply a basic ‘smell test’ to allegations – just commonsense and not even a matter of ‘believing’ or not believing alleged victims.

      • tdf

        ^ What I mean is, I agree with Gojam’s comment re Munchausen’s

  4. dpack

    apparently m’lord’s findings will remain secret with only basic themes published .

    therefore it is unlikely we will ever know about what he finds regarding these matters and what recommendations he makes via official channels.

    there seems to be a lot of secrecy from the establishment regarding their actions and inactions which can only add to the feeling they have plenty to hide on these matters and various others .

    justice should be seen to be done and part of that includes how it has been done or not done and how it should be done in future.

    • I posted this just 15 mins after the announcement. On more careful reflection, I don’t think BHH will get away with it.

      Good try though but it won’t be sufficient IMO.

      • dpack

        i think you may be correct but it might be that bhh /m’lord is an unacceptable inquiry plan for reasons other than the ones we seem to be thinking of.

        possible conflicts of interest,keeping “a lid on things”,secrecy of process and findings etc etc are sorts of things the likes of us consider but it might be unacceptable to others for very different reasons of politics and policing or even because they might gain a great deal of proven useful information that would make them extremely powerful.

        i cant think of a viable “official” alternative at the mo as the implications seem to involve a great number of assorted “officials” as well as those directly involved .

        considering the various “inquiries” (and other operations) regarding these matters (and others ) over the years and what has been subsequently exposed regarding their methods and outcomes it does seem that it is rather difficult to trust the establishment to investigate themselves or their hirelings with any intent to establish and expose truth if that truth is harmful to them.

    • Aardvark

      Exactly dpack!

  5. dpack

    in further other news

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/10/met-police-may-end-policy-of-believing-sexual-abuse-victims-says-hogan-howe

    as with any allegation it is best to neither believe or disbelieve but to investigate by collecting ,cross referencing and assessing as much data as possible which may become evidence. if evidence that the allegation is seemingly well founded emerges it then can be examined in a court and a jury can decide if the case is proven or not.
    iirc this is the basis of uk criminal law. (similar principles apply to science,history and even intel although the standard of proof may range from a balance of probabilities to beyond reasonable dought in these whereas only beyond reasonable dought applies in criminal law).

    to believe one way or the other before that investigatory process is conducted is less likely to obtain the truth whatever the truth may be and has serious consequences for the truthful accuser and the falsely accused as well as for truth and justice in general terms.

    • Aardvark

      The obvious consequence of not following the rational and thorough path you describe, coupled with the hyped up, public media speculation of ‘did they or didn’t they’ has led us, in what seems like a very orchestrated way, to a situation where the Government quickly changes the law, to keep MP’s names out of the public domain, if they are arrested.(Perhaps it is likely that arrests are imminent?).

      Why should members of the establishment have preferential treatment? We already have an unequal, deferential system, where members of the establishment, such as Brittan, are not immediately interviewed, as others accused in Society would have been. Why should Hogan Howe have apologised to Brittan, particularly while there was an ongoing investigation and when there are also other allegations against Brittan, should We all expect an apology from the Police! It looks like the establishment have been desperate to put it all to bed, with what looks very much like a stage managed shambles, which is helping them do just that, it’s time We all started waking up!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s