IPCC Statement: Five Officers Referred In Relation To Op Midland

Following today’s publication of the independent review by Sir Richard Henriques of the Metropolitan Police Service handling of non-recent sexual offence investigations alleged against persons of public prominence, IPCC Deputy Chair Rachel Cerfontyne said:

“We were advised earlier today that the Metropolitan Police is to refer the conduct of five officers, ranging in rank from sergeant to deputy assistant commissioner, to the IPCC in relation to Operation Midland. We understand the conduct of a deputy assistant commissioner will also be referred to the IPCC regarding a different operation.

“We have assembled an assessment team to analyse relevant documentation to be supplied by the force, and provide me with a recommendation. Once I receive that recommendation, I will decide whether there will be an investigation and, if so, what form that investigation will take. I am aware of the significant public interest in these matters and I will announce that decision once I have made it and all concerned parties have been notified.

“We have not received any complaints from individuals who may feel they were adversely affected by the actions of officers involved in Operation Midland but, as in all cases, were such complaints to be referred to the IPCC they would be given due consideration.”

IPCC

Advertisements

53 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

53 responses to “IPCC Statement: Five Officers Referred In Relation To Op Midland

  1. Pingback: IPCC Statement: Five Officers Referred In Relation To Op MidlandAlternative News Network | Alternative News Network

  2. Justin Sanity

    I’m disappointed by recent comments from a relative of a missing boy. I was hoping that, with the “nick” as proxy plot having fallen apart so completely, and the volunteer-martyr accuser himself under investigation, this boy’s relative would drop his vendetta and do all he can to contribute to the new investigation – and without desiring or attempting to manipulate it.
    Apparently not.

    I hope that someone close to this man might at least persuade him not to pursue any further vendetta-motivated schemes, because this one has proven that they are at best counter-productive to the goal, and for his own sake – no more failed ‘operations’ martyrs are needed.
    I don’t think that this man and the other persons he used to refer to habitually as “his team” and “the guys”, (as in “keep it up guys, we’ve got them on the run”), are currently in danger of criminal investigation in relation to any past plots, but I don’t know that they aren’t either.

    There have obviously been efforts to cover tracks, many relevant postings on various platforms have been deleted/removed, but that hasn’t erased them from my memory. I know what I saw, and I don’t need any ‘insider’ information to understand the implications. I intend to keep all that to myself, because I can easily believe that any morally questionable actions resulted from being driven half-mad by grief and frustration. I can only sympathize, and have no wish to be the cause of any more distress in his life.
    But I can’t be the only person who witnessed several people being foolishly arrogant with publicly flaunting ‘coy hints’. I’m sure I’m not the only person who understands that “the team” allowed themselves the conceit of believing that they were superior ‘investigators’ to every “establishment brainwashing blinded plod” in the UK, and the belief that they themselves had worked out exactly what happened to certain missing children & exactly who was responsible for the fate of those children, long before “nick” volunteered himself to be the voice of their allegations – as a co-victim complainant to police. The public pretense to being surprised by “nick” and his allegations was pretty sickening to watch, but again, its not my missing relative so I have a very limited right to be judgemental.

    • Thanks JS,

      Once again I totally agree.

      I’ve tried to talk to him in the past and again more recently. What can I say? According to the ‘conspiracy’ I’m part of a covert plan to cover-up the very child abuse that they’re attempting to expose. And therein lies the problem. Just like a cult, anyone who expresses an alternative view that deviates from their ‘truth’, by definition is part of the conspiracy to cover-up this ‘truth’. The conspiracy is a closed loop ensuring closed minds.

      The great sadness for me is that the person that you’re referring to and his family (I understand his mother died recently and the funeral was on the day the Henriques report was published) are, along with those wrongly accused, the greatest victims of this travesty. On the 5th November 1979 Martin Allen went missing and has not been seen or heard of since – this is one indisputable fact. ‘Nick’ led Martin Allen’s family, and the police, into believing that he had been kidnapped and held for several months before being sadistically sexually abused and murdered with ‘Nick’ as a witness. I’d ask anyone who mistakenly believes that the false Midland allegations are harmless to consider the impact of that on the Allen family.

      I wish I could tell Kevin that I knew what happened to Martin but I don’t. I do know without doubt that what he has been led to believe by ‘Nick’ is not true. It is a tragedy that many will struggle to understand, though I can, when a false explanation of what happened to Martin, even one so appalling in its implications as that offered by ‘Nick’ and supported by others, seems preferable to no explanation.

      • The facts are as follows
        Martin did go missing
        He has never been seen nor heard of since
        Now I think it’s fair to say that after 37 years the probability is that Martin did pass away by whatever means and there is evidence however circumstantial that he was in fact abducted and used by a paedophile ring.
        Nick has given a very detailed account of what he knows and without proof that he has lied( and I’m not convinced he has) it only fair that kev and his family would be taking this on board
        KEVIN has been down many route in his search for information and he’s an intelligent bloke but he was warned early on by a police officer that he could get hurt if he carried on his investigations, a warns? Or a sinister threat?
        I believe that Martin was abducted by a vip ring as do many others and whether he ended up at elm guest house , dolphin Sq or indeed smuggled abroad is neither here nor there.
        Kevin knows what I think we have spoke many times and I believe him to be an intelligent man who wants the truth and someone out there does know what happened on that day but until that happens nick is the only one with direct information and should be taken seriously imo

      • I’d like you to give me details of the ‘circumstantial evidence’ which you refer to.

        You see, you believe that Nick is telling the truth, and you believe that Martin Allen was abducted by a VIP paedophile ring, and you believe that Martin was at Elm Guest House, and you believe he was at Dolphin Square and you have absolutely no evidence to support this other than discredited testimony from a discredited complainant who is currently under investigation for perverting the cause of justice.

        STOP!

        THINK!

        REAPPRAISE!

        Can you not countenance even the possibility that you’re wrong? And if you can countenance the possibility, however minute in your mind, can’t you see how damaging this all is?

        But thank you for illustrating so well the ‘closed loop/closed minds’ attitude of those that are supporting Nick, that I referred to earlier.

      • tdf

        @ Mr Bernard H gadd

        I am going to take a wild guess that you are one of the Twitter ‘campaigners’ that tweets the “IbelieveNick” hashtag.

        You state, inter alia, as follows:

        “Nick has given a very detailed account of what he knows and without proof that he has lied…”

        Let’s say that’s true.

        So what? What of it? What conclusions follow and flow from that point?

        The answer is, none! Why? Because one cannot prove a negative. Simple rule of logic.

        I cannot claim to prove that, for example, a former MP definitely was not involved in murder. Neither can the police. Neither can anyone! But, there is no actual evidence that he was. Therefore, he is innocent. That’s how the criminal justice system is supposed to work.

        And if you can’t grasp that very simple point (and this is where I’m going to be a little less polite than Gojam was in his reply), then what, quite frankly, in the f*** is the matter with you?

  3. Justin Sanity

    I’m not saying, nor do I believe, that any member of the Allen family or persons who have supported their efforts to publicize Martin’s case and obtain a committed re-investigation by police, have masterminded any nefarious plots. (I do believe that CF and one or two of his long-term associates have masterminded nefarious plots, but not specifically in regard to Martin Allen or “Nick”.

    Some people apparently perceive a conspiracy around “Nick” and his allegations, but that’s not what I have perceived. I don’t think “Nick” volunteered himself to any specific person, to be the victim complainant ‘voice’ for those person’s allegations of pedophile ring/ child trafficking/ kidnapping and child murder against specific VIPs. One of “nick’s” things, under another pseudonym, was to personally be validation for ‘friends’ in the online community of CSA victim claimants and advocates. I don’t think “nick” needed to be recruited by anyone, although I can’t rule that out.

    The plotting and scheming has more to do with encouraging widespread belief that specific VIPs, living or dead, are guilty of specific” crimes against children” and in some cases against specific children, despite their never having been charged with such offenses – by claiming that campaigner’s personal “investigations” prove it to be fact. It was predictable that someone would come forward, as “Nick” did, and claim to personally testify that specific VIPs committed those crimes – on them and on others that they were witness to. And when “Nick” was first claimed to have witnessed the murder of boys by VIPs, I was able to predict that he would name Martin Allen as one of the victims and specific VIPs as involved in murdering him. Not because I am an investigative genius – I’m certainly not – but because those exact allegations had been repeatedly alluded to by members of a “team”.

  4. Justin Sanity

    It was here, in a discussion of rumors that Leon Brittan abused a boy in a constituent’s home, that I shocked by a realization – UK rumor-mongers frequently don’t bother to do even the most obvious, basic, verification of the facts underlying their claims and allegations. So…

    HP – first elected to UK Parliament in 1979.
    UK House of Commons sat on Monday, November 5, 1979 – verified*
    Typical start time, House of Commons, in 1979 was 2:30pm – verified*
    Average length of sittings in 1979 was 7-8 hours, the House rising before 9:00pm was rare, rising after 10pm much more common- verified*
    The sitting time on November 5 1979 specifically, was of average length for 1979 – verified*
    *UK House of Commons “hours sat and late sittings” statistics, also the records of same for the year of 1979.

    True, you can’t prove a negative – but you can at least take elementary steps to verify whether or not a hypothesis is even a possibility.

    • tdf

      @JS

      To be fair, that doesn’t tell us a whole lot in itself. There are pairing arrangements and so on.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_(parliamentary_convention)

      One would have to do more detailed checks to confirm that HP was in fact present on that particular date and for the relevant sessions of it.

      • Justin Sanity

        @tdf – yes, that goes without saying. My point is, rumor-mongering conspiracy theorists obviously haven’t bothered with that most basic verification of their hypothesis – they haven’t even bothered to check the relevant Party’s attendance records or ask other MPs who were in attendance if HP was there on that date.
        Because if he WAS sitting in the House on that date he cannot have been simultaneously abducting boys on the Tube – so unless there is evidence that he was NOT where he presumably should have been on the relevant date & time, then their hypothesis wouldn’t even qualify as helpful speculation, it would only be an obstructive and misleading Red Herring.

  5. The police are taking the claims of Nick, now a middle-aged man, so seriously they have launched an appeal for anyone with knowledge to come forward. The murders are linked to the notorious pedophile hangouts in London at the time: in Elm House, Barnes, another in Dolphin Square, Pimlico — just a short walk from Westminster — and a little-publicised address in Kensington.

  6. Correct me if this is not circumstantial evidence

  7. What annoys me is that a child goes missing nobody gives a damn but God help anyone who speaks out

  8. Proctor is a convicted sex offender and fits description so he’s open to be questioned not defended imo

    • Justin Sanity

      @Mr Bernard – yes, that’s grounds to be suspicious. So, have you taken the next step and verified if your suspect could have been in the right place at the right time? Where is your evidence that HP was NOT sitting in the House of Commons on that date?

      You can’t jump from – “X” is a convicted sex offender and [in your opinion] fits a witness description of a potential suspect – to “therefore X is the guilty party”, with no other corroborating evidence in between.

  9. My mother and my grandmother were PIE members. I believe my grandmother abducted Vishal and may have abducted Martin. I am a witness to Leon Brittan’s CSA, plus other VIP’s. The evidence is there.

    • Really? What were their names as I have the full police PIE list and I can check them off?

      • My mother is The Right Honorable Deborah Elspeth Leathers, my grandmother was Viscountess Elspeth Graeme Leathers

      • There is nobody on the list with that surname. I should say that the police list isn’t a complete membership list, there are gaps.

        That said, oscailandoras, I have looked at what you’re saying on Twitter and your blog and it resembles what Nick has been saying, ie, wrong on too many points for me to point out here, even if I were inclined to do so – which I’m not.

        Message to ‘David’ please do not post personal details of other commentators/readers. It’s not your place to do that and they’ve been trashed.

      • David

        I did some checking on him, the ages are right. His brother now lives in SA just got married.

      • tdf

        @gojam

        Apologies if this has been discussed on the blog before, but is it possible for you to indicate why the police list is not the full list?

      • David

        @ gojam I was quoting from his blog which is online.

      • David

        oscailandoras’ brother did say at his wedding, (video online), that his girlfriend was so convinced he was gay because he was so camp, she never expected to marry him. So maybe hypnosis was involved.

  10. tdf

    @ oscailandoras

    Well, Gojam can check the details against his list. And if he finds no matches you have just committed a slander, as the person you claim is your mother is still living.

  11. Well, I have a lot more experiences relating to PIE and CSA in general that I have not written down yet. My initial accounts were put out because I want to corroborate “Nick’s” account. You seem to be very sure about yourself. I was there. Were you?

    • Justin Sanity

      @oscailandoras – You said: “…because I want to corroborate “Nick’s” account”. That’s quite the give away, isn’t it? You sympathize with Nick and wish to support him by concocting a seemingly corroborating eyewitness account of your own.

      Apparently you don’t understand that “Nick’s account” was apparently concocted by him, to make him a corroborating eyewitness for claims and allegations made by his friends in an online community of CSA victim claimants and advocates. That’s why “Darren” accused Nick of having “stolen” parts of Darren’s own victim narrative – Nick’s story was intended to be corroboration for Darren, (and several other people), so it falsely incorporates elements of Darren’s narrative.

      But Darren’s narrative is also false. Darren’s misleading falsehoods were compounded by Nick’s false “corroboration” and now by your own false testimony “corroborating” Nick’s falsehoods. This is how the truth about genuine CSA victims and their abusers gets buried under a mountain of bullshit. You aren’t helping “the truth” to come out, you are making it impossible for the police or anyone else to document it and act on it. You will only help genuinely guilty parties to escape justice.

  12. And who are you? I wonder if you are so cock sure of yourself under your real name?

  13. Your name is Jon Sawyer? Mates with dodgy cop Paul Settle?

  14. Justin Sanity

    @oscailandoras – your tales were quite silly, but your background research wasn’t bad – gojam may have been a tad harsh about that :)
    And if you really are whom you’ve claimed to be, I suppose its possible you might have some insights about certain person’s traits that could give you a false veneer of credibility.

    But this was hilarious: A thousand pounds! A thousand pounds, in 1980?
    Hahahahaha!!
    But that’s not really funny after all. I doubt that gay youth who were abused as children and ended up having to prostitute themselves to survive, would find your fantasy scenario at all humorous.

    Don’t forget to include an account of how you and/or your brother were blackmailed into compliance and secrecy by the threat of having child sexual abuse images of yourselves sent to your relatives & friends. Its very important to claim, that the threat of having irrefutable proof of your blackmailer’s guilt as a perverted sexual criminal and child pornographer, being placed in the hands of people who genuinely cared about you, prevented you from going to the police…with irrefutable proof that your blackmailer was guilty of being a perverted sexual criminal and child pornographer.

  15. Barking

    Oh but they can and they do jump to damning conclusions just like that.
    It wouldn’t matter a jot to these bigoted morons if it was shown that Harvey proctor was otherwise occupied in Parliament on that day. They would just decide that he still had the opportunity to nip out on a fag break or late lunch to abduct a boy, had a double who stood in for him when he fancied popping out to abduct a boy, or Parliament records were doctored to protect him and he was never there that day at all. They really are that crazy..

  16. It happened, I was there. None of you have said anything about the parts of my accounts which do not relate to “Nick”. Yes, a thousand pounds, what is so funny about that? It was not a payment for taking indecent photo’s of my brother, it was her asking for a thousand pounds for trafficking boys, whether she got the full amount I do not know, but she went from having an empty purse to having a load of rolled up £20 notes.
    Has anyone considered how Jon (aka gojam) has all this information? If my source is right and he is mates with bent copper Paul Settle then perhaps Jon is being fed misinformation? Being a one time Lib Dem councillor he may be mates with dodgy bleeders like Cyril Smith and John Pugh MP (and a whole host of other perverts in politics) which would affect his neutrality.

    • Justin Sanity

      @oscailandoras – what’s funny about that, is that it demonstrates your understanding of “boy trafficking” is based on your own imagination and not on the real-life experiences of child prostitutes in England at that time.

      I know who you are. Someone in your family really was friends with Tom O’Carroll, and you had some involvement in his latest trial.
      Pederasts and pedophiles get no sympathy from me. For my own personal reasons I’ve been studying them and researching their relationship to the Gay community for 30+ years. I understand all too well how they groom people like your parents (or Grandparents?) to gain access to their children. Everything about them is a carefully calculated false front, a con-job, leaving the parents thinking: “he’s a bit odd, but harmless really” – which is of course a LIE!
      I’m quite ruthless about exposing their fraudulent rationalizations, however cerebral and academic sounding they may be capable of making them sound to others. I’ve exposed O’Carroll’s self-serving bullshit, specifically, several times in recent years.

      Its a pity, perhaps you really could have been a valuable witness to persons and events of that time, if you weren’t so determined to fabricate fraudulent “corroboration” of other people’s false narratives. But what you are currently doing is wrong, wrong, wrong, buddy!
      And I have no choice but to expose ALL the bullshit – whether it is spewed by Tom O’Carroll or by “David” – whom I recently caught blatantly inserting his own words into a witness statement from the Martin Allen case, making the witness appear to say things that he never said. Falsifying evidence doesn’t help anything or anyone.

      And you are wrong about Gojam. He alienated himself from a broader discussion of these issues, long ago, by confronting people that he saw as being apologists for pedophiles and sexual criminals. You really are barking up a wrong tree, here.

      • David

        @ Justin Sanity. If I am the David you are referring to, ‘ blatantly inserting his own words into a witness statement’, then which witness statement was this?

      • JS, you may like to know that apparently oscailandoras’ brother won’t corroborate him despite having been abused by Cliff at Elm Guest House himself because he’s been hypnotised into believing that he had a happy childhood…

        I’m just grateful that there is a rational explanation for his brother’s reluctance to support him.

      • @JS
        I have not been involved in any official trial, ever.
        Tom O’ Carroll? Who in my family was friends with him?
        Why do you think my grandmother was not taking boys to the fun fair or the zoo and then to be abused by paedophiles?
        @Jon Sawyer
        My brother did have hypnotherapy for his ‘stutter’ and at the same time he was hypnotised regarding all the CSA. Are you saying he did not?

  17. Aardvark

    It is self evident by now that the Liberal Party has had a veritable trove of blackmailable offenders and like all the other political parties has much to hide. What you mention in this context is not beyond the realms of probability and has been widely discussed on line. I have always thought that it is very important to keep an open mind regarding Nick’s accusations, it is obvious that some people are capable of anything, we hear of it in the news every day, just think of the evil actions of the Cook gang, why should some power hungry VIPs, with perverted propensities be any different? As has been discussed on this forum many times, there have been many perverted paedophiles, who have walked the corridors of power and have been protected from prosecution. The big issue is the way the allegations have been disseminated by the media, who has actually benefitted from the way the media has behaved and who is pulling the strings?

  18. Justin Sanity

    @oscailandoras – if that is not who you are, then you are simply and completely full of shit and there’s no point in talking to you at all.
    Bye!

  19. David

    @ oscailandoras. Justin Sanity is quite pompous and you cannot really have an intelligent conversation with him. You cannot hypnotise someone to forget big chunks of their lives, so I suggest that as your brother is doing well in South Africa he would not want to risk his business ect by getting involved?

    • Justin Sanity has more experience and understanding of the issues at hand than yourself and oscailandoras put together and then multiplied by 100.

      • David

        No one is doubting Justin Sanity’s understanding of the issues. But he tends to make broad, sweeping statements, almost pontificating on subjects. But I was referring to his ability to have a measured conversation, rather that almost grandiose rebuttals as he did with oscailandoras, saying, and I quote, ‘ if that is not who you are, then you are simply and completely full of shit and there’s no point in talking to you at all.Bye! ‘.
        He accused me here of making up witness statements, but when asked which statement he retreats into a grand monastic silence? Conversation does not seem to be his strong point, but his speeches are very good !

    • @ David.
      Yes, my brother wants to put all the childhood abuse behind him, forget about it, move on. And yes, I am not sure where this Justin Sanity is coming from, he sounds messed up. Not sure about Jon Sawyer either.

      • David

        @ oscailandoras Two things I was going to ask you. I see you were living 18 minutes walk, 4 minutes by car to Elm Guesthouse, but where do you think your mother etc was procuring these boys from? And noting the family, were you and your brother not away at boarding schools most of the time, or did you go to a local school?

  20. @David, It was my grandmother who was procuring the boys, she was working for Albany Trust/Princedale Trust. I think she was getting these boys from North Wales (My aunt Maria told me at a wedding in 2010 that all she remembers were the boys in the back of Mima’s {my grandmother} car-she {Maria} lived in N Wales at the time) and my grandmother also went to AA meetings in Richmond so could have got boys from Grafton close. But she could have driven anywhere to get them (from her house in Kirdford)
    My brother and I went to local state schools; Westfields primary school and Sheen comp. We moved to the west country August ’81 and back to London (Wandsworth) Aug ’84 and I did my last year at Sheen school.

    • David

      @ oscailandoras When did you start doing all this research ? Are you saying your grandmother was a go-between, paying to get boys from places like Grafton close, then selling them on at a profit, acting as a ‘madam?

      • @David, I started to recall all this in early 2012 after confronting my mother (via email) about her abuse. It was a year and a half before I started recalling what my grandmother was up to. Yes, my grandmother was taking boys for a day out and then taking them to paedophiles. She met Sydney Cooke at the funfair. My mother had a large drawer FULL of cheque book stubs which could have been from Albany/Princedale trust or PIE, so I think she was doing the accounts. My grandmother also set up (done the catering for) PIE party’s at EGH and her own home (Vergers, Kirdford) My mother had a children’s clothes shop in White hart lane, Barnes (Child’s play) where I witnessed CSA and she was providing princess/ballet costumes to Leon as he came in and cut a hard deal with my mother. The police were involved in the end regarding the CSA at the shop. My grandmother was also snatching boys off the streets. I firmly believe she took Vishal.

    • David

      @ oscailandoras I have done quite a lot of investigation into Vishal as it was related to Martin. Can you describe your grandmother as she was then, and the clothes she used to wear?

  21. kehinde Adeyemi

    “I’m disappointed by recent comments from a relative of a missing boy. I was hoping that, with the “nick” as proxy plot having fallen apart so completely, and the volunteer-martyr accuser himself under investigation, this boy’s relative would drop his vendetta and do all he can to contribute to the new investigation – and without desiring or attempting to manipulate it.
    Apparently not.”
    I hope that someone close to this man might at least persuade him not to pursue any further vendetta-motivated schemes, because this one has proven that they are at best counter-productive to the goal, and for his own sake – no more failed ‘operations’ martyrs are needed.
    1. I’m sure no one wants to find out how they would think feel and act on a day to day basis because they have relative who has been missing for x amount of years

    2.
    “And therein lies the problem. Just like a cult, anyone who expresses an alternative view that deviates from their ‘truth’, by definition is part of the conspiracy to cover-up this ‘truth’. The conspiracy is a closed loop ensuring closed minds.”
    There are 3 sides to a coin not two heads the edge and tales. The edge being the impartial, once you believe you are immune from a closed mind you are in a closed mind trap already.
    The term “cult” can work for those opposed to exposure of what exactly happened and is happening just as much as it can be applied to those being referred to in these posts.
    Beyond A reasonable doubt works in equilibrium for those that are for supporting an event’s credibility as well as those that are against, both have to be certain that they are beyond doubtless-unequivocal certainty that an event did happen just as much as those against have to be equally beyond doubtless unequivocal certainty that the event didn’t happen. And somewhere in between the truth will emerge. The problem happens when either side starts to accuse one of having a closed mind when they are more the guilty of the same accusation a closed mind.
    Moreover a court is only operates like a computer it only understands the evidence it is programed with. So no court proves an event did or didn’t happen it only proves whether the prosecuting team or defence team have any evidence to emphasis an event or circumstance has occurred.
    Only the fool leaves his house and believes because he is not there to see his or her house that their house no longer exists; a fool because bulgers will prove to this fool that their house does exist and their belongings that were once there and are now in the house of burglars that burgled the fools house. AN Analogy just in case anyone attempts cheap argumentative tactic over strategy and feigns or pursues facetious strategies.

    3.I wish I could tell Kevin that I knew what happened to Martin but I don’t. ”
    You are right and it is a dangerous game to pretend to know just as much as it is a dangerous game to pretend to not know, best keep an open mind or contribute to good research.

    4.

    “Can you not countenance even the possibility that you’re wrong? And if you can countenance the possibility, however minute in your mind, can’t you see how damaging this all is?”
    I’m sure you have diligently applied this same question to your own self and your own position before you applied or asked these restrictions of others. If you have not its classed as hypocrisy or worse hyper-hypocrisy.”

    ############################
    5. “Nick has given a very detailed account of what he knows and without proof that he has lied…”

    Let’s say that’s true.

    So what? What of it? What conclusions follow and flow from that point?

    The answer is, none! Why? Because one cannot prove a negative. Simple rule of logic.”

    I’m sure here you mean that If something had happened relating to what Nick’s statement you along with the general public of cognisant main and empathic soul that is considering no one on earth has a deal with criminals ensuring that their child is not victimized in any way. Considering that the same thing that Happened to Kevin and Martin there is no provision of perfect immunity from this or any crime, so empathy decrees unless you are some stone cold sociopath or psycho path that you want stone cold clarity on what actually happened be it something of nothing rather than perfect display of prescribed impressive logical tropes which have no bearing on facts and events that pre-date this year last year the year before or this blog or the next impressive but hollow tactical augmentative displays of prowess. Blog conversations heavy with people being argumentatively tactical at worst and at best strategic are a sign of investing in undue criticism towards the issue you are addressing, and sing of secret acceptance of fair guilt.
    ####################################

    5.

    ###########################
    “I cannot claim to prove that, for example, a former MP definitely was not involved in murder. Neither can the police. Neither can anyone! But, there is no actual evidence that he was. Therefore, he is innocent. That’s how the criminal justice system is supposed to work.”
    Again like a court, with or without evidence you can only prove the lack or presence of evidence does not mean you have proved innocence nor the presence of absence of guilt. . Again a court does not prove innocence or guilt it just proves that you have or don’t have, or are yet to get, evidence. Don’t confuse being innocent or guilty with having or not having evidence.
    ###########################

    Conclusion

    6.
    Is there anyone here who really believes that if Gary Glitter, Jimmy Savile, Max Clifford, Rolf Harris and Sydney Cooke would not feed off, exploit, create anything that would have prevented their capture and damasking if they could even if it meant creating, fanning, feeding, exploiting any form of conspiracy that helps to preserve their freedom reputation in the face of being convicted of a crime no one in the o earth or the universe will Forgive you for. Does anyone really think that you are going to get the Ronny Biggs style good ole boy backrower style volunteering of information after being caught and or handing them self in there is no book and movie for criminals who make children disappear of perpetrate the only thing that can and will induce mental illness for life. This is the apex of Anathema in crime do you really think it won’t attract the most Machiavellian and Hyper-Machiavellian and meta-Machiavellian desperation to hind conceal and exploit any attacks on those seeking to uncover the truth an d get justice.

    7.

    Note: Is there anyone here who can change events that have already happened like say in 1979? Please p.m. me as I have a few events I would like to change. If not Then I’m sure I don’t have to tell you that no more than say Kevin and his family change what happened to Martin; no more than the police, politicians, general public or pseudo intellectualised tactical posts on a blog; nor conspiracy theorist or counter-conspiracy theorists, nor can belief system orientated people change any event at occurred in the confines of a room that unfortunate child victims spent their last hours or one of their many hours in the company of evil men. Evil souls hiding from a crime that no one will ever forgive them for you bet they will hide behind cunning Machiavellian even behind meta-Machiavellian you bet they will exploit every angle to ensure that no one knows about their crime on children.
    When is the last time you have heard of a Paedophile admitting killing or raping someone’s child. The only one who ever did that was Sydney Cooke and the admittance was part of his baleful gratification; and he did it while inside prison already for the mass rape of Jason Swift a case that if no one had found Jason swifts Body may have also suffered from the afflicted belief system that one event in the future like Nick or controversies surrounding Nick can change an event in the past or the if no evidence exist for anything then that thing or event didn’t happen or doesn’t exist. Who in their right mind believes this notion as having any Logic as logic seems to be the favourable word of the hour. You bet The paedophile is the most cunning criminal on earth that makes the cunning cyber pro-criminal look like a lollipop lady.
    SO chasing these kind of criminal takes a whole new kind of perspective that obviously few people have judging moreover by the posts and the frustration this lack of perspective causes victims of crime who know or about the case than they are able to say for fear of jeopardising any future court case in the vent some perspectives on earth WAKE UP and start applying what they throw around ad victims of crime to their won positions its easy to be critical of others not so easy to practice healthy self-criticism enlighten e please on how easy you poster of seemingly cognisance are capable of self criticism. Please show if this is possible apply self-criticism to your positions of belief and disbelief see if they hold up to events that happened long before anyone even know the name Kevin or Martin.

    8.
    The tactical argument Alphabet of shame
    A = Feigning a lack of understanding conveniently to protect their own insecure argument of what person means even if it is not expressed in a favourable or in a way out of your comfort Zone
    B = Distraction tactic: Relying on irrelevance to distract from the relevant like dwelling on grammatical or spelling errors in a response
    C = Over loading communication with the affiant of flowery misused university literary diction to hide insecurities in the true post penetrative tested argument
    D = Resorting to silence in order to avoid being tasked on issues you have championed
    E = Failing to apply the same restrictions limitations to your won position while enforcing it on others, and not correcting or citing this and hoping it is not noticed
    F = Mirroring: Copying the way and style someone addresses the issue in a puerile attempt to brow beat a response that is obviously addressing the issue you raised and should address
    G = Scavenging: Scratching around for chinks in the amour of an augment with no real interest in an constructive conclusion just ego-driven an bruised ego-driven tactical vindictive valediction
    H = Using pseudo intellectual smoke and mirrors-Logic in spite of the Basic Facts decree, that their logic is hollow. Like trying to convince people and the self that past events can be changed for example
    I = Relaying on the delegation of secondary credibility positions as a form of basis: Like institutions: if the newspaper says so it must be so, if the police say so it must be so, if the priest says so it must be so.
    J = Emotive smoke screens and Blinding: attempting to blind readers with an excess of emotion instead of practicing basic self-criticism of a missed step or a missed issue.
    K = Intellectual chess playing: The more serious the subject matter the further and further away it is from a game. Cunning is not a skill nor a virtue it is a form of desperation, and it has nothing to do with intellect and is an eternity in distance away form wisdom. So avoid. Honesty is best and most untouchable protection.

    No one here has any excuse to be practicing this, unless you are a victim who has lost themselves to rage, upset, trauma then it cannot be classed as a symptom of Post-traumatic stress disorder
    9.
    IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO CAN CALIM TO BE OFFERGIN ANYTHIGN OF AN Y POSTIVE-CONSTRUCVTITY TO THIS NEW CRISIS ON THE RESOLUTIO OF THESE CASES AND JSTICE FOR THE UNILATERAL VICTIM AND LATERLA VICITM. ANYONE ANYTHING EVEN REMOTE IN CONTRIBUTING TO THIS VERY SPECIFIC CONCLUSION-SOLUTION? ANYONE???!!!
    10.
    The study of Events
    From every event that ever planted feet in to the earth’s soil of reality, that is every event doesn’t matter if the event fall of the Persian Empire to Churchill’s death, to Martin’s abduction, just before any event there is a list of minds that will be in harmony with the true shape of any event, whether by unknowing accidental cognisance or deliberate cognisance.
    These minds will be on course and positive trajectory towards having the right attitude and open structure of thought and mind so when this even eventually unfolds it won’t matter whether they are at the event, or at its immediate after math, missed the event or they are examine the event 2000 years later they will never presume to change the shape of the event with their opinion or pseudo intellect one way or the other. Instead like the good archaeologist they will simply brush away the dust and allow its voice to speak uncontaminated by yours or other voices.
    No not the pretend effort that entails people saying “This situation speaks for itself.” This is a contaminated archelogy where people are speaking for the event while purporting to allow it to speak. No this won’t qualify.

    Let this case speak uncontained by lip-service and pseudo logic, pseudo- intellectualisation.
    A long definition of truth.

    Before you reply or continue to attack the situation around any case including the “Nick” situation gauge cogently where you fit in to this grid.
    Species of truth
    1. Physically engaged by an Unfolding of Event comprise of yourself others and Environment-terrain /topography of event
    2. visually engaged by the event witnesses
    3. Physical Event Impact
    4. Fact of event Both conductive facts (Undisputable facets of an event), deductive facts (What the consequential product exposed when two indisputable facets of an event align or are juxtapose ).
    5. Deduction
    6. Inference
    7. Hersey
    8. Speculation
    9. Opinion
    10. Belief system
    11. Fantasy
    12. Lie
    13. Sophisticated Fabrication
    14. Machiavellian

    Definitions of Substance of reality
    1. Definition of Truth: The impending exact dimensions and shape of an event occurrence, long even before the event is on course to occur or arrive and long before it can be altered by perception of man beast of technology.
    2. Definition of Reality: The substance of on event of thing before any soil both natural and or artificial can demark it via a literal primary to tertiary footprint or figurative Primary to tertiary.
    3. Definition of event: The physical Substance and Mechanical structural narrative of a situation circumstance occurrence as it unfolds
    4. Definition of Fact: An undisputable fact of an event or the event itself if it is undisputable.

    Spectrum for the basis of Truth
    1. Concrete physical contemporaneous experience of an Event
    2. Visual contemporaneous witnessing of an event
    3. Physical visual experience of the immediate aftermath of an event
    4. handling concrete substance of evidence of the event
    5. Primary handling of the immediate aftermath of the event via a Cogent credible appraisal of the event by a certified official of clear record and background
    6. Secondary handling of the post immediate aftermath of the event via Credible cogent certified office of clear record and background
    7. Tertiary handling of the long term aftermath of the event via credible cogent cognisance certified office clear of record and background
    8. Archaeological historical cognisance of the event via certified credible background in archaeological or historical events/ crimes

    Scale of Truth validation Penetrative Acid testing.
    Answer this! Where Equality is key here, just as much as the camp fighting for justice have to apply diligence to themselves so do the other side of the argument must equally do so or explain cogently why they do not! Equally the camp who wish to close all cases must apply the equal amount fo diligence and retain and equally open mind. so find out where you are the lower you are on this scale the worse off you are in making a beyond doubtlessly unequivocally conclusive or verdict on any case so they must stay open.
    1. The true verdict of an event is validated by a witness physically experiencing an event so it must be true??
    2. The true verdict of an event is validated by a witness physically present at the event so it must be true??
    3. The true verdict of an event is validated by a visual experience of a witness seeing the aftermath of an event so it must be true??
    4. The true verdict of an event is validated by a Statement so it must be true??
    5. The true verdict of an event is validated by an expert so it must be true??
    6. The true verdict of an event is validated by a Court so it must be true??
    7. The true verdict of an event is validated by a Newspaper so it must be true??
    8. The true verdict of an event is validated by a Policeman so it must be true??
    9. The true verdict of an event is validated by a Solicitor so it must be true??
    10. The true verdict of an event is validated by a Politician so it must be true??
    11. The true verdict of an event is validated by a Priest so it must be true?
    12. The true verdict of an event is validated by your own opinion so it must be true?

    Source of truth
    1. Evidence
    2. Witness
    3. Consequence
    4. Pattern: Pattern of presence juxtaposed with patterns of absence patterns of factology
    5. Archaeology: Brushing away the dust that conceals truth
    6. Tests: Penetrative acid testing
    7. Investigation
    8. Diligence

    Diligence has to be practiced by both sides of the augment not just the victims and their families.
    Are you practicing basic diligence?
    Basic Diligence
    1. Affirmation
    2. Re-affirmation
    3. Confirmation
    4. Re-confirmation
    5. Pre-finalisation confirmation
    6. Finalisation
    Advanced Diligence?
    Check 1: Each facet of a case of subject assigned a number or letter of the alphabet
    Check 2: Each facet lie A – compared to every single other letter of the alphabet and or number before progressing to the next letter and then the former process repeated form A through to Z and then in reverse form Z through to A.
    Check 3: If One single letter or number the whole process is starts form 1. Or A. Until no letter or number is clear of compromise.
    Check 4: The conspicuous facets of the Alphabet are equally and cogently studied with the inconspicuous facets of a case.
    Check 5: Fresh mind check: The mind can be deceptive in the absence of diligence so a period is given then returned to the case of subject
    Check 6: Third Perspective check: This is an outside perspective a colleague to add dimension to your check
    Check 7: Expert perspective: An anatomy of multiple experts that provide a gauge of quality wider dimension
    Check 8: Last light Impact assessment check: Through check of if committed to the air waves what will be its map of impact
    Check 9: Last light check before your finalise a commitment to the air waves.

    Bee

    Huntress

    • I did start to read this but I gave up.

      Toss a coin as many times as you like, and get back to me only after it’s landed on its edge.

  22. David

    @ kehinde Adeyemi I am not sure what you are trying to say here? The original investigation missed a few vital clues, and because the case files went missing, later investigations were hampered. Having a very logical mind I am always asking the question , ‘why’. Why did certain events take place ‘where’ they did, why did they walk from A to B.

    Looking at cases where you come up against a brick wall, the best thing to do is find the motive for the crime. The motive can tell you a lot about why certain events took place, and why other events did not take place.

    Is this particular case it does look as if no crime was intended to be known, as they went on a crowded train, with many witnesses. No abduction, no crime, and no disappearance.

  23. tdf

    There have been some significant developments recently – the Radio 4 programme which interviewed Lady Brittan and Paul Settle, and the House of Commons Select Committee interim report into the IICSA, and Gojam may well blog about them.

    In the meantime, on my travels over the net, I chanced on an interesting comment from a commenter on another blog, ‘Randall’, who points out some basic logical errors in the thesis that the vast majority of allegations MUST be believed:

    “The argument given in support of high percentage of truthfulness in sexual allegations is that there are very few prosecutions for false allegations. The argument goes:

    1. If many sexual allegations were false, then there would be many prosecutions for them.
    2. There are not many prosecutions for false allegations.
    3. Therefore not many sexual allegations are false.

    This is the logical fallacy of Denying the Antecedent. There is a variety of reasons why there might not be many prosecutions for false allegations, so the truth of the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the truth of the premises.

    Secondly, [another commenter] talks about similar fact case law, which was originally quite restrictive. There had to be established facts (such as a series of ritualistic murders, in which the dead body + paraphernalia establishes the fact of the events) that could not be put down to mere coincidence. The practice of bundling presents this argument:

    1. Complainant A alleges that the defendant molested her in a certain way.
    2. Complainant B alleges that the defendant molested her in the same way.
    3. Complainant C alleges that the defendant molested her in the same way.
    4. Therefore all the complainants are telling the truth.

    This is the logical fallacy of Begging the Question. It assumes the truth of the very propositions to be tested. The propositions to be tested are whether A, B and C were indeed molested by the defendant as alleged – or not. If you read through the argument once again, you’ll notice that there’s no way of knowing whether A, B and C are lying or telling the truth. Presenting them all as mutual corroboration of each other assumes their truth and violates the presumption of innocence.”

    The commenter then asks:

    “Are legal professionals unaware of these logical fallacies, or are they aware but choose to ignore them?”

    Food for thought, I feel.