Category Archives: Uncategorized

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

THE FALL OF GORDON ANGLESEA

REBECCA

anglesea_head_dTWENTY FIVE years after he was first named as a sexual predator Gordon Anglesea has been brought to book.

On Friday a jury of five women and six men branded the retired police superintendent a child abuser.

They did what North Wales Police, the judiciary — and £20 million of public money had failed to do.

They unanimously convicted him of four counts of indecent assault against two boys in the 1980s.

Anglesea is remanded on bail until November 4.

Judge Geraint Walters told him “there can only be one sentence and that will be a prison sentence”.

The six-week trial was a raw, bad-tempered affair.

The jury were unhappy because they were in court for less than a third of the time.

rebecca_logo_04MINUTES AFTER Friday’s verdict Rebeccarevealed the existence of a new allegation against Anglesea — in 1997 he was accused of indecently assaulting a woman. Even though he lied to the police when…

View original post 7,973 more words

4 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

EXCLUSIVE: GORDON ANGLESEA — NEW REVELATIONS

REBECCA

headline_grid_guiltyGORDON ANGLESEA was today convicted of historic child abuse at Mold Crown Court.

The jury of six men and five woman unanimously found him guilty on four counts of indecent assault.

He was found not guilty of one charge of buggery.

Two men had claimed the retired North Wales Police superintendent abused them when they were teenagers in the 1980s.

The end of the case means Rebecca can reveal dramatic new developments in the case.

In 1997 a woman made an allegation that she had been indecently assaulted by Gordon Anglesea.

The woman — “ an adult acquaintance: of the family” — reported the matter to the North Wales Police.

angleseaLYING
GORDON ANGLESEA admitted lying about an indecent assault which took place some time in late 1996 or early 1997. The fact that Anglesea lied under caution has been suppressed by the North Wales Police for nearly two decades … .
Photo: Trinity Mirror

The…

View original post 833 more words

23 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Hillary Clinton Is Obviously Very Ill

Look at Hillary Clinton’s eyes during her speech yesterday.

This is no longer a conspiracy theory and it certainly isn’t pneumonia.

This is not funny.

She obviously has a neurological disorder and should not be running for President of the USA.

If she does not withdraw then there are two possible outcomes.

  1. Trump will win.
  2. She wins and her deceit against the American electorate is revealed after her election and 50% of the US public react.

Neither of those outcomes seem ideal to me.

She needs to withdraw from the race ASAP

10 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Nick, Daniel Janner, And Henriques

capture1

Daniel Janner QC with his father

News yesterday that Daniel Janner QC, son of the late Lord Greville Janner, intends to take out a private prosecution against the Operation Midland witness Nick for perverting the course of justice. [link to Sunday Times story at foot of page]

The Sunday Telegraph revealed that Sir Richard Henriques, who is conducting an internal inquiry into the handling of VIP CSA investigations by the Met which is due to report on October 6th, had written to Lord Janner’s family with a summary of the allegations that Nick had made against Janner.

Sir Richard wrote to the Janner family: “Nick does not describe any specific incident involving Lord Janner. All Nick states is ‘he wasn’t the worst or one of the nice ones’.

“Nick states that he did not know who Lord Janner was at the time and that he never said what his name was.”

The evidence supplied by Sir Richard gives further credence to claims that Nick simply kept adding names of notable dignitaries to his list of alleged abusers, possibly to attract more attention to his claims.

Sunday Telegraph

Let’s get one thing straight from the start; Lord Janner was a paedophile who abused young boys. Following an investigation by Leicestershire Police the CPS originally felt that the evidential stage had been passed but that the public interest stage had not as Lord Janner had dementia. David Perry QC who following the appeal of six victims conducted an independent review and concluded that it was in the public interest that Lord Janner should be charged.

Here is a full list of the charges that were brought against Lord Janner:

Charges

1. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Buggery contrary to section 12(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956 PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner, on a day between 16th August 1987 and 19th August 1987 committed buggery with Complainant 1, a child under the age of 16 years (namely 15 years).

2. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Buggery contrary to section 12(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956 PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner, between 21st June 1988 and 2nd August 1988 committed buggery with Complainant 1, a male person aged 16 years without his consent.

3. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Indecent Assault on a Male Person contrary to section 15(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner on a day between 16th August 1987 and 2nd August 1988 indecently assaulted Complainant 1, a boy aged under 16 years.

4. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Indecent Assault on a Male Person contrary to section 15(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner on a day between 21st June 1988 and 2nd August 1988 indecently assaulted Complainant 1, a male aged 16 years.

5. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Indecent Assault on a Male Person contrary to section 15(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner on a day between 13th March 1984 and 27th March 1984 indecently assaulted Complainant 2, a boy under the age of 16 years.

6. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Indecent Assault on a Male Person contrary to section 15(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner on a day between 27th March 1984 and 1st November 1984 indecently assaulted Complainant 2, a male aged 16 years.

7. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Indecent Assault on a Male Person contrary to section 15(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner on a day between 3rd July 1981 and 15th September 1981 indecently assaulted Complainant 3, a boy under the age of 16 years.

8. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Buggery contrary to section 12(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956 PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner, on a day between 3rd July 1981 and 15th September 1981 committed buggery with Complainant 3, a child under the age of 16 years.

9. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Indecent Assault on a Male Person contrary to section 15(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner on a day between the 10th October 1979 and the 7th December 1982 indecently assaulted Complainant 4, a boy under the age of 16 years.

10. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Buggery contrary to section 12(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner, on a day between 22nd August 1985 and 20th September 1987 committed buggery with Complainant 5, a child under the age of 16 years.

11. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Buggery contrary to section 12(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner, on a day between 22nd August 1985 and 20th September 1987 and on an occasion other than in charge 10 committed buggery with Complainant 5, a child under the age of 16 years.

12. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Indecent Assault on a Male Person contrary to section 15(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956 PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner on a day between 22nd August 1985 and 20th September 1987 indecently assaulted Complainant 5, a boy under the age of 16 years.

13. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Indecent Assault on a Male Person contrary to section 15(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner on a day between 22nd August 1985 and 20th September 1987 indecently assaulted Complainant 5, a boy under the age of 16 years

14. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Indecent Assault on a Male Person contrary to section 15(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner on a day between 21st November 1972 and 22nd December 1975 indecently assaulted Complainant 6, a boy under the age of 16 years.

15. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Indecent Assault on a Male Person contrary to section 15(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner on a day between 21st November 1972 and 22nd December 1975 indecently assaulted Complainant 6, a boy under the age of 16 years.

16. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Indecent Assault on a Male Person contrary to section 15(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner on a day between 21st November 1972 and 22nd December 1975 indecently assaulted Complainant 6, a boy under the age of 16 years.

17. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Buggery contrary to section 12(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner, on a day between 21st November 1972 and 22nd December 1975 committed buggery with Complainant 6, a child under the age of 16 years.

18. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Indecent Assault on a Male Person contrary to section 15(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner on a day between 1st April 1985 and 1st April 1988 indecently assaulted Complainant 7, a boy under the age of 16 years.

19. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Indecent Assault on a Male Person contrary to section 15(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner on a day between 1st April 1985 and 1st April 1988 indecently assaulted Complainant 7, a boy under the age of 16 years.

20. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Indecent Assault on a Male Person contrary to section 15(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner on a day between 16th June 1963 and 9th October 1969 indecently assaulted Complainant 8, a boy under the age of 16 years.

21. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Indecent Assault on a Male Person contrary to section 15(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner on a day between 10th October 1969 and 31st January 1970 indecently assaulted Complainant 8, a boy under the age of 16 years.

22. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Buggery contrary to section 12(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner, on a day between 24th August 1977 and 1st November 1978 committed buggery with Complainant 9.

CPS Blog

The Metropolitan Police passed Nick’s allegations against Lord Janner to Leicestershire Police who declined to include them in the charges set out above.

It seems to me that the specific case against Nick that his allegation against Lord Janner was an attempt to pervert the course of justice is very weak. Given that he didn’t originally name Lord Janner until an Exaro journalist showed him a photograph of Janner, according to Henriques, it appears that Nick could reasonably claim that his recollections had been contaminated and he had not deliberately set out to mislead the police.

That all said, other allegations that Nick made to Operation Midland against Leon Brittan, Harvey Proctor and Lord Bramall, for example, seem to be far stronger cases for perverting the course of justice than Nick’s allegations against Lord Janner. I note that in most of the stories from yesterday Harvey Proctor was quoted which may indicate that if any private prosecution did take place then it would relate to Nick’s Operation Midland allegations more broadly.

It would appear to this blogger that Daniel Janner QC is attempting to clear his father’s name by prosecuting someone who has made false allegations to the Met but whose allegations were not included in the very credible charges brought by Leicestershire Police.

I’ve been pretty blunt about what I think about Nick on The Needle, I’ve no doubt he is a fantasist who has misled the police and now, potentially, his false allegations might end up undermining the very genuine complainants against the late Lord Janner because if this does go to court then those genuine complainants will be forgotten and all everyone will remember are Nick’s false allegations.

So why hasn’t Nick been prosecuted before now ?

The first reason is that Operation Midland was a huge embarrassment to the Metropolitan Police. They’ll want to forget about this as quickly as possible and the last thing they’ll want to do is have the full details of how gullible they were revealed in open court. It’s bad enough that Sir Richard Henriques is going to report but the public won’t get to see the full cringeworthy details of the botched investigation.

The second reason is that if a police prosecution were brought then the CPS, assuming the Evidential Stage is passed, would conclude that it wasn’t in the public interest to prosecute Nick. It should go without saying that anyone desperate enough to claim that Harvey Proctor attempted to cut off his penis with a penknife but was stopped from doing so by Ted Heath has some serious emotional and mental health issues but also the CPS might conclude that other genuine victims of child abuse may be put off from coming forward if such a high profile complainant as Nick were to be prosecuted.

A private prosecution takes this out of the hands of both the Met and the CPS. Generally a private prosecution costs upwards of £100,000 but given that Daniel Janner QC or a colleague in his legal chambers can process the paperwork at ‘mates rates’ the cost shouldn’t be quite so high.

As soon as the application for a private prosecution is processed then the CPS must by law look at the allegation of perverting the course of justice independently and the public interest case is not so overwhelming that the CPS might not conclude that a Crown prosecution should take place.

So, the bottom line is that just applying for a private prosecution ensures that the CPS must look at the evidence and decide if there is enough evidence to prosecute themselves.

What I would point out though is that just because Nick is a fantasist, it doesn’t follow that Lord Greville Janner wasn’t a paedophile because he was.

A man whose claims about a Westminster paedophile ring prompted a £1.8m police investigation could face prosecution for attempting to pervert the course of justice.

The claimant, known only as “Nick”, made a series of lurid allegations about a number of influential figures including the former prime minister Edward Heath, Lord Bramall, the former head of the armed forces, the former home secretary Leon Brittan and the former Tory MP Harvey Proctor.

No evidence was found to back up his claims.

He also alleged that the former Labour MP Greville Janner — later Lord Janner — was part of the ring.

Janner’s family have written to an internal Metropolitan police inquiry demanding that Nick be prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

“If the CPS does not take action then I will be consulting our legal team about launching a private prosecution of Nick,” said Daniel Janner QC, the son of the peer, who died in December while facing allegations of sexual assault.

Sunday Times

30 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Senator Tim Kaine To Be Next US President At 66-1 Is A Fair Bet

Following my recent successes betting on Theresa May as next Prime Minister and Phillip Hammond as next Chancellor, I’ve just place £10 at Ladbrokes on Senator Tim Kaine to be elected President of the USA. [I found even better odds at Coral and I’ve put another £10 on him at 100-1]

Tim who ? Many in the UK might ask.

images

Senator Tim Kaine is the Democratic Party’s Vice Presidential candidate and in the event that Hilary Clinton withdraws due to poor health, it will be he who will contest the US Presidential elections in November for the Democrats against Republican Donald Trump.

It is important to understand that due to the fact that 13 US states have closed nominations, Bernie Sanders could not be selected as the Democrats candidate. Instead Tim Kaine’s would take over and a new vice presidential candidate would be appointed.

Given Hilary Clinton’s health problems, including today at the 9/11 memorial service in New York HERE, it looks like this outcome has a significantly increased probability of occurring – certainly far better than the 66-1 that I’ve just put £10 on. I’d expect those odds to shorten rapidly to around 10-1 as speculation about Clinton’s ability to continue increases.

If Hilary Clinton were to withdraw then Tim Kaine is a far less divisive figure than Clinton and Trump and in my view has a better than 50% chance of winning the Presidency.

Please remember not to bet more than you can comfortably afford to lose.

Many Republican senators can barely muster a positive word about their own nominee for president. But ask them about the guy running for vice president as a Democrat, Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine, and they positively gush about the prospect of working with him.

“He could be a tremendous asset,” said Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which Kaine serves on. “He understands the issues, he cares about having an outcome and I think he could be very effective with working with people here.”

“I don’t know anybody on the Republican side who has a bad thing to say about him. He doesn’t go out of his way to go after people politically and he’s all about policy,” added Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.).

For Hillary Clinton to have any prayer of getting things done if she wins, she’ll need to reverse eight toxic, standoff years between the Obama White House and Republican Congress. Kaine could go a long way.

The first-term senator has made a point of getting along with his GOP counterparts: He’s built a rapport with conservative firebrand Ted Cruz, delivered a book on polio to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell after hearing the Kentucky Republican discuss his childhood battles with the disease, and works out in the Senate gym with Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.).

For one party to praise the other’s VP nominee in the thick of election season is unusual, to put it mildly.

More at Politico.com

5 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

The Curious Case Of Dog That Didn’t Bark…

capture

Capture.PNG

Really ?

Tell me more Mark.

Capture.PNG

Let’s put aside how it is that disgraced and utterly discredited former Exaro editor Mark Watts came to know that DCI Paul Settle (for it is he) the former Op Fernbridge head was to be interviewed on Monday by the IPCC over allegations that he had  (irony alert) “leaked” information to the the press (all part of the rough and tumble of journalism – right Mark ?)

Mark Watts has helped me identify who the second complainant against DCI Settle was.

In case you’ve not been paying attention, the first complainant was ‘Darren’.

capture

Capture.PNG

The one thing that ‘Darren’ knows is who put him up to making an allegation against DCI Paul Settle. Though I’m unable to share the details, I know without doubt that Paul Settle didn’t leak to the press the information, and that surety is not based on what anyone has told me – I know!

Given that I know his details were not leaked, I’d suggest that The Telegraph may have discovered Darren’s identity because he attended an event where lots of journalists were and then appeared on BBC News on camera with his real name underneath. Doesn’t that sound more plausible ?

But Darren does know who suggested that DCI Paul Settle was the leaker and encouraged him to make a complaint to the IPCC. Did they write it out for you Darren, did you just have to sign it ? You’ve got them over a barrel.

I think whoever encouraged Darren to make a false complaint against DCI Paul Settle could be in big trouble – Perhaps Mark Watts might explain to Darren what ‘Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice’ is all about ?

So, you see that Darren really does know something important but does he realise ?

I genuinely had no idea who the second complainant against DCI Paul Settle was until Mark Watts started to tweet. (Thanks Mark!)

I had thought it might be Nick from Operation Midland but due to a great deal of research from my team (Thanks team!) I’m now able to reveal that the second complainant against DCI Paul Settle is…

Drum roll maestro!

Chris Fay!

I kid you not.

PS, I hope you all had a great Summer.

 

 

43 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized