Harvey Proctor, Exaro and the pursuit of justice

Harvey Proctor’s news conference on Tuesday was either a chilling display of hypocrisy, or the moment a brave man finally took on the combined might of a misguided Metropolitan Police and a small but nasty and highly influential section of the press and internet. By so publicly denying the appalling allegations that have been levelled at him, Mr Proctor has ensured that his accuser’s claims – that he and other boys were raped and tortured, and in three cases murdered by a paedophile ring that also included Leon Brittan, Ted Heath, various Generals and the heads of MI5 and MI6 – can no longer be ignored.

The allegations come from a man with the pseudonym “Nick.” Amongst many other appalling sexual crimes Nick says that Mr Proctor threatened to castrate him with a pen-knife and was stopped from doing so only by the intervention of the former Prime Minister, Sir Edward Heath. And worse even than this, Nick accuses Mr Proctor of murdering two boys, and implicates him in the murder of a third. No bodies have been found and the identity of the boys allegedly murdered – though the subject of considerable online speculation – is unknown.

Of course if the police receive allegations of child abuse and murder it is essential that they investigate them. The more serious the complaints are, the more important that they are properly investigated.

Readers will draw their own conclusions about whether the allegations are likely to be true. The idea that Ted Heath, the very archetype of a “One Nation,” pro-Common Market Conservative, would be likely to cavort at sex and torture parties with a maverick from the extreme right of the Party, someone he had had removed from the official Party candidates’ list and one of the many people that, according to Proctor, Heath would not even deign to talk to, was ridiculed by Proctor and will strike many as exceedingly unlikely.

The campaign to investigate “VIP paedophiles” has been led by the online news organisation “Exaro News.” For understandable reasons Mr Proctor described it as “odd.” Exaro’s Editor in Chief, and the person whom we must assume takes overall responsibility for the campaign is Mark Watts. Mr Watts is a highly experienced journalist who, before setting up Exaro, had contributed stories to the Daily Telegraph (amongst other papers) and who also for a short period hosted a news discussion programme on the Iranian backed TV station Press TV (to his credit he resigned).

He must know the incredibly high stakes for which he is now playing. His liberty may not be at stake, but as the public face of Exaro News his reputation for responsible journalism most certainly is.

If Exaro is proved right and successful prosecutions of “top people” follow, it will be entitled to claim that it was its campaign that nailed paedophiles and murderers. If it is wrong, then its treatment of people like Harvey Proctor, Lord Bramall and Leon Brittan will be seen as quite outrageous. Although it has been careful not to name names too early, its modus operandi has been to release just enough information about Nick’s allegations to encourage speculation amongst a small army of self-appointed internet paedophile hunters who seem to have nothing else to do but share their conspiratorial obsessions with each other all day, and especially all night, long. By the time the first police raid on Mr Proctor was carried out – also, lamentably, though these days entirely predictably, leaked by somebody to the press – nobody following the story would have been in much doubt that he was one of the “two still living Conservative MPs” that featured in Nick’s story, the other, at the time, being Leon Brittan.

Either Exaro actually has stumbled across the story of the century, or it has been muckraking on a grand scale, exploiting a possibly vulnerable “witness” and exposing innocent people and their families to a grotesque and seemingly endless trial by internet. Mr Proctor may or may not be right that Leon Brittan was “driven to his death” by the campaign against him, but anyone relentlessly, anonymously and falsely accused of rape, paedophilia and child sex murder might well feel that death was a relatively easy option.

In an internet trial there are no rules of evidence, no right to insist on answers to questions or even to know the identity of the accuser. “Nick” is anonymous and as a result almost beyond criticism. Why did he contact Exaro in the first place? We don’t know whether he sought them out, or whether they went and found him. If the latter, why and how did they find him? Has he been paid for his story? Exaro has not revealed. Has he undergone therapy? Exaro has said only that he has had “counselling” although its nature, a potentially crucial issue, has not been revealed. Why, if his abuse stopped in 1984, did he wait until 2014 before contacting the police? Why, for example, did he not contact the police in 1987 when Mr Proctor was very publicly implicated in what was then regarded as a “gay sex” scandal? Why, as Mr Proctor asked, was a representative from Exaro permitted to be present when he was interviewed by the police? Those publicising Nick’s story at Exaro, skilled and experienced journalists as they are, are able to reveal or conceal whatever details they like and have – as Mr Proctor pointed out – dripped out a steady trickle to keep the story alive over the last 14 months. Even to question Exaro’s methods is to invite the ludicrous accusation from their online supporters that you are an apologist for paedophiles and murderers.

Exaro has been helped by a motley collection of other news outlets, with the Russian propaganda station RT, for example, giving considerable airtime and publicity to its star presenter George Galloway interviewing Exaro’s Mark Watts in a way that makes his infamously sycophantic interview of Saddam Hussein look like a hostile cross-examination by George Carman.

None of this means that the allegations are untrue.

But even if they were to be true Exaro’s behaviour would still have been contemptible. By publicising carefully chosen details of Nick’s allegations Exaro has undermined any potentially corroborative witnesses, and given encouragement to any false witnesses that might be tempted to jump on a passing bandwagon.

And once it started leaking its titillating gobbets of evidence, it can hardly claim surprise that, after months of silence on the details of the case, Mr Proctor has finally decided to put the whole grotesque case against him into the public domain. If Exaro can act as his chief prosecutor, then why should he not try to defend himself?

The upshot is that should Mr Proctor ever stand trial, the central evidence against him will have been laid bare in public for months, if not years, in advance. It will be all but impossible to find jurors capable of coming to the case without prejudice or preconceptions.

Many of them will – perhaps even today – be forming unshakeable opinions about his guilt or innocence on the basis of Exaro’s untested assertions and Mr Proctor’s statement at yesterday’s news conference. We have sub judice rules to avoid precisely what Exaro’s actions have, quite foreseeably, brought about. Since no charge has been laid against Mr Proctor there has been no technical breach of the law but it is hard to imagine a more comprehensive trashing of its spirit. The possibility of a fair trial for Mr Proctor, and for that matter for Nick, have been sacrificed in the interests of Exaro’s publicity.

Exaro were greatly assisted in December when the senior police officer in the investigation, Det Supt Kenny McDonald announced to the BBC that he believed “Nick’s” allegations to be “credible and true.” When challenged over his story Mr Watts constantly defends himself by reference to this announcement.

It was a disgraceful statement from a police investigator. His job is to investigate, not to judge and most certainly not to broadcast his opinion on national television. Expressing any opinion about the truthfulness of a witness would – as he knows perfectly well – be wholly inadmissible and improper even in the controlled environment of a trial. To announce on national television that you believe a suspect is guilty of multiple rape and murder, at the beginning of an investigation, before a single body has been found, and months before speaking to Mr Proctor, suggests such incomprehensible levels of prejudice and foolishness that it is mind-boggling that this man would be entrusted with leading the investigation into the alleged crime of the century.

This has now gone on long enough. It is probably a forlorn hope, but either Mr Proctor should be charged and prosecuted, or his accusers should fold their tents and silently steal away. Exaro’s motto is “holding power to account.” Fine words, but time will tell whether it is Mr Proctor, or the Metropolitan Police and Exaro News itself that are the powers that must be held to account.

A slightly shorter version of this article appeared in the Daily Telegraph on 26th August 2015.

Liked it? Take a second to support Matthew on Patreon!

Author: Matthew

I have been a barrister for over 25 years, specialising in crime. You may also have come across some of my articles I have written on legal issues for The Times, Standpoint, Daily Telegraph or Criminal Law & Justice Weekly

74 thoughts on “Harvey Proctor, Exaro and the pursuit of justice”

  1. ‘Credible and true’ , I think, in police terms, means a credible witness, not that his account of events is true?

    Being a police investigation, means that there may be many variations of the truth, and Harvey Proctor may not be the only suspect.

    Nick may have been the first person to report his experiences at the hands of a group of paedophiles involving murder, but he was not the first person to report murder involving a group of paedophles connected to Elm Gusest House, and Dolphin Square.
    Due to lack of investigation material, the first report of murder, given about a month before Nick’s report, was not able to be investigated. But recent events may now have made that investigation possible.
    As I have said before, there are two possible, and credible, ‘Harvey Proctors’, the one we see being investigated, and onother one, who is not actually, Havey Proctor.
    The other one, who is connected to Elm Guest House, and possibly, Dolphin Square, could yet be charged.

  2. How many times must it be repeated that:
    1. The Elm ‘list’ is fake
    2. The ‘murders’ popping up appear to be in the long tradition of such unreliable progressive narratives, therapeutically ‘recovered’, and hark back to the ‘snuff movie’ myths or yore and variations thereof.
    3. The credibility of Nick appears to have been aided by being ‘well-spoken’ and able to tell the story – the first, though pleasing to so many, is clearly no guide to reliability. The second suggests the police have no sceptical experience of the provenance of many fake narratives (which of course they could investigate via therapy notes etc) Either seems there’s nothing in what they said to indicate that ‘Nick’ might not be a liar, fantasist or con-man with a great future behind him.

    1. The Elm Guest List is not fake. I have tested it many times, with ‘unknown’ names. Giving a sirname, and being given the persons first name. Staying overnight, in a very expensive guesthouse, in the suburbs of London, does sugest that you must be paying over the odds for another reason, other than a bed for the night. You might have been a gay VIP trying to avoid the press etc. But the extras available seem to have brought in quite a bit of extra money as well.

      1. The ‘Elm list’ was compiled, by Chris Fay, who induced desperate fantasist Carol Kasir, under the pretext of helping her get her kids out of care, to confabulate and nod at pictures.

        Fay was under pressure because he was being sued by Peter Bottomley re defamatory statements concerning Greenwich and children’s homes. In fact newspapers who had carried the libel settled with Bottomley for a 6 figure sum – £200K I think – a lot of money at that time.

        Fay was compiling a ‘list’ of all the figures then on rumour radar which included unlikely people such as Ray Wyre, doyen of the satanic abuse fantasists himself.

        Wyre of course was a probation officer in Hampshire at the time (early 80s) with no public profile at all.

        How would Kasir remember or know him in the unlikely event of his ever having visited?

        Such was the craziness of the paranoid rumour machine at the time (1990-1) that the fantasists began to accuse each other…plus ca change.

        Fay of course was convicted as an accessory to a boilerroom fraud – persuading elderly vulnerable people to invest in a scam.

        Kasir committed suicide with an overdose of insulin. The idea she was ‘murdered’ was ludicrous. But she was under pressure for ‘names’and ‘more evidence’ from Fay.

        1. I’m sure MJ has heard all this before, but it’s worth spelling out what a flimsy fake the Elm Guest House list was. Like many of Chris Fay’s inventions, it was heavily derivative of the MSM of the day. Most of the names were people involved in well-publicised scandals. Others were celebs known or rumoured to be gay, while others were individuals Fay or Kasir had a grudge against.
          Fay also took names from Mary Moss’s notes, which were an incoherent catalogue of various persons she imagined to be connected with child abuse. This is where Ray Wyre’s name came from, though Moss didn’t link him to EGH or even directly accuse him of abuse. Moss’s notes also contained a version of the ‘running boy’ story about Leon Brittan’s supposed paedophilia, which Paul Foot and others had rubbished years before. Again she made no link to EGH, but Brittan was too big a name to miss, so Fay put him on the list. So the inclusion of Brittan doesn’t substantiate him being a paedophile, it’s merely a recycling of an old exploded rumour. Nevertheless, it inspired the ‘Uncle Leon’ story, the ramblings of Andy Ash, and ultimately Nick’s claims. A lie goes half way round the world etc.

          1. Really?You truly are spouting rubbish,dear.
            Ask Richard Kerr.He waa trafficked to EGH and Dolphin Square from Kincora.He has provided total proof of that.There are 100 other reasons we could give you,like confirmation by the police re Cyril Smith being there.
            Then theres those photos,of course.But we wont go on.And those who,for some reason,have it in for Chris fay and abuse victims Andrew Ash(worth),and Esther Baker- are about to find a very large egg on their face very very soon,we assure you of that.

          2. Thank you.Very interesting. How the ‘names’ came to be chosen – no doubt a mix of avid group speculation, personal animosity and paranoia. I think too it should be said that we only have the Met’s word for ‘proof’ on Smith’s visitor status – via the belated claim of ‘broken toilet seat unpaid for’. No records appear to be forthcoming to corroborate this, though it is of course possible he was attracted by the Monday Club discrete gay guesthouse recommendation.
            I did wonder though whether more recent police interviews with Harry Kasir might be the source of this. If you remember Mr Kasir was anxious to leave the country and I believe did so without charge. Speculation of course, sure it will be on the record somewhere.
            Why else would the police’confirm’? As for neighbour belatedly making a sighting claim,source of this appears to be veiled in Exaro secrecy, as is so much.

          3. Richard Kerr would have been about 20-years old at the time he claims (“total proof”?!?) to have visited Elm with a client. He may have been previously “trained”, “persuaded” or even “forced” to engage in such activities (as a child in N. Ireland), but in London & as an adult he was doing what many, many others were & continue to do: turning a trick.

            (I’m sure many other “sex-workers” also have a tale of woe to tell, but it is unrealistic to think that a client is somehow responsible for whatever led them to lead the life they are leading.)

            Cyril Smith visiting Elm? I tried gleaning more information from David Hencke about the alleged police ‘confirmation’ of his attendence – no luck:
            https://davidhencke.wordpress.com/2014/11/24/child-sex-abuse-will-the-police-finally-catch-the-perpetrators/#comment-15134

            (Perhaps he had an appointment with a 20-year old prostitute?)

            The photos? There are no photos. There never were. (Maybe some of those masquerading as police stakeout operatives could now come forward that the threat of the OSA has been lifted & back-up their anonymous claims? Proctor, for example, has urged anyone to come forward who can honestly place him at the alleged locations, Elm of course being one. Any one? No one? You don’t say…

          4. Ah,Bandaini,surprise surprise..The photos taken at BELVOIR CASTLE involving Robert Maxwell et al.Now who went to live at BELVOIR CASTLE,Mr bandini and Mr Scott?Do you not know about these photos,Bandini?How about YOU,MR SCOTT? Theyre very well documented,among many other photographs taken elsewhere that show Cyril Smiths scar and Mr Brittans tattoo.Carry on your pedo-defending,you little bunch of distasteful deluded and very repugnant individuals.The Establishment is right with you on this.

          5. So now we’ve moved from Elm to Dolphin Square and on to… Belvoir Castle!
            Leon Brittan’s tattoo, eh? I’ll trump you with the well-documented snap of Ted Heath’s third nipple I’m gazing longingly at as I type… cor!

            (I’d post a link, Anon, but I’d be worried about ending up on a multi-killer’s hit-list. So you go first, eh? Oh, and an explanation for not broadcasting it to the world while he was still living wouldn’t go amiss, either. Shall I bother holding my breath?)

  3. The idea that Ted Heath, the very archetype of a “One Nation,”…..would be likely to cavort at sex and torture parties with a maverick from the extreme right of the Party,
    …..one of the many people that, according to Proctor, Heath would not even deign to talk to, was ridiculed by Proctor and will strike many as exceedingly unlikely. ‘

    Good point Matthew ! The people making up these stories are really not very bright are they ? They think, Jersey, HDLG, child abuse and murder (even though no bodies were even found), and they come up with :
    1) Ted Heath he has a yacht
    2) Jimmy Savile he visited the Island several times
    Both these men have one thing in common, they were both to a degree, one-man bands ! The idea of either of these two being part of any ‘ring’ is ridiculous once you know even a little about them.
    Well done Matthew !

  4. The words “…credible and true,’ sit uncomfortably together. Stating that something is ‘credible’ suggests a doubt; seeming thruthfulness (despite contrary evidence) or possible truthfulness (as yet unproven). Credibility would seem redundant in proximity to truth.

    I’m reminded of Dickens’ The Haunted House in which, briefly, the narrator rents a ‘haunted house’, and his servants, and visitors to the house, appear to be terrified of the place – *genuinely afraid*, and seriously spooked by noises and disturbances they encounter. But they also appear to be *deliberately creating* some of the disturbances themselves. He sends them all away in an effort to remedy the situation, and concludes:

    “I content myself with remarking that it is familiarly known to every intelligent man who has had fair medical, legal, or other watchful experience; that it is as well established and as common a state of mind as any with which observers are acquainted; and that it is one of the first elements, above all others, rationally to be suspected in, and strictly looked for, and separated from, any question of this kind.”

    One would hope that a senior policeman would be an “intelligent man who has had fair…watchful experience,” but it seems hard to imagine such a person publicly declaring such allegations ‘credible’, never mind ‘true’.

  5. Interesting to see “rabbitaway” here,who runs the “Justice for Savile” website.
    Oh,and look-theres Margaret Jervis too.
    We must say-you DO have quite an interesting fanclub,dont you?

      1. Really,Ms Jervis-That must be why the police are looking at rabbitaways threats made to Esther Baker on twitter,as well as said persons “justice for Savile” website.You are certainly playing a very devious underhand almost criminal game of chess,Ms Jervis;must be your liking for dodgy yoghurt signals,eh?Youre almost up there with Barbara Hewson…well,you can try,we guess,cant you,dear?

        1. TSMM : ‘threats’ ? I haven’t threatened anyone at any time ! Feel free to contact me via my own blog or email enclosing evidence to back up your nonsense claims. I’ll come back later and update readers when I don’t receive this within 24 hours. Have a nice day now !

          1. Well,Rabitaway and your “justice for Savile” website-we have screenshot mark Williams-thomases concerns on twitter,which,
            in particular, NAMES YOU and a certain Mr Eric Hardcastle.Maybe you would like to ask Mr Williams-Thomas why he named you and Harcastle,in particular,hmm?How is your “justice for Savile” campaign website coming along,btw?

          2. Response to TSMM comment @10.57am 31st August 2015
            Your 24 hours was up 2 hours ago ! Like I give a monkeys if some hack has ‘concerns’ about me or anyone else for that matter ! Oh, and my blog is going very well thank you very much. More than 115,000 views now, in part, thanks to people like you ! Cheers

          3. we’re so terribly sorry we were 2 hours late off your orders.We had far more pressing things to investigate and do than to reply to the orders of a bordering on criminal paedophile apologist.Enjoy your little website,while it lasts.There are campaigns to have it taken down,and it will be,seeing that you attract and support the likes of Tom O’carroll and Jonathan King.Run along now,and report your indefensible reasons behind your very disturbing little website to us on here by 10 am tomorrow.

  6. Mr Scott,it is increasingly apparent that The Establishment and MI5 are desperately trying to do a “scallywag” on Exaronews.
    We will include you,and your very questionable motley crew of fans here to be part of this rather murky dishonourable bunch.

  7. why did you delete our comments,but have kept the comments of “rabbitaway”(and her Justice for Savile website) and Margaret jervis?Do you realise how very very suspect that makes YOU look,Mr Scott?
    We will leave it there for now,but you are being monitored,Mr Scott,and M W-T is monitoring the activity of “rabbitaway”,Eric hardcastle and company at the Anna Raccoon website.The vile and criminal attacks towards victims of abuse,on Twitter and elsewhere, must be,and will be,stopped.
    We hope we have made ourselves clear,Mr Scott.

    1. What previous comments? I never disallow any legal comments. By all means repost whatever comments you are talking about and, if it is legal, I will post it. If it’s not, I won’t.

      You haven’t actually “made yourselves clear” at all. I have no idea who you are or what your threat is, although you’re trying to sound like gangland musclemen brought in to intimidate a rival heroin dealer. If you’re going to issue threats like that you might at least give me your name.

      Anyway, I am glad you’re “monitoring” this site. You might learn something about justice and due process.

      1. Well,Mr Scott,we are certainly learning about the distasteful company you keep.We note you are associated with Ms Raccoon aka Ms Nundie /Cameron-Blackie.
        And no,we’re no “muscle men” and it is rather vulgar of you to suggest so,but not unexpected from a barrister with rather warped views on protecting alleged child abusers.
        We also notice Ms Lizzie Cornish is among your little club here,too.Speaks volumes,Mr Scott.You do realise that your little friends here having been making criminal threats and insuklts towards Esther Baker on Twitter,dont you?This has been noted by mark Williams-Thomas among others,and this kind of gross behaviour will not be tolerated by the police.So just to let you know,Mr Scott,youre keeping very very undesirable company.

      2. Justice and due process,are obviously not even remotely adhered to by you,judging by your contemptible and vile views,mr scott.
        And as for you and your little gang of Raccoonite friends here,some who have broken the law,can you put them back in the asylum,where they’ve clearly just been let out from?
        Thanks for deleting our comments again,Mr Scott.Is your name Jonathan Sawyer?lol.You both speak from the same sheet of paper,dont you?Oh,and we’re certainly not Epiphany Tiffany or whatever that mad woman is yabbling on about below . Regards TSMM.
        Holding power to account.

        1. I have noticed that, as in ransom demands, when people use the pronoun ‘we’on social media, they usually mean ‘I’.

          1. That’s odd,Mr Scott-your blog here is almost identical to mr sawyers.Word for word,in fact.Maybe he copied your questionable
            “views” on this matter.

    2. Ah, I know only one such internet person who speaks with the Royal ‘we’, and that is ‘Robbie’, now known as ‘Epiphany Tiffany’, whose Youtube site is here:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4zv-SLLH7M

      If you recall ‘Tiffany’ we had a very long discussion on this youtube page, all now wiped out, I see, by you, with a ‘no comments’ action having been undertaken.

      In this, you describe Rolf Harris as being a rapist, which is libel, of course, as you well know.

      You used to be all over the Twitter page of Mark Williams-Thomas too, needless to say, agreeing with everything he says, whipping his sycophantic followers up into an even deeper sense of Shark Feeding Frenzy…and now, here you are yet again, writing disturbing things, in yet another effort to suppress and defame GOOD people who dare to question the insanity that is going on in the UK.

      The fact you are now spreading the lie that Rolf is a rapist, shows me how desperate you are getting in your efforts to destroy all those you loathe.

      Rolf has been sent to hell, wrongfully convicted, set up from the start, in my view, police officer on his jury, a MET police officer at that, from the same force as Operation Yewtree…whom the judge refused to replace when Rolf’s former lawyers requested this.

      To get back to Harvey Proctor and ‘Nick’, I am well and truly sick to death of the way this country is now entertaining nutcases who sit behind their Care In The Community computer screens causing chaos around the world, tearing apart the lives of innocent people, spreading vile and vicious rumours, none of which have ANY actual evidence of course….

      Sorry to cause offence….well actually, no, I’m not sorry at all, because when they sent Rolf to prison I decided to go back to the old ways, of common sense and ‘telling it like it is’, so I no longer use the Politically Correct Orwellian Speech any longer.

      What disturbs me even more though, is the fact the police BELIEVE these folks and are so terrified, it seems to me, of being ‘outed’ by Mark Wiliams-Tiresome for not investigating this nutty rumour, or that, that they have now all seriously lost the plot entirely!

      If this was a film script, people would be leaving the cinema in droves, so unbelievable would it appear, but now, this is ‘normal’ in Lunatic Britain, where no-one must DARE to speak up or speak out, and if they do they will be shot down in flames by The Dimentors & The Suppressors who will screech ‘paedo-lover!’ ‘child abuse supporter!’, quickly rallying their nutty friends to leap in over on Twitter, or on to pages made about those who dare to speak out and question The Emperor.

      ANY police officer who says, publicly, that he believes someone to be credible, prior to a trial..and even then, prior to that trial having ended, should INSTANTLY lose his job!

      WHAT is going on in the UK now?

      Rhetorical Question, sadly.

      Look to those who are making a £$FORTUNE from all of this, to the greedy ‘victim-trawling’ lawyers, to those who run private child protection companies, (such as Mark Williams-Tiresome, who also charges £3,000 to £8,000 an HOUR for talks on said subject…Look to the newspapers who care only about boosting their £sales, to those seeking £Compensation for a new holiday, a new house, a new car…To those who also want Endless Pity and Endless Sympathy, making them feel ‘special’ and ‘wanted’, etc…to those seeking revenge so dark that it beggars belief….

      And whilst innocent, good people are being Defamed by The Deranged, these folks remain totally anonymous, given police protection, sympathy, empathy, whilst those they accuse are paraded all over the media, their lives blown apart, FOREVER, for even if some own up to false allegations, many NEVER believe them, so the innocent are tainted for life, no support give, no £compensation for ruined lives…Younger men who are thus accused are not allowed to be alone with their own children…

      Sending people to HELL seems to be OK in the UK now, and those who are doing the sending can simply remain hidden for life, not even their accusers knowing who these people are. Often, they are not even prosecuted. Greater Manchester Police said recently that they will never prosecute any woman who makes a false allegation.

      PARDON???????

      They should not only be prosecuted, but should get an extra year on top for damning someone to hell.

      The Feminists are behind this, as their belief is that NO women will come forward if they feel they may be accused of false allegations…and now, we have reached INSANITY stage, where just the accusation alone is ‘proof of guilt’ for so many odd people.

      No-one is safe now, no-one.

      Harvey Proctor was incredibly brave to stand up and shout out. He knew his past would be brought up all over again, yet still he made this brave decision. I agree with every word he said and the police and Exaro should both hang their heads in Absolute Shame over what they have done, what they are a part of.

      Personally, they all need a jolly good verbal kick up the backside!

      I no longer trust ANY police force in the UK and am seething about what is going on.

      Rolf should NEVER have been sent to trial, let alone to prison, EVER..and for the police to have deemed ANY of the four main claimants against Rolf as being ‘credible’ just beggars belief, it truly does.

      However, as one Operation Yewtree officer left to join Big Brother,(I kid thee not!) NOTHING surprises me any longer!

      We have police officers who appear to be little more than some terrible joke now, who seem to have no comprehension of what is right and wrong…and who are petrified of being called paedo-supporters…

      Well, Ye Police Officers Of Britain, STAND UP to The Witch Finder General and his assistant, Liz McDuckingStool, both of whom, in my view, are driving this whole insanity.

      And then, there is Rupert Murdoch, but that’s a whole other story.

      MWT and Dux appear in the Savile documentary, made by MWT…Dux is part of Slater & Gordon who OPENLY admit they came to these shores from Australia PURELY because of the way our Personal Injury Laws were changing, allowing historical sexual abuse allegations…

      Slater & Gordon have 4 of their lawyers on the Top 10 of the richest folks in Australia and have recently moved into their biggest European offices, here in the UK. One of their lawyers was on the BOARD of ‘Heal For Life’ where all the sex abuse and devilly devil tales were running rampant in Oz not so long ago.

      MWT said on his Twitter page yesterday that ‘Nick’ must be protected and cared for, etc…but what about Harvey Proctor? Does he have NO RIGHTS AT ALL? Does he NOT have a right to privacy? Does he NOT have a right to have the police behaving in a normal and legal way, dealing with this in total privacy and confidentiality?

      It is beyond belief that anyone can make such outrageous and ludicrous allegations, then these are almost instantly all over the internet, in the media, whilst the person whose life is immediately in shreds is just left to deal with the appalling fallout, no-one giving a damn. Indeed, it is putting his very life at risk, for now, Harvey is deemed by many of The Strange Ones to be guilty and that’s that…

      The police KNOW that Rolf was NEVER at Leigh Park where he was alleged to have abused a 7 year old (the woman just happened to have been declared bankrupt in 2012). They KNOW it was not Rolf who looked at the (legal) porn sites mentioned, just as they know there was no child porn. They also knew he was NOT at ‘It’s A Celebrity Knockout’ in 1975 as the BBC sent them the film, yet STILL they allowed her story to go to Court, knowing it was a lie. They also knew Tonya Lee had lied to them, had made $66,000 from her Rolf story…and had lied about her entire statement too…yet still they let her go to Court…And don’t even get me started on Bindi’s EX friend, else I shall self-combust!

      We ALL have to start standing up to this lunacy. This crazy idea of believing everyone who has a story to tell, is madness…and now, our legal system is tailor-made for Crackpots & Crooks, I’m afraid, who are lining up for their £Compo, laughing all the way to The Bank Of Easy Money, whilst also choosing which politician/famous person to take down next, whom they’ve never liked, or been jealous of..

      Truly sickening..and anything BUT the world my Darlin’ Dad went to war for in 1939.

      ‘Everyone’s a Victim’ now.

      Let’s hope Another Hitler doesn’t rise up, because everyone will be In Therapy and not able to attend Battle Of Britain II.

      Well done, Harvey Proctor for having great courage in taking The Insanity On.

        1. Yes,well done Keith Harvey Proctor,previously the secretary of Jo and Co,who designed the BBCs Pudsey Bear for Children in Need.
          SO…Lets analyse Mr Proctors movements of this week-
          MONDAY-Police interview
          TUESDAY-holds conference
          THURSDAY-swiftly moves abroad to live..
          hmmm…

      1. Not us,dear,-who is this Epiphany Tiffany??But- we HAVE come across you before,and your insane rantings defending convicted paedophiles.
        We are documenting high profile pedo-apologists,and your name has come up before and has been noted.This agenda of trying to protect convicted paedophiles and alleged paedophiles-and attacking abuse survivors and campaigners,will be stopped.We don’t care who your are,what your agenda is,or who you work for or represent.The decades of protection is OVER.Understand?

        1. Sorry, Robbie, I recognize you’re style of writing SO well, because you’ve written so much to me on your youtube page in times gone past. Your desperation to suppress everyone, to defame them, besmirch their good character, make out they keep the company of paedophiles….Why, ’tis an excellent job you are on the Twitter page of MWT, for like attracts like, they say. Tell me, ‘Robbie’ ‘Tiffany’ and now ‘TSMM’, do you know MWT *personally*?

    3. Hi Robbie,

      Is there any chance that you could arrange for the ludicrous M W-T to start “monitoring” my activity. It’s just that I think he’s a charlatan, a fantasist and one of the worst self-styled journalists I’ve ever come across and it would distress me greatly if he remained unaware of this.

      1. Sorry,no Robbie or Epiphany here.You have the wrong people.But then-making very very invalid and poor judgements,and guesses, seems to be the name of the game on this website,doesnt it?

  8. How much did the Waterhouse Inquiry cost? £13.8 Million or thereabouts and all it achieved was to give a platform to what turned out out to be mainly liars, fantasists and sad drama queens who would have said and done anything to give their nondescript and entirely miserable existences a purpose.

    If you want to read about the lengths that people will go, and the fairy stories that they will concoct, when the compensation carrot is dangled before them, one need look no further that ‘The Secret of Bryn Estyn’ by Richard Webster….

    http//:secretofbrynestyn.wordpress.com

    1. Hello,Jimmy Jones.
      Fancy seeing you here.
      Well,well.
      So predictable,it almost hilarious.
      All we need now is Sam Best and Anna Raccoon to pop up.
      Mr Scott does indeed keep very very questionable friends,does he not?

      1. Not knowing your identity as you cower behind anonyminity, makes its difficult for anyone to judge who you are – therefore also making it difficult to see who you actually associate with.

        I have made a comment on a well written article on a popular blog site, as is my right, which hardly gives the owner of said site personal knowledge of me, nor I him does it?

        So that hardly makes us ‘associates’ does it?

        Except to somebody with a slightly warped mind or a vivid imagination, the same type that makes mainly anonymous and false allegation perhaps?

        So excuse me if I disregard any opinion you have, until you at least have the courage to let the readers see who you are.

        1. Warped minds and vivid imaginations appear to be the name of the game on here,Jimmy Jane Russell Jones,judging by the ludicrous comments posted here by the Anna Raccoon fan club,do they not?

  9. Matthew,

    In Proctor’s statement he says that his police interviews were voluntary and that he and his solicitors had previously been told that he was *not a suspect*.

    Does that specifically mean *only* that he’s not under threat of immediate arrest?

    I appreciate that attempting to apply common sense to legal matters is not always sensible, but in the case of specific allegations against a named individual, especially in the absence of clear evidence that the crime took place, surely the police have only one thing: a suspect.

    If he was not a suspect, on what grounds could police possibly search his home and remove his possessions?

    1. Well,he very quickly moved abroad,folowing his conference,and refusal to provide a DNA sample,so something was definitely afoot(-his shoehorn,maybe?) 😉

    2. The same grounds that allowed the home of Christopher Jeffries to be searched and his personal possessions to be taken away to be examined perhaps? Spurious allegations have a nasty habit of starting a chain of events that inevitably lead to not only wild, unsubstantiated gossip, but also a lot of unnespcassary

      1. *typo* unnecessary and disruptive police activity. Which can of course prove very costly if one is wrongly accused.

        (Can you please add this my earlier comment and delete this one?)

        1. Outlaw, I think Jeffries was arrested prior to the search of his home. And, though the police were mistaken, I think it was clear that he was a suspect.

          But ‘unnecessary and disruptive police activity’ certainly sounds like the cause of Mr Proctor’s distress, unless the police have much stronger grounds for investigating him than the information in the public domain would suggest. Then again, if they had much stronger grounds for investigating him, I would imagine he could reasonably termed ‘a suspect’.

    3. He is not under threat of arrest, he was only helping with enquiries.If you are reported for any major crime these days, your house will automatically be searched.
      He was not a suspect, even though he had been reported by Nick, as there was another Harvey, who had been reported before Nick did, for the same crime.

      1. Thank you, Stephen. I didn’t realise that it was that easy to obtain a search warrant. I understand that a search may be carried out without a warrant when someone is arrested – so, I think, in the case of Christopher Jeffries his property could be searched if he was arrested there, whether or not the police had a warrant.

        But I’m surprised to learn that the police are able to search a property as lightly as you suggest. It’s hard to imagine that they could hope to find evidence relating to a crime, at the home of someone not suspected of committing the crime, when the crime is claimed to have been committed long before the person not under suspicion took up residence… unless there was some other connection between the property and the alleged crime.

        An Englishman’s home does not appear to be his castle.

        Another Harvey…reported for the same crime before this Harvey? Is it a case of mistaken identity?

        1. Misa, the idea that Proctor had a ‘double’ has recently surfaced: a tall blonde paedophile was known to operate in Brixton, or summat, they (now) claim.
          The notion that Proctor was snatching children from the street to be abused & murdered came principly from an artist’s impression of a suspect, who in ONE of the sketches could indeed pass for a Proctor-like creature. However, the stetches were in black & white and anyone bothering to read the acompanying description would have soon had second thoughts – the suspect was a well-built man, Proctor is gangly; the suspect was dressed head to toe in demin, Proctor not known for this look; the suspect may have had a moustache, again Proctor not known for sporting a ‘tache. All that was missing from the denim-clad man’s description was a colourful handkerchief hanging out of his back-pocket!

          Needless to say, none of the back-peddlars wanted to pay much heed to these facts at the time (not that artist’s sketches of suspects are always known for bearing much resemblance to the actual perpetrator anyway). So they’ve decided there was a second Proctor and are busy comparing the sketch to anyone else who might possibly have been connected as if it were a crime-scene photograph! They now seem to have alighted on someone with ‘previous’, but I’ve yet to see/hear an apology for their previous unevidenced smears.

          I’m not sure if the Stephen to whom you are replying here is the same Stephen as made the first comment above, but if so then he is a ‘believer’ in the Elm-list, and therefore in Chris Fay(ke). Fay is adamant that Proctor was involved, and I don’t think he was referring to Proctor Version 2.0. If it IS the same commentator then perhaps Stephen could explain his simultaneous support for BOTH the ‘real Proctor’/’false Proctor’ stories. It’s too much for this little head of mine.

  10. Should anyone wish to make a reasoned comment one way of the other, please do not be intimidated by the empty threats and calumnious slurs of ‘TSMM’.

    For myself, I speak in the name of truth and justice and am not going to apologise to anyone if I treat fellow human beings as such.

    As to people such as Mark Williams-Thomas, who routinely libel and smear myself and others as ‘pro-paedophile’ (presumably relying on the fact that I and others do not always accept the twittermob, police or even the courts’ verdicts as being the truth without reasoned evidence) I have no comment.

    But I would doubt he, or others, were interested in pursuing a sincere vendetta. If only through vanity.

    There’s much to say and much to do. Sadly we live in an age of political paralysis which extends down through the system, though dictated by the noisy minority.

    That’s why Harvey Proctor’s defiance broke through the torpor.

    Even though his political views do, and did, not chime with the age, what he said was a Churchillian challenge to indifference based on reason, and what’s more – he had a reasoned alternative.

    Silence, of course. For now.

    After, but maybe before, his time.

    1. Very verbose,Nargaret.But still as deluded as ever.
      Have you spoken to sir david veness?
      Have you spoken to Kevin Allen?
      We suspect you haven’t.
      We have.
      In your quest for truth and justice,you overlook the truth and hide behind the establishment rearguard of evading justice by their very power,along with some very deluded and quite sickening beliefs.
      As Mr proctor runs off abroad like Lord Lucan.
      Now you run along too,dear,and let truth and justice take its course(hopefully without orders from Mi5 to shut it down this time).

      1. Right TSMM, I think you’ve had a fair opportunity to make your points. I’ve not allowed just one of your comments, because it was clearly libellous. I’m going to take a rather tougher line with you from now on, unless you can come up with something more interesting than abuse.

        1. We do hope you take the same stand with your little gang you have here,mr Scott?
          But we expect you wont,as you sit firmly on their side,we note.And let us warn you,Mr Scott,we will be taking a very tough stand with YOU,and your little gang of pedo-apologists you club together here-someof whom continue to threaten and intimidate abuse survivors.So don’t come the gangster bullyboy with us,sunshine.Or you might find yourself under investigation very soon,too.Is THAT understood?We hope we have made ourselves clear to you and all your rather disturbed gang who gather here.
          We WILL continue monitoring you and your friends behaviour and activity.And any action necessary will be taken up by police and other authorities to deal with all of you.

          1. I’ll let that one through because it’s so unpleasant it’s funny. “Don’t come the gangster bully boy with me sunshine”. Dear oh dear. You might enjoy this.

  11. When authority seeks to conceal real VIP crimes,
    that Special Branch have covered up for decades,
    probably due to a secret Home Office policy,
    what better way is there
    than pretending
    to take seriously some extraordinary allegations,
    inflating the balloon to it’s maximum,
    and then popping it?

    The police and the legal system
    have been playing dirty tricks for many years,
    but we can now see through the smokescreens of lies.

    🙂 Zen

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *