Exaro News is playing a dangerous game with its paedophile murder story

Exaro News has been drip feeding allegations and rumours of a paedophile sex ring in high places for many months.

Today – in collaboration with the Sunday People – it has alleged that it was not only a sex but a murder ring. A Tory MP strangled a 12 year old brown haired boy in a central London town house in 1980. Apparently,18 months to two years later two other men murdered a second boy in front of another Tory MP, “a cabinet minister.” Both MPs, are “still alive.” Its source is a man in his 40s to whom they have given the pseudonym “Nick”. Exaro even mentions rumours of a third child murdered by being run over in the street, though I don’t think Nick claims to have actually seen more than one murder.

The scene was set yesterday when the BBC decided to join Exaro News in broadcasting an interview with a man in his 40s known as “Nick” who alleges that he was repeatedly raped by Conservative MPs and other “VIPs” in the 1970s and 80s. Nick, it is said, is grateful to Exaro News and to his counsellor for “allowing” him to tell his story in public, and wants to encourage others to go, as he has now gone, to the police to corroborate his account. According to the BBC he has been “in counselling on and off since he was in his twenties” and has only now “found the strength to come forward.” There was no mention in the BBC interview of any murder and Exaro have never previously revealed that Nick witnessed a murder.

Mark Watts the Exaro interviewer suggests “a lot of people will find your account hard to believe,” but that does not mean that Nick is lying. Nevertheless Exaro, and now the BBC, have acted extremely unwisely by catapulting him into the public domain.

Both the BBC’s interview, and even more so Exaro’s, go into considerable detail about the alleged abuse. We are told, for example, how Nick and other children would be driven to Dolpin Square where sex parties were held. They would be made to dance and sing, before being sexually abused by a group including MPs, “an ex-Cabinet Minister,” and other “powerful people.” Nick says that he was repeatedly raped while his head was held under water in a bath, and on a number of occasions he nearly drowned. Boys were injured, and a doctor, he says, was part of the group to treat these injuries. It was, indeed, a paedophile ring.

The first effect of broadcasting Nick’s detailed allegations is that anybody wishing to make a false allegation has now been given not just rumours, which in truth have been flying around on the internet for years, but a detailed and apparently first-hand description of exactly how another witness says the abuse took place. This, of course, flies in the face of good policing practice in which the account of one witness is never given to other potential witnesses precisely because of the danger of contamination. It is true that neither Exaro nor the BBC has actually given the names of the alleged abusers but 5 minutes on the internet would supply a selection of Tory MPs and cabinet ministers about whom rumours have swirled. Most of those who were cabinet ministers in Mrs Thatcher’s first administration are now dead, so the tidbit that the Minister in question is still alive narrows the field to about 10 suspects.

In any case involving multiple complainants the defence always strives hard to show that the complainants may have colluded with each other, or at least that later complainants knew of the substance of an earlier complaint, while the prosecution tries to show that such collusion or awareness is unlikely. Well, Exaro and the BBC together have comprehensively ensured that any future complainant will be aware of the detail of Nick’s complaint and his evidence will for that reason be devalued. In a nutshell, if a future witness relates similar details to Nick’s he will be accused of having learnt them from the BBC and Exaro interviews. It is on such issues that cases turn.

And it is not just the evidence of witnesses who have yet to come forward: Nick’s testimony will itself be undermined if potentially corroborative witnesses can remember only details publicised in the interviews. Exaro insists that it has “withheld many of the details of the deaths to avoid hindering the police investigation,” which rather begs the question of why, if solving two or three murders is the objective, they have not withheld all such details.

If Nick’s account is untrue, then to broadcast it is to feed a monstrous hysteria. The broadcasting of his unchallenged and uncontradicted account can only serve to prejudice any jury at some future trial. We have sub judice rules for a very good reason: the evidence against defendants should be given, tested, argued over and assessed in court, not out of court by people from whom any ultimate jury would be selected. The broadcasting of Nick’s interview does not breach the letter of the sub judice rules since there is, as yet, no defendant and no pending trial. It is, however, about as flagrant a breach of their spirit as it is possible to imagine.

Furthermore, if Nick’s account is untrue then it is grossly unfair on innocent MPs and the ten living Cabinet Minsters from the period. Inevitably speculation will be encouraged and inevitably some of it – quite possibly all of it – will be nonsense. Such speculation is bound to damage innocent people: and for what?

The suggestion that it was necessary to broadcast the interview to encourage other “victims to come forward” sounds distinctly self-serving. When somebody makes an allegation, whether of sexual abuse or of murder the proper thing to do is to contact the police immediately, not to extract newsworthy information from the witness, and only then alert the police before placing the information in the public domain.

It is true that Exaro says the witness has now spoken to the police himself, although apparently only after he insisting that an Exaro reporter was present at the meeting. This again is a pretty bizarre state of affairs. Witnesses sometimes request a solicitor being present, but the presence of a journalist at the initial interview of the police with the main witness in a murder inquiry is most unusual. These days a witness such as Nick would in all probability have his evidential interview video recorded. Are we to understand that an Exaro journalist was sitting in on the interview? That seems to be the implication of the Exaro story and if so it is wrong. Quite apart from anything else it creates a further opportunity for confidential information to leak out, as well as putting pressure on the witness not to deviate from the account that he gave to Exaro.

I have seen nothing to suggest that Nick has been paid, or promised any financial reward by Exaro. One would assume that the organisation would not have been foolish enough to do so but the precise nature of the agreement between them is certainly something that will be very closely examined should the matter ever result in a prosecution.

What the police are making of these unorthodox arrangements it is hard to know, but it is doubtful that they can be very happy about it. The impression given – it may of course be quite incorrect – is of Exaro running a murder inquiry with the police struggling to keep up. Exaro has in its possession a considerable quantity of notes and video footage relating to Nick and perhaps other witnesses too. Clearly all such material needs to be seen by the police. Has it all been handed over? If so, when and on what terms? In these post-Leveson days it is much to be hoped that the police have not made some cosy deal to leak information back to Exaro.

As well as Exaro’s records the police will also want to see any records held by Nick’s “counsellor.” We know nothing, at present, about the sort of counselling that he was giving.

There is nothing new about allegations being made against Tory politicians of the period, and they are not necessarily truthful. A not dissimilar account of Conservative Party MPs being involved in sexual abuse was given in the 1990s by someone called Carol Felstead and it provides a cautionary tale for anyone who might wish to rush to judgement. According to Carol’s therapists, she was anally raped in Conservative Central Office by a Tory MP with a claw hammer, and raped by not one but two members of Mrs Thatcher’s cabinet.

Just like Nick, Carol supposedly said she was abused first by her parents. She had been “ritually reborn out of a bull’s stomach, placed in a grave ‘on top of her dead sister’ and rescued by her father who was dressed as the Devil.” She later claimed to have given birth to six children who were then aborted and ritually sacrificed.

Some of Carol’s story was told, not to Exaro or the BBC but to one of the country’s best known therapists and psychoanalysts, Dr Valerie Sinason, who incorporated some of it (changing Carol’s name to “Rita”) into the work that made her name: Treating Survivors of Satanist Abuse. According to Dr Sinason there are:

“Men and women, dedicated to Aleister Crowley’s guiding principle ‘Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law’, worship Satan as their god in private houses or in churchyards and forests…They drink blood and urine and eat faeces and insects. They are involved in pornographic films and drug-dealing as a means of raising money. They are highly organised, successful in their secrecy and have a belief that through this pain and abuse they are getting closer to their god.”

Sinason is also on record as believing that Satanists go to “castles and woodlands” to practise human sacrifice, cannibalism and bestiality with dogs and goats.

Not surprisingly Sinason’s grand ouevre has been rubbished by many psychiatrists. “Credulous, superstitious, iatrogenic illness-inducing, self-righteous, incendiary garbage,” was one description of it at a Maudsley Hospital convention of psychiatrists, who together voted it the second worst psychiatric publication in the last hundred years, comfortably beating Laing and Freud. Indeed so dreadful did they find her work that it was beaten only by a bizarre 1943 experiment involving the near strangulation of prisoners and chronic schizophrenics to test the effects of stopping blood flow to the brain.

Sinason specialised (and is still paid by the NHS to specialise) in the treatment of a condition called Dissociative Identity Disorder (“DID”). This is a controversial diagnosis although it is recognised by the American Psychiatric Society’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM V). Perhaps this is an over-simplification but it boils down to a person having at least two separate personalities. Thus the sufferer might be at times “controlled” by a quiet and introverted personality, and at others by a loud and extroverted one. Believers such as Dr Sinason think that the disorder arises “in response to extreme trauma and abuse.” The cure for the condition, surprisingly enough, is “long term therapy,” and it appears to be during such therapy that sufferers “find the strength” to make “disclosures” about the extreme trauma or abuse that the therapist believes must have occurred. The job of the therapist is therefore to uncover that abuse.

Now, despite the detailed and distressing history supposedly given by Carol to her therapists, her accounts of abuse at the hands of her parents were demonstrable nonsense. The family house had indeed burned down, but it did so a year before she was born so she could not possibly have remembered it as she said. She did have a sister who died in infancy, a girl who suffered from Downs syndrome and died in hospital from natural causes; again she did so before Carol was even born. As for the Satanic abuse, her four surviving brothers all agree that nothing of the sort took place and there is no evidence of it whatever from any other source. There was no coven, no witch-craft and no murdered babies: indeed her medical records show that she had never been pregnant. Her extraordinary story of being raped by politicians was likewise fantasy of a high order.

The fantasy only emerged after she had begun her therapy. Sadly she died in mysterious circumstances in 2005. Not surprisingly her family are contemptuous of therapists like Sinason and possibly even more contemptuous of a Dr Fleur Fisher who was also closely involved in her treatment.

Of course, merely because while under therapy Carol made bizarre and false sexual allegations about her parents and about Conservative politicians it does not follow that Nick’s allegations, also made after years of therapy, are false as well. However it certainly ought to serve as a reminder that such allegations cannot automatically be taken at face value.

Those involved should also be aware that people with mental health problems – and Nick’s revelation that he has been in counselling for twenty years ought at least to flag up the danger that he may have mental health or emotional problems – are not necessarily helped by being thrust into the limelight.

Even if the police cannot manage it, perhaps Theresa May’s over-arching Child Abuse Inquiry will help to get to the bottom of whether such a paedophile ring as Nick describes existed; and it might also examine the extent to which (as has been alleged in Carol Felstead’s case) false accusations of sexual abuse have been, in effect, created or at least encouraged by rogue therapists, counsellors and psychoanalysts.

Unfortunately it seems extremely unlikely that the Inquiry will address the latter problem, not least because one of the panel members, Graham Wilmer, runs a project for the survivors of sexual abuse which itself practises an unconventional form of therapy called “unstructured therapeutic disclosure.”

A video on the organisation’s website explains how this works:

“The conventional approach involves the victims, at the outset, having to tell the police, a GP or a counsellor exactly what has happened to them, when it happened, who was involved and how long it lasted. This very detailed specific event is referred to as “disclosure” which inevitably re-traumatises the victim. Detail specific disclosure is not the place to begin the process.

After explaining that the Project’s counsellors (themselves survivors of sexual abuse) will make an “initial impact assessment” of victims “without them having to disclose the detail of their abuse,” it describes the next stage in the counselling process:

 “Having completed the impact assessment we explain in appropriately graphic detail exactly what happened to us. This reassures the victim that we already know what happend to them because we have been through the same trauma. This provides a bridge of trust over which they can walk, removing at a stroke any fears they may have of what they are expected to tell us and how we may react.”

Having told the victim in “appropriately graphic detail” what abuse the therapist suffered, the next stage is to ensure that their abuse is acknowledged. How is that done?

“Victims also need some form of reconciliation which is usually in the form of compensation for the abuse or punishment of their perpetrators. This is another highly complex area and we identify with survivors the most suitable route how to go about it and the support they will need in the process.”

Whatever the therapeutic benefits of this, it would be hard to devise a form of counselling more fraught with the danger of producing unreliable evidence than one in which in which therapists prompt their “patients” to disclose sexual abuse by telling them in graphic detail about their own experiences. When those same therapists are also involved in “supporting” the complainants in civil or criminal litigation the potential for injustice is manifest.

Nick’s allegations about a paedophile and murder ring in high places, if true, are both astonishing and horrific. Aside, perhaps, from the mad court of dictators like Mao or Ceausescu it is impossible to think of any modern precedent for such a thing. It would mean that for year after year senior politicians and other public figures cast aside morality, threw caution to the winds and – aided and abetted by others, including a doctor – kept a group of teenage and younger boys as their sexual playthings, confident in the belief that nobody would expose them. For some reason some of them also chose to murder two or three of these boys in front of witnesses.

The reasons to doubt the existence of such a ring are legion. What were these boys doing when they were not at Dolphin Square sex parties? Were they kept in complete isolation? Did they stop going to school, for example, or never speak to anybody outside the paedophile ring? The Exaro line seems to be that they were so terrified by the fact that the men in question were powerful that they did not expose the ring while it was active. Are we really to believe that these “powerful people” were so sure that their affairs could be kept secret from the press and, still more, from their political rivals, that they kept returning to the orgies? When even a tame affair like that of Cecil Parkinson with his secretary could lead to political disgrace; when journalists were constantly scouring Westminster for a whiff of scandal and when political rivals would have been delighted to ditch the dirt on their enemies it seems – as Exaro themselves acknowledge – very unlikely indeed.

Nevertheless, if there is evidence of such a scandal – and Nick’s interview makes it clear that there is – then it must be investigated with the utmost rigour. The people to do that are the Police.

It does not seem to me that Exaro’s actions have made their job any easier.

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

140 thoughts on “Exaro News is playing a dangerous game with its paedophile murder story”

  1. Hi Matthew,

    As someone who suffered appalling rape from infancy through to age twelve, dissociated the abuse, recalled it (not whilst in therapy) – and subsequently received therapeutic support from Valerie Sinason and the Clinic For Dissociative Studies I can tell you that you are misrepresenting Dr Sinason and her work.

    The rapes I suffered have been medically proven to have started in infancy. Look up the article “Child rape – patterns of injury, management and outcome.” authored by van As, Withers M, du Toit N, Millar AJ, Rode H and published in the South African Journal of Medicine (SAMJ) and you will find the kind of injuries I suffered and that have been proven by this country’s leading proctologist and academic researcher in his field.

    That you have misrepresented and show no understanding of dissociation – a very real phenomena and entirely understandable as a psycho-social response to repeated trauma – leads me to question some of your other conclusions and their likely validity.

    Most/many of us who survived this kind of treatment as children have little trust that any substantive facts will emerge as so many documents have “been lost”, police investigations stopped in their tracks and obvious cover-ups been perpetuated.

    I understand your concern about prosecutions being prejudiced and this is valid yet Exaro have been extremely cautious whilst treading where most other media fear to tread. I trust them more than politicians, most journalists and – please accept my apologies – lawyers.

    Thank you for taking an interest in justice regarding these matters. The reality would seem to be that justice may not be done but the current approach may at least allow some light to be shone into long-dark places.

    Kindest regards,


    1. Thank you for your polite and constructive comment Matthew. I’m not suggesting for a moment that people like yourself have not been helped by Sinason. On the other hand the garbage that Carol Felstead came out with while under therapy suggests that there is a serious danger with therapy that we can’t ignore.

      As far as Exaro is concerned I don’t agree with you that they have been “extremely cautious.” If Nick’s account is true I think their actions could destroy any possibility of ever mounting a successful prosecution.

      1. I make no comment on your case. However I will comment on the case of Carol Felstead (deceased).

        Carol’s first presented to her doctor with nothing more than a common headache.
        After being given ‘a clean bill of health’ by two consultant doctors, Carol was eventually referred to Occupational Health (she was a nurse) in her local hospital, where, according to her medical notes, she was hypnotised and given therapy to unlock what her therapist insisted were repressed memories of childhood sexual abuse. Carol ‘was unable to describe the abuse.’ Which is not surprising because she wasn’t abused.

        For the next 20 years, Carol received protracted psychotherapy without restraint. She was subsequently hypnotised in the Centre for Autogenic Training, based in Harley Street London. Her ‘treatment’ was supported with amounts of psychotropic medication. Indeed, one of Carol’s many psychiatrists would note that she was taking so much morphine, that Carol ‘was having difficulty distinguishing people’s faces.’

        Carol was incorrectly diagnosed as a victim of Satanic Ritual Abuse. Her parents were falsely accused of being the leaders of a multi-generational Satanic cult whose membership was also supposed to have included senior police officers, doctors, lawyers, leading politicians – including 2 former Tory Cabinet Ministers – and even members of the Royal Family. Carol’s parents and other cult members were meant to have committed mass murder, dug up graves and performed ritual sacrifices to the Devil.

        Carol’s medical files show that she received protracted psychotherapy from Dr Valerie sinason and Dr Robert Hale in the Tavistock Clinic. That therapy, which was tantamount to a form of psychological trauma, consisted of 5-hour weekly sessions over an 8-month period commencing in October 1992.

        Carol was no ordinary mental patient, however. Chapter 32 of Treating Survivors of Satanist Abuse is a jointly-authored essay by Hale and Sinason. It focuses on 3 adult case studies who received recovered memory therapy in the Tavistock Clinic. Using the pseudonym of ‘Rita’ to disguise Carol’s true identity, the authors state that she was their first joint patient. As another of Carol’s psychiatrists would write: ‘With regard to the special nature of her case, I do believe she was Valerie Sinason’s first case at the Tavistock and it was based on Caro’s experiences that Valerie wrote a book and started her interest in Satanic abuse.’ In other words, Carol propped up the whole field of Satanic Ritual Abuse in the United Kingdom.

        The central trauma of Carol’s life was supposed to have been that Carol’s mother murdered another daughter, sat Carol on top of the dead corpse and burn the house down to conceal her crimes.

        All of Carol’s treatment was predicated on that allegation being correct. But it wasn’t.

        The real chronology was as follows:

        Carol did have a sister who died a medically-documented death (she was ill from birth) in the confines of a hospital ward, as can be seen by looking at her death certificate. She died in 1962.

        There was a tragic, accidental house fire. It was not suspicious and the fire was reported on the front page of a local newspaper. The fire took place in 1963.

        Carol was born in 1964 – so she wasn’t alive when these tragic events took place. So the allegations are not just false, they are impossible.

        This is a national scandal and an absolute waste of the taxpayer’s money. Not one real victim benefits from this nonsense. Caveat Emptor.

        (Dr) Kevin Felstead

    1. Nick has Exaro as his minders. According to their website, the Met had to ask Exaro to ask him certain questions, before he eventually agreed to police interviews with Exaro present.

  2. We have been waiting for 30+ years for the truth to come out about a westminster paedophile ring, It would appear that Nick is not the first to come forward, many others came forward and went to the police, what did the police do? probably the same as they did with the victims of Sir Vile, ignored them, so he could carry on abusing innocent children, stealing their innocence, and ruining their lives. You obviously dont know the first thing about childhood sexual abuse, your ignorance is clear to see in your writing. One of the most common fears all of us have is reporting the crime that was committed against us, afraid of not being believed, afraid of having to face the monster that raped us, afraid of more pain. We not only have had our innocence stolen, we have had our trust stolen, our souls ripped out of our bodies, many of us never survive, cannot live with the shame we feel, the guilt. Every day we are reading how the police have let victims of sexual abuse down, Rotherham, Manchester, Nottingham Police, just to name a few. Yet you say the victims should go to the police? I suggest you talk to a few victims yourself before you write utter rubbish again!!

    1. You have hit the nail on the head. The statutory authorities have spectacularly failed victims of sexual abuse in Rotherham and elsewhere. But two wrongs do not make a right. Simple fact checking and the application of rigorous investigation is a prerequisite in determining whether these claims have any merit. The British False Memory Society (BFMS) is aware of thousands of cases of false memory following poor psychotherapy. The BFMS has an advisory board comprised of eminent academics, psychiatrists and psychologists. The science around false memory is accepted by the mainstream scientific and academic community. For more information, click on the BFMS web site. Forensic science is now at an almost superhuman level of knowledge: if Nick’s claims are correct, arrests will surely follow. Then justice will be served. If, on the other hand, they prove to be incorrect, then who will have benefitted from this sorry saga?

      1. I think your confidence in the powers of forensic science to detect, let alone to solve a crime from 34 years ago may be a bit optimistic Kevin. But I agree with you entirely about the dangers of false memory. It is not, as some people seem to think, some sort of whacky theory put about by people who don’t care about child abuse. It is a real and dangerous phenomenon. Mental illness caused by satanic abuse, on the other hand, has all the hallmarks of a whacky theory with very little to support its existence; certainly not as a widespread phenomenon.

      2. “Forensic science is now at an almost superhuman level of knowledge: if Nick’s claims are correct, arrests will surely follow. Then justice will be served.”

        Don’t be naive. If indeed there is a cover-up, forensics won’t matter. They had very detailed forensics indicating child rape, torture and murder (as well as about 200 victims coming forward). There was even a panorama program about it. They had shackles, blood stained baths, and even human remains. The chief investigating officer, Lenny Harper, was removed from the investigation along with his entire team after saying “There is no doubt in my mind prosecutions will follow”, in reference to murder.

        After that, they claimed the forensics were apparently a “mistake”. A skull was swapped with a coconut allowing no further testing, despite previously being tested for collagen. You can’t make this kind of stuff up. Lenny Harper speaks openly about this, as well as the intimidation he has received.

        Just for the record, jersey is a crown protectorate, which means that it is not part of the UK and is literally owned by the royal family, technically. It has no child protection register and is not included in the “wide-reaching” national enquiry that we are still waiting for.

        You think that forensics are relevant? They had forensics on Jersey. look what happened.

        That is the problem with the author. He doesn’t seem to get that the reason people like “Nick” are going to Exaro rather than the police, and the reason that Exaro is releasing details, is that GOING TO THE POLICE CLEARLY HAS NOT WORKED FOR DECADES.

        1. No skull was ‘swapped’. The material was enthusiastically identified as human, given an age and linked to a ‘murder’ by an ‘on the spot’ rapid diagnosis . Highly embarrassing once it was actually tested. But fuelled cover up allegations ever since. I trust the science, every time.

  3. The former Chief Whip, Tim Fortescue has already confirmed that the Whips actively helped cover up for paedophile MPs. This not a matter of opinion or speculation, but of clearly recorded fact. Please read his statement on the matter below:

    “Anyone with any sense who was in trouble would come to the Whips and tell them the truth, and say now, “I’m in a jam, can you help?” It might be debt, it might be a scandal involving small boys, or any kind of scandal which a member seemed likely to be mixed up in, they’d come and ask if we could help. And if we could, we did. We would do everything we can because we would store up brownie points. That sounds a pretty nasty reason but one of the reasons is, if we can get a chap out of trouble, he’ll do as we ask forever more.” – Tim Fortescue, Chief Whip under Ted Heath, 1970-73

    Source: ‘Westminster’s Secret Service’ broadcast by the BBC in 1995.

  4. Oh dear, it seems your article has ruffled a few survivalist’ feathers Matthew ! Any challenge to the codswallop currently touted by Exaro and their friends unleashes a flurry of sometimes personal attacks. This in itself is sufficient reason to keep challenging such claims. Well done Sir !

    1. Rabbitaway. I bet i know which party you vote for and which newspaper you read. Mathew, should your argument not be – why has it taken so long to investigate organised child sex abuse by vips and the establishment? You are correct in stating that certain names have been continually been mentioned on the internet and the most prominent name is one i heard about before the internet existed. So far he’s been left alone yet within the space of a few months the abusers of young girls in various northern towns were rounded up, arrested,tried and jailed.Unfortunately what you don’t seem to grasp is the fact that without the “Alternative Media” there would be no investigations or indeed forums for victims. I wonder what your agenda could be? Professional etiquette perhaps? After all, a considerable proportion of these abusers do seem to have poured the port.

      1. Leeds Mick ! I don’t vote for any party but when I did it was labour so there ! As for newspapers, I would not use any of them to wipe my arse with let alone buy ! Except the Mail on Sunday but only when a David Rose Savile article is in !

  5. This indicates the problem with fanatical abuse mobs so accurately.

    In no way does Fortescue’s statement say he actively helped cover up for paedophile MPs. You are reading into it what you want to hear ; so it *is* opinion and speculation. All you can conclude from this is that the Whip would help MPs in trouble for his own benefit ; the word “might” is ignored ; it’s an *example*. I don’t doubt it happened, but more in cases such as the NoTW/Mirror bonk journalism wars. They’re not going to cover up a murder.

    Two things which might not occur to someone who doesn’t think things through. Firstly, if this statement did say what you claim it does, why has no-one done anything to Mr Fortescue between 1995 and his death in 2008. Secondly, if someone had gone to the whips with something as serious as this fantasy said, do you really think the Whip would cover it up ? Suppose it came out ; he’d end up in jail as an accessory to murder probably – CPJ at best.

    1. Well said Paul, you took the words right out of my mouth. I gave up half-way through my response because I remembered the futility of arguing with those who want to twist others words as ‘Soloman’ has !

    2. Excuse me, but if you think that Fortescue’s words about “scandal involving small boys” do not refer to sexual deviance, what could they possibly mean? No one worries that his career will be over because he gave a small boy a cigarette or a swig of brandy, or stole his conkers. It has to mean something major, a social taboo. Either it is pederasty or worse…murder? The memoirs of Leo Abse describe how Lord Tonypandy when chief Whip got Jeremy Thorpe out of a pederast scrape..and then there was Janner,

      1. Well lets see. It could be ; in a fit of temper the MP hit a small child, or perhaps he was running a pharma company whose products involved hurting children, or maybe he was thinking of Cecil Parkinson, simply siring small children out of marrage. Your inability to think of other alternatives demonstrates nothing other than your inability to think. It could actually be anything involving small boys. But you are so single minded you can’t think of anything else other than your preferred interpretation.

        Anyone who seriously thinks the whips would cover up murder is beyond help.

        Small boys would indicate something other than paedophilia anyway ; most paedophilia involves rather older children.

        With regards to Abse et al, this too is a repeat pattern. The paranoid loons, conspiracy theorists, compo chasers and the money grabbing charity hangers-on that form these groups churn this stuff out ad nauseam ; it is all in their head (like the supposed ‘proof’ above), when you point out the flaws in their arguments, or the fact that their claims conflict with reality or are simply wrong, they just churn out another load of paranoid nonsense. You can see this through this comment.

        Discussion is not allowed. The blog does not actually comment at all on the rights or wrongs of the case, other than to quote the interviewer saying it is unlikely and commenting that it might be true.

        It is all actually about how being done in this way harms both cases ; if true it damages the prosecution ; if false it is horrendous slander.

        The fact that you and the other loons/conspiracy/compo/hangers on post these rants even to the bloggers considered comments show you up for what you are.

        1. The person who is ranting is you. Your message above uses just about every form of insult and abuse. The interpretations you suggest for what Fortescue said are just not convincing,because when people refer to “scandal involving small boys” it is widely understood to allude to pederasty. That is the accepted euphemism. If the problem was one of hitting children or selling harmful medicines, the speaker would not specify the sex of the child.
          Being personally abusive towards other people does not hide the weakness of your argument, far from it.

          1. I agree that the words Fortescue uses do suggest pederasty, but not that it is suggesting he would have covered up murder. That is just going too far. Murders do take place…and some of them are done by paedophiles…but this particular speech is unlikely to be hinting at anything of such magnitude.

          2. It is only ‘widely understood’ to mean that because you want it to. It is the accepted euphemism because you wanted it to be that. Even if your assumption is correct, it’s an example, the bloke isn’t saying he’s done it. And it’s not abuse ; it’s accurate description.

      2. “It is only ‘widely understood’ to mean that because you want it to. It is the accepted euphemism because you wanted it to be that.”

        No, it is the accepted euphemism because that is what everyone KNOWS a “scandal involving small boys” means. Including you. You seem like a native English speaker, so one can only speculate on your motives for wanting to suggest that this phrase means anything other than child abuse. I am hoping it is denial, rather than something even more sinister. Because it is very creepy to me that you suggest that this might mean anything else. I don’t even think a defence lawyer would be that brazen, they would have the sense to know it doesn’t wash.

    3. Hi paulscottrobson.

      My request to you:
      Would you please give any examples of a “scandal involving small boys” worthy of going to see the Chief Whip for “help”

      Responses to your questions:
      1.”Firstly, if this statement did say what you claim it does, why has no-one done anything to Mr Fortescue between 1995 and his death in 2008.”

      People such as the journalist Don Hale who did pursue the allegations compiled by Barbara Castle on paedophilia in political circles was threatened by serving MP Cyril Smith, raided by a phalanx of police officers and served with a gagging order. So a combination of collusion from certain law enforcement & security officers, threats from actual perpetrators & their allies, and gagging orders seems to have been a relatively effective strategy.

      Source: ‘How Cyril Smith Outwitted Barbara Castle in the Strange Case of the Paedophiles at the Home Office’, Tribune

      2. “Secondly, if someone had gone to the whips with something as serious as this fantasy said, do you really think the Whip would cover it up ?”

      “…it might be a scandal involving small boys, or any kind of scandal which a member seemed likely to be mixed up in, they’d come and ask if we could help. And if we could, we did. We would do everything we can because we would store up brownie points. That sounds a pretty nasty reason but one of the reasons is, if we can get a chap out of trouble, he’ll do as we ask forever more.” – Tim Fortescue, Chief Whip 1970 -73

      1. This is exactly what I mean. If you bother to read it (assuming you can read) he’s talking about scandal not crime. To repeat ; if you think a whip, any of them, would cover up someone else’s murder you are beyond hope.

        As for the scandal, I gave three above. You just see everything in terms of paedophilia don’t you ?

        As for you other comment. It says “threatened by serving MP Cyril Smith”. Hence it was before 1992. This was broadcast in 1995. So if it says what you think it does (that the whip covered up paedophilia) it doesn’t answer the question why nothing was done about it. Difficult to cover up something announced full bore on the BBC.

        1. You really are an idiot. It was – and is – illegal to have sex or molest under age children. The whip used the word “scandal” referring to what was quite clearly a clearly a criminal offence.

          1. Idiot preferable to fantasist. Plenty of scandals involve actions which are not criminal offences.

            I don’t recall suggesting that it ever was legal to have sex/molest under age children. You have made this up in your head. No surprise there.

  6. Ted Heath tossing boys off into the briny off the coast of Haut de la Garenne seems to have dropped below the event horizon now then? Best splice ourselves to the main-brace and wish ourselves luck as we wave ourselves goodbye.

  7. It’s quite easy with a bit of internet research to trace the source of these rumours. It is also easy to identify the individual/s responsible are also deeply unreliable.

    1. That would be Fleet Street led by Nick Davies of The Guardian as much as anyone on the internet. He was writing articles about paedo’s back in 1998. he’s been remarkably quiet in the 21st Century. All his articles are still online and are often quoted by the very models of the modern paedo-hunter as proof that the establishment “always knew”. Presumably “they agree with Nick” because he was deified after the Hacking Scandals as an unimpeachable source.

    2. “It’s quite easy with a bit of internet research to trace the source of these rumours. It is also easy to identify the individual/s responsible are also deeply unreliable.”

      Funny then that the police are saying they believe they are credible. I will repeat, the police have said that they believe the allegations that a tory MP strangled a boy at a pedo party are credible. That is a bold thing to say given how powerful some of these people are.

  8. The trend in this type of journalism was set by the Lawrence case which eventually was rewarded with two convictions (Looking susceptible to appeal as new facts emerge).

    I have tried to promote inquiry into the unknown number of deaths, of disabled children in Hackney Social Services care, at the Beeches Ixworth 1966 to 1972. Why minister Sir Keith Joseph refused Commons calls for inquiry 1972 into both the Beeches and the Sue Ryder Care Home West Suffolk. IMO there are questions which should be answered in the public interest. How was it the local HM Coroner did not get an overview of the pattern of child deaths (A question ruled beyond terms of ref of Stage 3 Shipman Inquiry) ? Were some of the deaths declared outside the local HM Coroner jurisdiction ? Why did Hackney rule the Beeches beyond the terms of reference of a retrospective inquiry into their social services in the 1990s ? Was there a staff connection between Sue Ryder Homes and the Beeches (especially if such a staff connection might have included the Sue Ryder Leeds child hospice where Savile committed abuse) ?

    The fact is Dominic Grieve is the latest Attorney General to block access to High Court to appeal inquest verdict for a sudden death at the Sue Ryder HQ Cavendish 1972. There is a secret public interest custodianship aspect in the West Suffolk cases. I don’t think it is as straightforward as running interference to give Leonard Cheshire and Sue Ryder a clear path to sainthood.

    1. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/review_of_section_13_public_inte

      I wonder how much tax-payers money is being swallowed by this sort of Pantomime. If nothing else it demonstrates the inability of the legal establishment to deal with the Irrationality in society by pandering to it.

      “topdeckomnibus • 9 years ago
      FOI ?
      I have just applied to issue High Court proceedings against Suffolk Police. At issue is the case of the death of Matron Mary McGill at the HQ Care Home of Sue Ryder and Leonard Cheshire Cavendish Suffolk…. ”

      1. I am at a loss then why Lord Clinton Davies would, after that, have phoned up TDO about the Beeches ? As Clinton Davies MP he had raised the 1972 Commons questions that minister Sir Keith Joseph refused inquiry into.

        And for the record the Lord was sent a copy of the death certification 1972 for the last child to die at the Beeches. Tara Naiker April 1972. Bury St Edmunds Coroner had found the record (for TDO) but thus the concern was raised that the local Coroner had not gained an overview of the pattern of six years of deaths.

        But Thank you so much for your interest and your purported custodianship of public funds.

        1. I should add that the Sunday Press took an interest in the Matron McGill Decd case after the Horst Kokow PRO release:


          But that the former Pc original HM Coroners Officer in the McGill case refused to co-operate with Sunday press plans to publish.

          The reason for that was that the article attributed suspicions to him that were in fact from a post Kopkow press briefing from “Impeccable Intelligence sources”.

          The fact is the 1971 release scheme, of German held postwar internees, of 1971 did form the backdrop to suspicions reached independently by Matron McGill in Suffolk and the RCS DetSgt in Wales. But as far as McGill Decd quashing case affidavit is concerned its only use is to suggest that at a new Inquest High Court should sit as HM Coroner in public interest.

          (The release scheme was run by Sue Ryder charity trustee Airey Neave and official Sue RYder with Willi Brandt)

          The fact that RCS escalated inquiry to look at the suspicion of identity theft via GP death registration fraud may or may not be connected with a possible requirement of former “Internees” requiring UK identities.

          The case to quash the 1972 McGill suicide verdict is complete purely within Section 13 Coroners Act 1988.

          So I agree the sentiment of the thread. Be wary of the games journos play. And be wary of re-publishing.

  9. What an excellent article sir and thak heavens for the voice of reason in a sea of hysterics.
    I find it rather peculiar as to why Exaro published this story which may jeopardise any investigations and proceedings. If their desire was to prompt an investigation then – assuming the current investigation is indeed actually linked to Exaro’s version because, as yet, we have no proof of that- since they did indeed get their investigation then surely the time to publish would be if nothing came of that investigation and not before.

    1. Dolphin Square only came into the police investigation because of Exaro. “Nick” only went to the police with the support of Exaro, he didn’t trust the police without them there. At every step in this, Exaro and a few other “Alternative” media sites and individuals have forced the police to expand their investigation, reluctantly.

  10. Victims of abuse have been conditioned over the years by the failure of the police to act and by the blocking of police investigations by Special Branch (instructed by MI5, in turn instructed by the politicians) acting in the interests of “national security”. It is hardly surprising therefore that they are seeking to bring the truth to the public’s attention through the media as they have lost all confidence in prosecutors. While your analysis of the risks of “contamination” of evidence from a technical legal point of view seem accurate, you’ve missed the elephant in the room, if you don’t mind me saying so. What is emerging about child abuse in our country point clearly to a breakdown of the Rule of Law, a threat to our entire system of democracy, where some are above the law, and others not guilty of crimes, protect them to avoid embarrassment by association and the prospect of becoming unelectable. Evidence collected by the police against abusers operating at Haut de la Garenne, Bryn Estyn, Elm Guest House and a long list of others – has been blocked from getting to court by the people we entrust with ensuring that all are equal under the law. Those in positions of influence (like barristers, perhaps) should join the brave MPs and others speaking out about this.

    1. The only case, of which I am aware, in which evidence of a Special Branch involvement (liaising with MI5) was presented, is Matron Mary McGILL Decd Sue Ryder Home Cavendish Suffolk Jan 1972.

      The Regional Crime Squad Wales encounter with Special Branch, in related inquiry of the time, would also now properly raise a question concerning Jimmy Savile abuse at Sue Ryder Child Hospice Leeds.

      Are there more cases with evidence of a Special Branch liaison role ?

  11. I’m not sure about a liason role. I found these examples of Special Branch intervening to close enquiries down just from a few web searches:

    Police officers and a child protection officer suspended, moved or threatened when investigating child abuse
    1. DCI Clive Driscoll – Removed from Lambeth care homes investigation 1998.
    2. Graham Power, former Chief Police Officer of Jersey, suspended Nov 2008, when investigating decades of institutional Child Abuse in Jersey’s State run Institutions
    3. CID officer Jack Tasker, warned off investigating Cyril Smith and told to halt his investigation, papers removed on instruction of Lancashire Chief Constable in 1969/70. His boss, chief Inspector Derek Wheater, blocked from proceeding with the case.
    4. Child protection officer Chris Fay alleges he was pushed up against a wall with a gun to his head and warned to back away from the Elm Guest House investigation.

    1. The Welsh RCS Inquiry of 1972 started as an inquiry into aliens registrations at the Llanhennock Leonard Cheshire Homes. RCS escalated inquiry to look at GP death registrations. That is the point, according to a surviving RCS officer, that Special Branch them to drop inquiry.

      Where the Matron McGILL Decd case and the Welsh RCS case differ, from the cases you cite, is that the officers in the cases did not meekly back off. They were constables charged with duties (Just as Driscoll was but he didn’t honour his constable oath and he allowed himself to be backed off until he could mitigate by wailing in press years later)

      The Matron McGILL Decd case Pc pretty soon came to grief and resigned police in April 1972. The Welsh RCS sgt continued inquiry and died attracting a suicide verdict. A few months after resigning police in Suffolk the young ex Pc suffered a medical accident and cardiac arrest aged 23 being dead receiving CPR from his ambulanceman dad for 30 minutes.

      17 years later and the ex Suffolk Pc was working as a contract electrical engineer in Plessey Torpedos factory Gwent. Security there was an ex Welsh RCS Dc.

      The two surviving ex cops met. And thus each became aware of the others 1972 inquiries. Sir John Stradling Thomas Monmouth MP wrote to Attorney General and Police MInister. From the tone of the replies he suspected that both letters had been edited by civil servants before Ministers read them. But before Sir John could raise parliamentary ombudsman inquiry he died.

      Labour Huw Edwards won the by election but was too scared to take on the McGILL Decd case. Hence the new prospective tory candidate Roger Evans,a barrister, took it on. And when Roger won the seat at the General Election he was as good as his word and made the first Section 13 Coroners Act 1988 application to Attorney General for access to High Court to quash the 1972 McGILL Decd suicide verdict.

      By that time Commander Robert Green, RN Intelligence Retd, had helped by getting a free second opinion on McGILL Decd 1972 autopsy report from Prof Bernard Knight Home Office pathologist. Bernard had helped Robert in his fight for justice for his murdered aunt Hilda Murrell. And Robert was presumably grateful (re Belgrano) to receive reports about technical findings at the torpedo factory.

      Prof Knight’s opinion was not earth shaking but it did create a need to ask questions of the original pathologist. When Bury St Edmunds Hospital was phoned
      the answer was “We are sorry but Dr Harris died suddenly in retirement last week”

      The East Anglian Daily Times decided they would look at the medical accident that the young ex Pc suffered in 1972. “We are sorry but Dr Hutt died suddenly in retirement last week”. The young Pc’s solicitor of 1972 contected and answer “We are winding up the practice after Mr Sarginson’s recent sudden death and there is no record of you ever having been a client”

      The surviving ex Welsh RCS man was document targetting burgled 1992.

      Tony Burden Chief constable Gwent then gave consent for men to trawl through remaining RCS records but it is not clear who they were. MI5 or a special SY War Crimes unit. I don’t know if they were still active in Gwent when about 94 all Newport Births Marriages Deaths records were stolen.

      I think the case distinction is that RCS are clear there was a Special Branch secret monitor orchestrated by MI5 at “Force liaison level”. Whereas your cases are about hierarchy exercising power that a true constable would have fought against.

      1. The money launderer you mean ? WHY are so many dishonest people being given airspace on British Television ? Think Fiona Fake letter who Mark W Thomas refers to as ‘brave’ for telling lies about Savile. Then there’s Wilfred De’ath another witness who Thomas presented as a credible but who did time for fraud. The list goes on – this charade must not !

  12. The files of NAPAC and NAYPIC are full of hundreds of cases of people who were sexually abused, building up a picture of organized networks in the 1960s- 1990s preying on children who were resident in care-homes or with complicit foster-parents. Since the corruption went right up to the top of the UK establishment, with PIE members such as Peter Righton holding top posts in the social ervices and advising government and courts, complaints were likely to go nowhere. We know that top members of the Conservative party under Mrs Thatcher were members of Spartacus and regular clients of the Elm Guesthouse, The late Professor Peter W. Campbell, the founder of the Conservative Group for Homosexual Equality, was a paedophile. Peter Frank Ashman, the Gay Liberation lawyer who rose to become director of the European Human Rights Foundation, has also posthumously been revealed to have been a paedophile. Google them and see.
    So although this new witness’s story may seem sensational (and I hope that he is mistaken about the violence he witnessed being actually fatal) there is no reason in my mind to dismiss it. Victims can be very powerless, predators very powerful.
    And a girl may undergo pregnancies without them being recorded in her medical records.

    1. Un Clare thinker ! ‘We’ that is, YOU, do NOT ‘ know that top members of the Conservative party under Mrs Thatcher were members of Spartacus and regular clients of the Elm Guesthouse, ..’ The only established fact you have is that Righton was a child abuser. A fact well known since 1993 when decent journalists did half decent expose’ including the secret life of paedophile’s. It’s on You tube and Moor Larkin analyses it’s contents here ! Not that you’ll bother to read it

      1. I wonder whether this question would merit inquiry ?

        Was Righton and/or an associate involved in Sir Keith Joseph’s decision 1972 to refuse care inquiry into the deaths of children, in Hackney Social Services care, at The Beeches Ixworth ?

      2. @ rabbitaway. I am not used to be patronised and condescended to by someone like you who does not know how to use the apostrophe.
        We (that is I) know that top members of the Conservative party were members of Spartacus and used Elm Guesthouse because surviving printed copies of the newsletter of CGHE (Conservative group for homosexual Equality (advertised Elm Guesthouse and the advert offered a discount for members of Spartacus. Prof Peter Campbell, founder of CGHE, was on first-name terms with the chaps who ran Spartacus and most of the Monday Club. He appointed Peter Glencross, the manager of Spartacus, to edit the CGHE newsletter until Glencross had to flee England on paedo charges. Glencross was finally gaoled for multiple paedo offences in the 1990s.
        There is a mass of documentary evidence all very complicated and corroborating the picture directly or indirectly.
        Barbara Hewson tried to dismiss NAPAC just because it has links to a group that investigated Satanic abuse. Well, why not? I quote from a recent book on the subject, “A 1993 survey by the American Bar Association’s Center on Children and Family Law determined that 26% of prosecutors nationwide have handled cases involving ‘ritualistic sexual abuse.’ (Ross, 1994). Their website lists dozens of cases in every state of the USA and abroad during the past thirty years. Many resulted in the deaths of victims, about half of whom are boys. It adds, “Many ritual child abuse cases never are prosecuted due to the disbelief of authorities or the unlikelihood that young, severely traumatized children will be able to withstand cross-examination.”

        1. Delusional witshful thinking.

          Satanic Abuse ; the tiny problem is they’ve never actually found any. It may be the case that 26% of prosecutors have handled cases ; the problem is they are all nonsense. That’s why they aren’t prosecuted.

          1. “the problem is they are all nonsense. That’s why they aren’t prosecuted.”

            The multiple allegations against Jimmy Savile and Cyril Smith were not prosecuted either.

          2. Response to Tony Prescott comment Nov 21st @2.59
            There was only complaint made against Jimmy Savile. The Police spent > two years investigating this, liasing with various agencies. The result being NOt to proceed given the fact that there was ‘insufficient evidence’. The complainants would not agree to sign formal statements. WHY ? who knows but the same complaints have been investigated again as a result of Freddie Starr being implicated in one of the stories. Result ? The CPS still would NOT proceed and Mr Starr was quite rightly, exonerated. You see, it’s one thing to target the dead and defenceless. It’s quite another when the accused has a voice and a right to the presumtion of innocence !

      3. Unless you can provide a motive for all these people lying so persistently your scathing tone is not justified. So NAYPIC got a small government grant at one time – so what? As a business plan it is not in the big league.

        1. You are dredging around for anything you can link in, however tortuously, and then launching it as evidence.

          Why do people lie ? (not an exhaustive list and many tick multiple boxes)

          1) Money
          2) Revenge
          3) Personal failure requiring someone to blame.
          4) Mentally unstable / psychologically damaged or just plain insane.
          5) Groupthink
          6) Abused by mad people who think satanic abuse really exists and believe in Grand Conspiracy Theories, and push this nonsense onto people who are vulnerable and highly susceptible to suggestion.
          7) Pressure by Police/Social Services
          8) Fantasists who love telling stories for attention.
          9) Drugs / Alcohol etc.
          10) Misrepresentation of ‘facts’ and ‘evidence’ by pressure groups.
          11) Reinterpretation of events to fit later ‘known facts’ (See Moor Larkin on Savile, repeatedly)
          12) Empire building / public money / grants / charitable donations / media publicity.

          Some of these aren’t actually lies. In the sense that the people telling them are saying things they *know* not to be true. If you offload all this nonsense onto vulnerable people they can come to actually believe it. Sometimes they kill themselves because of it (this is adduced as evidence ; it is, but only of the dishonesty of pressure groups who do not care what happens to the Carol Felsteads of the world but want to use them to further their aims)

  13. Ah, NAYPIC. The organisation whose government grant was suspended in 1989 because of a “lack of accountability within the organisation”, and which promptly came forward with “Andrew’s” tale in 1990, keen to reinstate itself with a new social agenda. “Andrew” claimed that he had been abducted to Amsterdam where a group of London men forced him to participate in the making of a film in which a twelve year-old boy perished.

    NAYPIC claimed that it had received similar tales from other runaways. It also alleged the existence of a group called “the elite twelve”, which paid thousands of pounds for snuff movies featuring young people: see Jenkins, “Intimate Enemies” (1992) p. 96.

    Claims-makers like NAYPIC bought into the scare then current about predatory paedophiles in the 1990s. According to Jenkins at p. 99, “The figure of the pedophile had become one of the most terrifying folk devils imagined in recent British history.”

    And what about NAPAC? Until recently, NAPAC had links on its website to the Beacon Foundation, one of the groups which propagated the notion of Satanic cults abusing children in rituals in the early 1990s. NAPAC has a leaflet devoted the topic of “ritual abuse”, which is the sanitised term for Satanic ritual abuse, or SRA. Until recently, NAPAC also had a link to Heal for Life UK, the UK offshoot of Liz Mullinar’s Heal for Life Foundation: Mullinar is a Christian and former casting director, who crusades against child abuse in Australia, after she recovered memories of child abuse, following a meeting with an aura reader, and then having undergone hypnosis. She believes in traumatic amnesia.

    As with the Lantern Project which Matthew discusses in his insightful article, these “survivor” groups come across as well-meaning amateurs. They all seem fixated on the trauma model, and the mechanistic idea that everyone is a prisoner of their past. Like 12-step movements, they seem to think that you can never really be free. I doubt that their constant emphasis on damaged lives and lost childhoods is always as helpful as they seem to think. “Survivors” are supposed to move on, and become “thrivers,” but you hear very little about thriving from these groups, which depend for their existence on a steady supply of victims.

    1. IIRC the murder of Gwendoline Marshall in the “Darling Buds of May” village. The villagers, not entirely trusting of Kent Police, hired a private eye. Again IIRC he was ex Special Branch. Pretty soon he was working to a theory that this was linked to the ex SOE murder cases. Sir Jack Drummond, Major Cartland and a Miss Marshall. The theory developed that the first murdered Miss Marshall was a case of mistaken identity and the Miss Marshall who had worked for Sir Jack Drummond was Gwendoline Marshall.

      Then came significance of masonic ritual at the murder scene.

      This same PI was a source to Sunday press about satanic black mass use of C of E churches again IIRC

      maybe an ex SB nutter ? Or rather like two contributors to this thread ? In the 1950s Sue Ryder was arrested by German Police on suspicion of espionage. and
      used her wartime SOE training.to defy their interrogation. Start at the truth and crab sideways. The sort of MO that would concede the truth about Righton and then crab sideways into classic Strawman.

    2. The only Thrivers in this line of business are the legal firms profiting from exploitation of the mentally imbalanced and as many Chancers as can climb aboard the Compo-bus.

      How much Compo do you think a Thriver would get? Even less than someone who only complains about being beaten with sticks forty years ago. Sex sells and that’s where the money is.

      Bottom-feeding outfits like Exaro also feed on the dteritus as well of course, but very much nibbling on the scrag-ends unless they have a direct interest in the outcomes.

      1. The attempted smear of Jerome Booth, the owner of ExaroNews, is absolutely ludicrous. He is a philanthropist, who chooses not to advertise how much he gives away. I suggest you do some real research about the man, rather than relying on “cut and paste” from secondary sources. There is nothing “secret” or “mystical” about Jerome, apart from not wanting to boast about his philanthropy.

    3. Barbara, why don’t you come and spend some time with us at the Lantern Project? Talk to the staff and those we support, and then explain to them how you would do a better job. I will pay you travel expenses. Graham Wilmer MBE.

  14. “the defence always strives hard to show that … later complainants knew of the substance of an earlier complaint”

    Perhaps it makes no difference, if the complainant is convincing. A complainant in the Rolf Harris case gave a TV interview in May 2013 in which she described a situation remarkably similar to a situation described by an alleged Savile victim (recently investigated for fraud) in a TV interview in October 2012 (and uploaded to YouTube in October 2012). Both say they sat on Jimmy Savile/Rolf Harris’s knee, wore a skirt, had their legs astride his legs, felt him moving around, were groped, in a room with other people, the other people didn’t notice, got scared, fled to the toilet. Each then recounts a subsequent more extreme alleged abuse scenario.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iy1OS0tKDyw, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_P3As1WHEo

    It’s difficult to see how the similarity of the second account with the first can be a coincidence in the age of the internet, especially when the second account also includes the idea that a 14-year-old chose to sit with her legs astride a man’s legs for a chat.

    Rolf Harris’s name was linked publicly with Jimmy Savile’s shortly after the Savile Exposure programmes were broadcast in the UK and Australia, plus all the other reports such as those about compensation, and months before Harris was arrested or charged, on the day the Leveson report was published.

    1. “It’s difficult to see how the similarity of the second account with the first can be a coincidence in the age of the internet”

      There are hundreds of thousands of very similar incidents all over the country. It is a common Modus Operandi. The details here are bog-standard run of the mill child molestation, very non specific.

  15. Matthew Scott’s comments are wholly misplaced. The reason people are going to the press and the internet with their accounts is because the police and judicial system completely ignored/failed/covered up the abuses when the victims tried to get their cases heard.

    Even MPs like Geoffrey Dickens and John Mann (and the documents they provided) were ignored or blocked when they raised concerns. Even today, retired magistrate Vishambar Mehrotra has gone on the record about the disappearance of his son decades ago. He informed the police at the time and, yet again, the police did nothing.

    1. This is the real point here. The problem is not finding evidence, the problem is forcing the authorities to investigate.

      The term ‘little boys’ in this context is unambiguously a reference to sex with pre-pubescent boys. To see commenters attempt to dispute that point really suggests that they are in denial.

      We now know that Morrison was a pederast and that this was known to Thatcher. At what point will we see police asking Norman Tebbit what he knew? He was party chairman after all, and Morrison was his deputy. Special branch made a deliberate and documented attempt to inform Thatcher, it beggars belief that nobody informed Tebbit.

      Today a new release suggests the reason why Exaro released this story from ‘Nick’: they have more cases and more evidence. What is more the disappearances of children in the vicinity of the Elm Guest House seem to fit a pattern of having occurred on some national holiday.

    1. Did Exaro ever report on anything to do with the Stuart Hall case? I would have thought that this and in particular the claims made about the peer who know to be Lord Pendry would have been right up their street.
      A quick search has thrown up no results so it looks as though this is one topic Exaro has stayed well clear of.
      It is now apparent why.

    2. This is the third time you’ve posted those links. What exactly are you trying to achieve? I have known Jerome Booth for years and I know why he set up EXaroNews, as an alternative to the mainstream media.

  16. As someone with a barrister in the family and being the acquaintance of many, I find it touching that there are still barristers in the UK with such faith in the police and the CPS to pursue high profile individuals, notwithstanding the clear evidence that evidence has been lost, victims ignored and investigators into said abuse being threatened by Special Branch. And that’s without the day to day interaction of most barristers with the police which by all accounts leaves a lot to be desired….

    If we had a system that worked for child abuse victims, your post might have made a modicum of sense. But as it is, the only way this is going to be investigated is through the public becoming aware of it. Hence, the oxygen of publicity is vital to force the authorities and politicians’ hands.

    I am sorry but it seems to me you are trying to scare people off.

  17. I suspect that Barbara Hewson and Matthew Scott are interested in preserving the integrity of the criminal justice system in the UK. The recent examples of Paul Gambaccini, Jim Davidson, Jimmy Tarbuck, Michael Le Vell and William Roach – to name just a handful of cases – illustrate that INNOCENT people are being dragged through the legal system on the flimsiest of ‘evidence.’ The elephant in the room is the appalling scandal (much documented in the national press) of Carol Felstead (justiceforcarol.com). In this case, the evidence has NOT been lost: it has been placed in the public domain. There have been NO obfuscations from Special Branch, nor any putative dodgy interactions with lawyers. If you think that this nonsense is helpful to victims of sexual abuse, then think again.

  18. The really amazing thing about Exaro’s claim about VIP paedos and murder is that virtually none of it is new.
    It’s been claimed at intervals several times since the 1980s.

    What’s fascinating me is that Sidney Cooke seems to have been whitewashed from the latest version. Why? He features in most of the rest, and actually ran a known, prosecuted paedo ring which murdered boys by mass rape and strangulation in seedy basements in Hackney. The missing boy whose father thinks may have been a VIP ring victim was long suspected to have died at Cooke’s hands. His remains were found near a fair wintering ground; Cooke was associated with fairgrounds.

    So what’s missing in tying this together is any sense why the powerful, wealthy Westminster and judicial elites would take such risks, down to killing children in front of witnesses, with a bunch of desperate, dirty, largely working class men. That the latter supplied boys to them I could believe but the rest is for me still an internet fantasy until someone comes up with hard evidence.

    But I am perturbed, when reading old and new articles, to note the same stories reappearing but with a shifting cast of characters. Almost like they are constantly rewritten go suit the crazes of the age.

    1. You ought to read the articles in today’s Sunday People and Observer. It turns out that two former police officers have told their police colleagues currently investigating these matters that the murder of children did take place and that their own investigations at the time were blocked.

      Similarly, two newspaper executives told the Observer that their publications were issued with D-notices when they tried to report allegations of a powerful group of men engaging in child sex abuse in 1984.

      Two things are pretty clear:
      1. Paedophile activity by influential individuals took place;
      2. Investigations and reporting were blocked, i.e. there was a cover up to protect said influential individuals.

      1. No, those ‘two things’ are not even remotely ‘clear’ ! Are you the person who administered the alleged ‘D-Notices’ ? No, I expect not, so how the hell do YOU know they were even applied ?

  19. “Are we really to believe that these “powerful people” were so sure that their affairs could be kept secret from the press and, still more, from their political rivals, that they kept returning to the orgies? When even a tame affair like that of Cecil Parkinson with his secretary could lead to political disgrace…”

    None of that stopped Savile. Do you not wonder why?

    The abuse was cross-party – so no rivals.

    You’re being naive about what happens to victims of abuse: how ashamed they are, how they blame themselves and how their abusers are expert at playng on this, on terrifying them and humiliating them into silence.

    The real horror here is to read the mindset of the kind of barrister likely to be defending the accused in cases of this kind. Because the same mentality of outraged disbelief and the same strategies of disempowerment, belittlement and mind-boggling, willful misunderstanding of the nature of a mind inflicted with severe sexual abuse in early life will cause witnesses the most awful distress.

    For every Carol Felstead (assuming you’re right about her case) there are of course many hundreds of victims of violent sexual paedophile abuse whose experiences are real. It’s cheap of you (and demeaning of sufferers) to use this extreme case as an example of how other victims are likely to behave. As a lawyer you must know that just because a equals b and b equals c, a does not equal c.

    I think perhaps you might do well to take your head out of the law books and breathe justice for a while instead.

  20. I find it very curious that this all surfaces six months before a General Election and a few months after the Rotheram scandal. The evidence comes from one un-named individual who has apparently waited more than two decades before coming forward. He states that he feared the “powerful individuals” whom he stresses were “Tories” but he still remained silent thoughout the thirteen years of Labour government. I expect these allegations will be brought up as though they were proven facts in a careful dribble of insinuation between now and May.

    1. The comments directly above are scurrilous and without foundation not least because the main Exaronews witness ‘Nick’ has also identified a former Labour MP as a paedophile abuser. In addition, it took the Savile scandal in 2012 to blow open the whole historic abuse issue which gave many victims the confidence to come forward with their accounts of abuse because this time around the police were taking victims’ accounts seriously and were actively investigating them too.

      It’s clear from the Exaronews and wider press reports that there’s also a second, lower profile, abuse victim who was also abused in the Dolphin Square flats. His accounts of what happened pretty much back up those of ‘Nick’ although this second witness was not present when any murders took place. This second witness has spoken to the police too which is why the police are taking ‘Nick”s reports seriously.

      1. Given that the Savile allegations can repeatedly be shown to be false and totally undermined by the facts, and given that this huge lie has framed all the subsequent sound and fury, I am quite convinced that the entire arena is writhing with con-men, fantasists and the the plain barking mad.

        I look forward to the evidence… *yawns*

  21. From The Guardian:

    “Deputy assistant commissioner Steve Rodhouse thanked the media for their work but warned them not to compromise crucial witnesses. He said in one case Nick had been shown a picture of a suspect by a reporter. “I need to be able to convince a court that any identification made by Nick was done within the rules … and Nick was, crucially, identifying the [person] he remembers from 30 odd years ago, rather than the photograph he was shown by journalists in the more recent past.””

    I think the above validates some of the concerns expressed in your article. Perhaps Steve Rodhouse can now look forward to being labelled a “paedo apologist” too?


      1. Three possibilities:

        1) Tom Symonds @ BBC (no mention of photographs made)
        2) Keir Mudie @ Sunday People working with Exaro/Mark Conrad (“During an interview, Nick was presented with a series of pictures.”)
        3) Mark Conrad @ Exaro (“Our reporter has also given a statement to the Met on how Nick identified to him the two politicians and other VIPs who sexually abused him at Dolphin Square and elsewhere from a large collection of pictures. With Nick’s agreement, Exaro provided the police with a file of the pictures that were used in our test.”)

        I’m not aware of any other media outlets having had access to “Nick”, and if his identity has been as carefully guarded as claimed it is difficult to imagine how any other scribe could have shown him anything.

        The police complaint does not seem to refer to the showing of a SINGLE photograph, although Exaro make this claim.
        The police complaint refers to a SUSPECT, and not a WITNESS as Exaro claim.

        Given all the above, I know where I’d be placing my wager, if I were a gambling man!

  22. The fact that police believe the “Nick” witness to be credible should at least now highlight the fact that the police did not believe that the “Andrew Ash” witness was at all credible and all Exaro tales from a year ago which originated from this man should now be discounted as the Maloney oops baloney they were.
    Exaro whipped up a nice bit of hysteria from those fairy stories. Evidence biased journalism my backside. At best they are hacks of the lowest order.

  23. Hello, I find what you write supports what you consider innocent MPs and you are alienating the victims and undermining the abuse. How dare you belittle such a crime, children should have an innocent start to life and I feel you have not considered this to have any importance. Your focus is solely on the alleged paedophile and what appears to be freeing them of responsibility. I don’t feel if all barristers are like yourself that this is a case you should be involved with as you clearly lack empathy to the victims. You may vocalise many psychologist but psychology is only behaviour study and you can pick and choose anyone to suit the defence or attack as there are so many schools of thought and psychology.

    These are people who have been abused and require empathy not dishonest people trying to make a mockery of them. Furthermore with the 10000 of people who have been abused no one has asked for money!! They require justice which is a service you are clearly not representing! The victims want to bring this to light so the criminals can serve a long jail term for the damage, not the pathetic terms which are being announced lately.

    The justice system lacks skills dealing with victims, and I can clearly see this by your blog.

    These victims have suffered for years and how dare you undermine the pain suffered, many paedophiles are dead and jail is not an option but it’s also a celebration they are dead and can’t harm another child.

    For such a serious crime you are extremely patronising and don’t see the serious nature of protecting children, maybe you have your own agenda of being buddies with MPs? Your own agenda and behaviour is predijudist and if you can’t support victims then maybe you should not work for the justice system! Or has the justice system become so low that you have no empathy and you think laying into victims and beating it out of them and victimise them a bit more is right? What is justice? Is it to victimise the victim? That is what you are doing and you are only representing something which is not justice!

  24. The Police have public strutiny on them this time and too many files from the past have simply gone missing to be a coincidence. I sincerely hope Exaro do not predudice evidence to the present enquire but I simply state this if the Barrister Blogger “truly believes in justice” then criminals regardless of whether they were serving MPs or not that abuse children should be brought to court and the full force of the law applied.
    A society that accepts cover ups and abuse or those that protect that abuse inflicted by others even in the name of the law have no right to preach to anyone their moral compass has already been compromised. The abduction of my Brother 35 years ago who is a subject of these investigations must have a conclusion we must know who was involved and if alive bring them to justice.

    1. True. The ‘barrister’ is a useful idiot and educated fool, some might say, but I couldn’t possibly comment on his ‘bollocks’
      He makes the money. He does not make a sound case, in my opinion.

      Greville Janner could sue for libel. He doesn’t.
      Leon Brittan could have sued for libel. He didn’t.
      Other AshekeNAZI individuals and their playmates who abuse children could sue for libel. They don’t.

      Instead, they deploy expensive legalese.

      File the writ or STFU.

  25. Britain’s judiciary is playing a very dangerous game by refusing to prosecute the high level paedophile gang linked to politics, judiciary and Israel’s security services and the City of London funder, the Rothschilds; the Zionists.
    The controllers, the blackmailers and bribers.
    Do your job, barrister, and stop making excuses for organised child rape, institutionalised buggery.
    Nationwide, institutionalised paedophilia cannot happen without the active involvement of the security services who vet all things, even you.

    Do your job or retire.

      1. Cynthia. Did you know you’re a Nazi? You really ought to look into the origins of your bonkers Jewish bankers conspiracy theory. It seems that there is a link between allegations of establishment paedophilia and the Far Right – if David Icke’s hawking it, be certain it’s at best dubious. I am absolutely sure abuse goes on – you only have to read ‘Prick Up Your Ears’ for details of trips to Morocco for sex with young boys. Joe Orton was quite open about it. But I can’t help feeling that there’s something dodgy about the Exaro campaign. Who are they anyway? They call themselves investigative journalists, but they only have one story. Interesting that according to the Exaro website, their editor in chief Mark Watts has been discussing the scandal on RT with George Galloway of all people.

  26. Matthew you are totallly right to broadcast this story to the wider [legal and other] community. CSA survivors must know that there is a proper way to deal with independent journalism that does not shy away from their serial injustice issues.

  27. I note that Esther, who has made serious claims that uniformed policemen took part in group child abuse in daylight on Cannock Chase, is a product of Graham Wilmer’s Lantern Project.

    1. Surely publicly talking about your own case all over social media, giving press interviews and video press interviews during an ongoing police investigation into your claims is a big no-no?

      If police have given their blessing for all of this then how times have changed.

  28. I was told by the BBC that it is quite common now for witnesses to give a recorded (audio) interview, before they go to the Police, and this happens more often than it used to.

    I went to the police, over one of the same murders mentioned by Nick. I went before Nick had gone to Ezaro, so I knew nothing about his statements.

    However, the police, over a long period, were sarcastic, knew very little about the case I was talking about, and refused to tell me why they disbelieved me.

    However, a few months later I found out some of my interview, had been passed on to the Midland Inquiry. Only the parts I had written down myself. The notes they wrote down at the time, had not been passed on. Evidence I offered them, they refused to even look at.

    The BBC interview was far more professional though, they did at least look at, and photograph, my evidence, and took copies of other evidence I had.

    I would in future go to people like Ezaro, or the BBC first in cases like this.

  29. Matthew, you may have missed some of the nuances of this sordid affair.

    ‘Nick’ had come forwatd before but the investigation was shut down. Thats where nasty internet rumours spring from. So in the 60’s 70’s 80’s etc ALL investigations have been shut down. If it was up to the current establishment sitting pretty in corruption ALL enquiries would dissappear if entities like exaro do not pushed back. Watching their tortuos shenan8fans, understanding that all these abuse cases we heard about was the establishment giving up the pakistanis to cover their pink whipped asses.

    There is a possibilty thar exaro is a sophisticated ‘gate keeper’ however the truth will out.

    [This comment has been edited to remove some offensive language]

    1. No mention was made of HPs main interest, playing a schoolmaster. Why would he go to these parties, where he did not indulge his main interest? Had Nick said that HP flogged boys heavily, with a cane, or slipper, it might have sounded a bit more like HP?
      I think Nick may have mistaken HP for another tall blonde paedophile, who was not interested in corporal punishmet. He is about the same age as HP, and lived in Brixton at the time. He also had a friend, another paedophile, who was a Doctor, and Nik mentioned a Doctor?

  30. There are lots of gang members and hitmen who are taking orders online these days on Deep Web, for example Besa Mafia is some Albanian Mafia organization that has hundreds of drug dealers and gang members who offer their services for hire on Deep Web.. some do murder for as low as $5000 , probably stupid drug addicts that are in debt and need money desperately.. Police and FBI should google their site by searching for the Besa Mafia as is on the first page and close it down…

  31. I’ve been accused of witchcraft. These stupid allegations have ruined my life. Why do I have to put up with death threats, rape and abuse just because I am disabled? I am not allowed to know the evidence against me; I am not allowed a trial. I hate the bullies.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.