Why won’t the Met speak out on Tom Watson’s biggest claim?

The police have found no evidence for ‘a paedophile network linked to No. 10’. They should now admit it.

17 October 2015

9:00 AM

17 October 2015

9:00 AM

Almost exactly three years ago, Tom Watson stood up in parliament and demanded the Metropolitan police investigate ‘clear intelligence suggesting a powerful paedophile network linked to Parliament and No. 10’. It was an incendiary claim which, because it was made during Prime Minister’s Questions and broadcast on live television, set hares running on social media and beyond.

We know, now, that the police found no evidence to support an allegation of rape made against Leon Brittan by a woman known as ‘Jane’. But the question remains: what about that link to No. 10?

I have spent much of the past three years looking into this. Working for BBC Panorama means following the evidence — no matter how tough and painful the process.

One thing was clear straight away: the voices of the genuine survivors of childhood sexual abuse need to be properly heard. But the more I investigated the supposed VIP abuse network, the less I found. Slowly, another story started to present itself: how the Metropolitan Police had called a series of extraordinary high-profile investigations based on evidence that ranged from thin to nonexistent. The police service, which is supposed to be utterly impartial, appeared to have allowed itself to have been diverted by a frenzy to investigate.

Our Panorama documentary — ‘The VIP Paedophile Ring: What’s the Truth?’ — was broadcast last week. The Met were furious, claiming even before we broadcast that they had ‘serious concerns’ about its impact on the witnesses involved and on the ‘willingness of victims of abuse to come forward to police’. But soon the Met had to focus more on the consequences of its own actions. It has now belatedly apologised to the family of Leon Brittan for not making clear it had found no evidence to support ‘Jane’s’ rape allegation. But it has yet to say anything about what progress, if any, was made investigating the central allegation that has led to the current maelstrom.

What Tom Watson said three years ago was quite precise. He claimed that the evidence file used to convict Peter Righton (founder of the Paedophile Information Exchange) contained ‘clear intelligence of a widespread paedophile ring’. He said that one of its members boasted of his links to a senior aide of a former prime minister and that ‘the leads were not followed up’. It was this lead which, Watson had been told, led straight to 10 Downing Street, the highest office in the land.

Watson’s source was Peter McKelvie, a whistleblower with a long experience of working in social work and child protection. He had helped on a 1994 BBC documentary, The Secret Life of a Paedophile, which profiled Righton and brilliantly exposed how he had been allowed to rise to the top ranks of social work despite having admitted a sexual interest in children to colleagues. McKelvie claimed that evidence recovered by police from Righton’s house contained the supposedly explosive link to No. 10. McKelvie believed he had a lead to the former senior aide being prepared to look after child -pornography.

But who was this ‘senior’ politician? Watson was quick to point out who it wasn’t, ruling out Peter Morrison, a former aide to Margaret Thatcher. I soon established whom McKelvie believed it to be: a man who is now today a government minister. I won’t name him because, as we have seen over the past few months, baseless accusations against innocent men can cause permanent reputational damage. Mr Watson did not, evidently, believe these claims to be baseless — indeed, when I made my inquiries, I was also told that two witnesses would be able to confirm Minister X’s involvement. But when I tracked down the supposed witnesses, both told me that he never been part of the abuse they had suffered.

Of course, one can argue that victims of sexual abuse might issue false denials, not wishing to relive their trauma. But as far as I could tell, there was nothing more to go on: the link to No. 10 did not stand up. And I can now reveal that the Met drew the same conclusion years ago. Within two months of Watson’s incendiary allegations, the police detective on the trail of Minister X found nothing incriminating within the newly recovered evidence. I have seen an email he sent, confirming that there was ‘no evidence of offending linked to [Minister X] within the files’. He went on: ‘…there is not any further material within the file to support the inference to any level of criminal complicity on behalf of [Minister X]’.

So the Metropolitan Police have known for ages that the ‘clear intelligence suggesting a powerful paedophile network linked to Parliament and No. 10’ was no such thing. So why haven’t they clarified this? Why let the cloud of suspicion and innuendo hover over this minister even now?

I believe the answer is partly fear. Fear of returning to the mistakes of the past — of being again accused of not taking a victim’s accounts seriously, or of allowing someone’s status to fend off an investigation. Watson’s intervention has revealed some of the complexities in unravelling paedophile networks. His campaigning has led to at least three convictions, including that of a former teacher and a Catholic priest; had he not campaigned with such energy, it’s unlikely justice would have been done. So there were guilty men — just not the senior politicians who had been said to be in the frame.

The Metropolitan Police were late in admitting to Leon Brittan’s widow that their investigation of ‘Jane’s’ rape claims had yielded no evidence. It is surely now time for them to make it clear that, contrary to what Mr Watson claimed, the evidence file contained no ‘intelligence’, clear or otherwise, of the suggested link to Parliament or No. 10.

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

Alistair Jackson is a journalist for the BBC’s Panorama.

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10

Show comments
  • OscarJones

    The inference that Watson’s actions that may have led to convictions should temper criticism against him perfectly illustrates the hysteria that has been fanned by him and so many others.
    Among certain so-called ‘survivor’ advocates there has been a reversal of the time honoured principal that it is better that guilty men may go free rather than one innocent be convicted. There is a significant belief that it is now better that some innocents be convicted or destroyed rather than a guilty man go free.
    This could not be more evident in Tom Watson’s mealy mouthed attempt to apologise over words he may have used about Leon Brittan. He has deliberately left a stench hanging around the late peer’s image rather than admit he was wrong and has done a terrible wrong to Brittan & his family.
    It should not be forgotten that Tom Watson also voted for the Iraq invasion in which tens of thousands of innocents have been killed. He voted against an inquiry into that disastrous war.
    Far from Jeremy Corbyn being a breath of fresh air to sweep away the Blairites Labour have elected a Deputy who examples the worst of Tony Blair. This is not an experiment that will end well.

    • By the Left Lion

      Although I agree with everything you’ve written, I must take exception to your use of the noun ‘examples’ as a verb.

      Fowler, Strunk et al must be turning in their graves.

      • Jugurtha

        For what it’s worth, I agree wholeheartedly. I’m equally appalled by ‘evidences’ although there are dictionaries which cite ‘evidence’ as a verb. F**k such dictionaries I say. They’re a blight on the whole of humankind.

        I’d also like to add E.B. White to your list of putative rotating corpses.
        As for Tom Watson…words fail me.

    • rtj1211

      That argument was most pertinent in the mid 1970s, when a handful of innocent Irishmen were locked up for 20 years for not bombing English pubs, having evidence forged, hanging judges appointed and media witch hunts in full speed ahead mode, followed by successive Home Secretaries joining the cover-ups etc etc.

      There has never been a time when reality favoured your thesis, ti’s always been an academic theory trotted out when appropriate. Realpolitik has never shunned from locking up innocent people……..

    • goodsoldier

      The rape charge against Leon Brittan always struck me as completely phoney. It was set up so that he would be found not guilty of rape and the hope would be that we would shut up about all the other allegations of the rape of boys that has still not been dealt with by the police. Under Leon Brittan’s watch, he ‘misplaced’ or destroyed a huge dossier listing paedophile activities. This is highly suspicious and when he was asked about it, he lied, then later when caught out in the lie, changed his story. While he was alive, he was never investigated. Leon Brittan should still be investigated regarding the rape of boys. Tom Watson is simply being rigorous. How can you assume these are false allegations if they have not been properly investigated by the police? The police admit they have not investigated the boy rapes yet. It seems that most politicians don’t want these to be investigated; they would rather blame Watson who knows more than he is disclosing at present. Anybody decent should want a thorough going investigation. Out of 10 accusations of paedophilia, 2 might be false accusations but that does not automatically mean that the other 8 accusations should be dropped and presumed false.

      • Mr B J Mann

        Sorry, but no:

        He WAS investigated and the police found there was no evidence.

        The “huge dossier” was nothing more than a file of a few letters that an MP had receive and the MP is on record as having thanked Brittan for having DEALT with it!

        Where do you get your 8/10 figure from?

        You don’t usually hear about it to prevent copycats, but apparently when there is a serial killer on the loose you get loads of people confessing (that’s why they never release all the details – so they can test them) – I doubt that even 2/10 are true!

        • goodsoldier

          You don’t know that the ‘huge dossier’ was a nothing more than a file of a few letters. If it was so trivial, why not preserve it to avoid speculation later? Brittan had not dealt with it. I would expect proof that he had dealt with it, not the word of an MP.

          It is so obvious that we are being manipulated by certain people to forget about this. Your argument about false confessors of crimes means nothing.

          This female rape allegation was a joke all along to manipulate us so that we look away from the areas where things look very bad indeed. Of course we are told that these witnesses are unreliable. This should be proven. Why are they more unreliable than any MP who lied to us about the EU, their expenses?

          Tom Watson, though I loath his political views, is a brave man to relentlessly pursue investigations into boy rape. There are so many boys who claim to have been harmed by various MPS. It must be investigated and not mocked.

          • Mr B J Mann

            When I count down to zero you will forget all about this an come to your senses……

            5… 4…. 3…. 2… 1… 0!


            I well, worth a try!

    • Well said. The presumption of innocence, something that hs protected the people of this country for hundreds of years has been set aside completely. What is more they will keep on re-trying cases where the evidence is wretchedly weak. Dave Lee Travis (now bankrupt) . was tried repeatedly on about nine or more charges of touching women inappropriately. One after another jury failed to reach a verdict, Instead of accepting that the cases were incredibly weak, they carried on with new trials until eventually one jury faced with about seven accusations found him guilty of one of them. he was then sent to prison, for apparently touching a woman’s breasts without her permission. He went down for best part of a year for that. Firstly – I don’t believe he did it (otherwise why had two previous juries refused to come to a verdict) and secondly, if he had done it, the sentence was excessive, not to mention that in defending himself through these multiple trials the man has had to sell everything he owns and doesn’t even have a house anymore.

  • Always_Worth_Saying

    Protecting the system is more important than protecting children. Enough evidence to prosecute Saville? Enough evidence to prosecute Cyril Smith? Jonathan King writes for the Spectator……

    • blandings

      I think I will accuse you of paedophile offences.
      I do not have a shred of evidence, but the fact that I accuse you is sufficient to justify your conviction.
      Welcome to the madhouse.

      • goodsoldier

        Leon Brittan destroyed the dossiers

        • blandings

          And you destroyed the dossiers that demonstrate your guilt, but you can’t hide forever.

    • Jackthesmilingblack

      Still can’t spell Savile?

      • EUSSR 4 All!

        Still can’t stop playing with your butt plug?!

    • whs1954

      Just because Tom Watson accuses someone of being a paedophile or of covering up for one doesn’t mean it’s true. Pointing this out is not a cover up.

      • red2black

        Or anyone else for that matter:
        Conservative MP Geoffrey Dickens repeatedly raised the issue of a London based network of sexual abusers of children between 1981 and 1985. Dickens believed he had uncovered an establishment network with what he described as ‘big, big names’. He held a 30 minute meeting with the Home Secretary in 1984, handing over a dossier of his evidence. The meeting is captured in both Hansard and the media at the time, with Dickens describing himself as ‘encouraged’ following the meeting. The Home Secretary of the day however, was none other than Leon Brittan – himself named as a frequenter of Elm Guest House on the registers in Kasir’s possession. The dossier never surfaced, no action was taken, Brittan claims no recollection of this publicly recorded meeting, and the Home Office say they have found no trace of the dossier.

        • Joe Long

          “Conservative MP Geoffrey Dickens repeatedly raised the issue of a London based network of sexual abusers of children between 1981 and 1985. Dickens believed he had uncovered an establishment network with what he described as ‘big, big names’. He held a 30 minute meeting with the Home Secretary in 1984, handing over a dossier of his evidence.”

          According to this the “dossier” was a collection of letters making fairly random accusations

          “On January 17, 1984, Dickens wrote to Brittan thanking him for offering “splendid support” and supplied some additional material, including more letters containing specific allegations.

          The following day he told the Commons: “This morning [sic] I handed a further dossier to the home secretary . . . [The] dossier contained allegations of a child offence in a children’s home.” Dickens’s description of his submissions as a “dossier” has resonated ever since.

          So what was in the second batch of letters? According to an internal Home Office inquiry conducted by an investigator from HMRC, “some . . . relate to the cult Children of God”, a religious sect widely accused of abusing children.

          The other letters involved matters that had already been dealt with by police or the courts or lacked evidence, such as a letter from a woman complaining about PIE advertising but without any examples.”


          “.on March 31, 1987, Dickens told the Commons: “I should like to place on record my thanks to the Home Office and the departments within the Home Office for following up the many cases that I keep sending to it.I should also like to thank the attorney-general. They have been very helpful and a strength to me in my campaigns.”

          Would the plain-speaking Dickens have been so effusive in his praise if he believedthe Home Office or Brittan — by then a backbencher, having become trade secretary in 1985 and resigned from the government during the Westland crisis in 1986 — had been involved in a cover-up?”

          That seems a fair question

          • red2black

            Perhaps the idea of a quiet life appealed to Mr Dickens.
            An accompanying article on your link above concerns Tom Mann: http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Crime/article1498731.ece
            I think it will be a very long time before anything approximating to the truth about this issue is made public.

          • Mr B J Mann

            But there is a link under that story to one accusing Robin Cook of being linked to g-y pa3dos.

            Funny how so many of these stories relate to people whose mugshots are often in the news……

            ………..and look like the baddy in a fairy tale?!

          • red2black

            Funny how it all extends way beyond people from the various political parties as well. Not that anyone’s laughing.

          • Mr B J Mann


          • red2black


          • Mr B J Mann

            And exactly what?

            Does it prove anything that Dennis didn’t moonlight as the concierge Dolphin Court and Maggie wasn’t the part time ironing lady at Elm House?!

            Are we supposed to be surprised that Mark Thatcher wasn’t doing a bit of black cabbing running Lords, VIPS, MPS, rent boys and Pa3do victims between the two?!

            Or that the victims didn’t claim every person they bumped in to had been on the box or in the papers?!?!

            Are you goodsoldiers glove puppet?!?!!!!!!!

          • red2black

            As I said, I think it will be a very long time before anything approximating to the truth about this issue is made public.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Ahhhhh: you’ve decided to expand on your one word answer.

            Pity you couldn’t improve on it too!!!!!!

            And why do you think my introducing some facts into a discussion about a party political witch-hunt driven by a political party’s premier pursuit pooch, more porker than pit-bull (did he wait on tables at Oxford in his youth? Is that the childhood trauma that disturbs him?) means that believe that party political affiliations are more important than the investigation of alleged sexual abuse of young people?!

            In fact, what makes you think I have ANY political affiliations?!?!?!!!

            In fact, whenever I’ve done any kind of political evaluation test the analysis has put me slap bang in the middle of Manndela, Manntin Luther King, and the Dalai Llamann!

            If you were religious you might mistake me for the second coming.

            Or if you were an actress describing me to a Bishop

            As every woman’s dream Mann.

          • red2black

            By contrast, you use so many words to say so little. I didn’t say that you had any political party affiliation; merely that you couched the issue in those terms. What you claim remains to be seen.

          • Mr B J Mann


            You said:

            “red2black > Mr B J Mann 8 hours ago”
            “Exactly. You seem to believe that party political affiliations are more important than the investigation of alleged sexual abuse of young people.”

            And I replied:

            “Mr B J Mann > red2black 7 hours ago”
            “Ahhhhh: you’ve decided to expand on your one word answer……”
            “And why do you think my introducing some facts into a discussion about…….”
            “means that believe that party political affiliations are more important than the investigation of alleged sexual abuse of young people?!”
            “In fact, what makes you think I have ANY political affiliations?!?!?!!!”

          • red2black

            Nothing. As I said, you merely couched the issue in those terms.

          • Mr B J Mann


          • rtj1211

            The most credible witness in the sorry events of the 1960s to the 1980s was the editor of the Bury local rag, who was given documents by Barbara Castle and was then hunted down with great rapidity by Special Branch.

            The actions of Special Branch on genuine editors does suggest strongly that there were things to be covered up and that trying to claim otherwise is being party to that cover-up.

            I personally emailed Tom Watson well before the 2015 election pointing him to major allegations involving a Labour Government member and south London care homes, another investigation which was ‘shut down in an unfortunate manner’. I stated to him, quite clearly, that he had to decide between doing his duty as a paedophile outer for the country and ‘covering up for his friends’ in the Labour Party.

            I didn’t ask for a reply, nor did I get one, but I think Mr Watson’s highlighting of South London abuse has been notable only by its absence………

          • Joe Long

            “The most credible witness in the sorry events of the 1960s to the 1980s was the editor of the Bury local rag, who was given documents by Barbara Castle and was then hunted down with great rapidity by Special Branch.”

            I don’t think anyone is claiming there is nothing there at all. The objection is the way that it has been blown up as this immense phantasm by the most dubious people on the most dubious basis. In any event if we go back to the 60s this is ancient history with nothing provable at all – it goes nowhere just like the Spycatcher from years ago. Was Sir Roger a Soviet agent? Well who knows.

            My issue with Porker – and I have tried to contact him too – is the way that he has cynically manufactured what has turned into an almost hysterical witch finding exercise mainly in order to put up a smokescreen over “Asian” gang grooming in the W Mids – which raises the Rotherham question of the blind eye to grooming-votes nexus

          • goodsoldier

            If this dossier was so useless and glib, why did it need to be destroyed by Leon Brittan? He lied when asked about it. How could he forget something like that? He was a liar.

          • Mr B J Mann

            If it was so useless, why would he remember it? He would see piles of dossiers every day?

          • goodsoldier

            He wouldn’t see dossiers about the rape of boys everyday, the abuse of children. Any normal, decent man would have investigated the information immediately and seen to it that all allegations were treated seriously. What is more important than children? We fight wars to protect our country and people we are told, then when it comes to the rape of boys, we want to avoid investigation.

          • Mr B J Mann

            When I was a kid everyone in the area knew about the odd “old” couple down the road who use to kidnap children and feed the into the sausage machine in their basement.

            In fact on a still quiet dark night, if you listened carefully, you could just make out the clanking and grinding of the machinery…..

            ,,,,,,,And maybe even the wail’s and screams in the far distance of the poor lost tortured souls as they were ground into sausage meat!

            Worse, this wasn’t far from where Savile lived, and in the evil heart of what came to be known as Ripper territory!

            Should I be passing on this evidence to Watson, especially as the couple were probably in their fifties, and so might, just, still be alive?

            Or would the fact that they could sue not actually be of any help?!

          • goodsoldier

            Your mockery is getting desperate and a clear sign that you are a natural bully. I have to laugh though because much of it is funny.

            Well let us hope that no boys have been raped by MPs. In the meantime, if there are allegations, they must be taken seriously and investigated without interference.

            I never believed that Leon Brittan ever raped a woman but I was willing to let the investigation be completed. Now I am willing to move on to the other allegations which have not been dealt with thoroughly. Some liars will emerge and some very damaged people will seem unreliable but they must not be bullied and dismissed.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Why are you mocking an dismissing my serious allegations you bully?!

    • EUSSR 4 All!

      It smells more and more like an open-ended Labour witch hunt (backed up by actual, alleged or claimed victims who just happen to be, purely coincidentally, mostly members or supporters of the Labour Party) against “the Establishment”!

  • Since requested, I simply add that the assumptions that guilty verdicts are always, or usually, correct and that unproven allegations against dead people should be considered fact, not fiction, are two areas for future consideration.

    • Paul Robson

      I think there’s an enormous degree of luck involved as to guilty vs innocent ; do you have a judge who thinks he’s a prosecutor for example, do the jury clue in to these “witnesses” colluding and being fed information, and so on.

  • Mr B J Mann

    **********Mr Jackson**********

    A short while before the Savile scandal blew up I heard an unrelated medical ethics documentary programme on BBC Radio 4 which discussed the problems of sedating children or adults with educational challenges.

    According to a doctor one of the problems is that half of people recovering from general anaesthetic have such vivid hallucinations they cannot distinguish them from reality.

    And in half of those cases the hallucinations are of a sexual nature!

    Why have I never heard this raised in connection with Savile (or, for example, in cases where dentists are accused of sexual impropriety with anaesthetised patients)?

    Could this be be why we read of thousands of nurses having heard rumours about Savile, but I’ve only read of one nurse having witnessed anything:

    And that was while she was a patient. And what she “saw” was him putting his tongue right down a child’s throat! How long was his tongue? And did she have X-Ray Vision?!

    Surely something for Panorama to investigate.

    If you don’t want to (or wouldn’t be allowed to) investigate with respect to Savile, how about the Dentist angle?!


  • Mr B J Mann

    It should be remembered that it is not uncommon for people to “confess” to murders, especially serial killings, when they clearly could not have been the guilty party.

    To having been abducted by aliens (and had sexual experiments carried out on them).

    Hearing the devil talking to them……….

    • Todd Unctious

      ……voting Tory……reading the Telegraph…

    • goodsoldier

      Why did Leon Brittan lie about the dossier? Why was it destroyed? Who is responsible? Why do you make a mockery of accusations of paedophilia? Some may be false, but some may be true. It is worth investigating.

      • Mr B J Mann

        How am *I* making a mockery of anything by reminding people of inconvenient buy incontrovertible facts?!

        As for the “dossier”, the public has been allowed to develop the belief that it contained a file of damming evidence.

        Apparently it was merely a file of letter an MP had receive from the public, a public that includes my batty aunt, your strange uncle, that wierd cat woman down the road, and the deluded fantasists and recovered memory syndrome sufferers like those apparenty at the heart of the VIP scandal.

        And apparently the MP behind the “dossier” is on record as having thanked Brittan for having DEALT with it!

        So nothing to see here – move along there!

        So clearly it WAS investigated and turned out not to be worth believing.

        • goodsoldier

          I find it very interesting that in the last 24 hours the media are putting out this recovered memory syndrome. I agree that this syndrome is a fraud, but this does not mean that all terrible memories are fraudulent.

          There is so much effort to diminish the importance of the dossier as just a few letters, to smear witnesses as being unreliable, and name calling people as conspiracy theorists or as you say ‘deluded fantasists’. You are trying to shame and embarrass people who are conventional. Well, there are plenty of braver, unconventional people who see through your deeply unpleasant tactics. You so clearly do not want to investigate further any of the allegations, especially those against Leon Brittan. Anybody with any sense could have made an educated guess that he hadn’t raped a woman! It’s the boys allegations that must be focused on. But I’m sure you will do everything you can to belittle these accusers and mock those who defend them.

          Tom Watson knows that the Investigation is NOT COMPLETE.. There is something to look at and you seem to be very afraid!

          • Mr B J Mann

            You seem to have an “unconventional” interest in little boys!?!?!!!!!

          • goodsoldier

            Is protecting little boys and girls from evil and powerful paedophiles unconventional? I am beginning to think so. You are clearly up to no good and have bad faith

            Why are you so afraid of this man being further investigated?


            Are you sorry for his wife? You should have been sorry for his wife back in the 1980s when she married a homosexual. It was unkind of Brittan to marry her.

            At present he is innocent of raping young boys. But he needs to be further investigated because there are many allegations against him which sorts like you will do everything in your power to suppress. You are clearly not a responsible person. The public will not be deflected by your attempts to shame.

          • Mr B J Mann

            It’s a good job I’m not litigious.

            Have you passed a dossier on me to Watson?!

          • goodsoldier

            You seem very worried. I can’t help you if you have a guilty conscience. Watson will be in touch with you if your past has caused children pain. I hope your other half supports you in your travails and believes you.

          • Mr B J Mann

            You certainly worry me.

            Even if you’re just trolling.

  • Suleiman

    What about the accusations against various Employment Judges that they are themselves criminals, corrupt, dishonest, cheats ? Why does the Government prevent an investigation ?

  • Joe Long
    • Atlas

      Absolutely, this whole thing was a stitchup between the BBC and the Labour party to deflect from the mass sexual abuse of white British children by Labour’s Muslim rape gangs.

      It is absolutely no coincidence that both Watson and the BBC have both been falsely accusing Tory MPs of paedophillia whilst the BBC has been deliberately under-reporting the horrific stories from Rotherham and elsewhere.

      • Joe Long

        Thank you

        It is very frustrating that this transparently obvious linkage is not widely understood

        Whilst the Lardy Porker was instantly on the case with Esther Baker and her claims of a Cannock Chase paedo ring(which appears to be out of the same stable as the other broken down nags “Nick”, “Darren”, “Jane”, “David”, Chris Fay and Exaro) he has never said a bloody word about Rotherham in Birmingham, Black Country and the West Midlands.

        Watson’s links to the Pakistani Labour fixer Faisal Rasool, chairman of the “Muslims Friends of Labour” exposed some weeks ago in a sting operation by the Sun newspaper

        “He needs £30,000 to £40,000 now. Once they become leader they don’t talk about money. If you can’t give £40,000 just give £30,000 and I guarantee you are going to see Watson. He is a very powerful man.”

        Ahead of the meeting with Mr Burnham, Rasool had boasted of being able to deliver Asian votes through to his roles with the Muslim Friends of Labour and Labour Friends of Pakistan.

        In a first meeting with our man on August 24, at the Colony Restaurant off Park Lane, Mayfair, he said: “There are four people fighting this election. Whoever wins, they will come to me because I’ve got 1.5million votes. I have got a position…….”

        ….He also boasted of his friendship to Mr Watson, the MP for West Bromwich East. He said: “He came to my house the other day. He is very close to me. I am taking him to Pakistan.”


        This really isn’t complicated

        • Leon Wolfeson

          Yes, you’re obviously transparent. Where’s the details of your financial interests in this, for instance?

          • Joe Long

            Feel free to address the issues raised

          • Leon Wolfeson

            I have.

          • He is a troll and insane to boot. He continually accuses me of things he made up and presents the accusations as if I had said things that demonstrate them. He called me an anti-Semite the other day simply because I criticised his remarks on this subject. by some twisted logic, I was supposed to know he was a Jew (something that had never entered my head) and because I denounced the way he was assuming Leon Brittan’s guilt, I was an anti-Semite. Funnily enough – it just occurred to me right now that Brittan is Jewish, so in defending him against Wolfson’s slurs, I am an anti-Semite. The fellow is a lunatic for sure.

          • Yet another mad and baseless accusation against someone who takes a different view to you. You have no evidence whatsoever that the writer you just slandered has ANY financial interests in this matter. the article he cites however shows that Watson does have. Read the article you loon.

          • Leon Wolfeson

            So you once more accuse me of your collectivism, Atlas.

            I asked a question. You obviously don’t allow those. As you impersonate a mental health professional again.

      • red2black

        I saw an edition of Panorama, from Rotherham, where the reporters managed, within a matter of hours, to track down someone allegedly involved in ‘grooming’. He left at speed in a nice motor from a nice suburban area.
        I don’t think any of the commercial TV channels have done any more than the BBC to cover these events.

      • Leon Wolfeson

        Ah, so, as you talk about the only crimes you care about…

      • goodsoldier

        This may be true but it doesn’t mean that Leon Brittan shouldn’t be investigated for the rape of boys.

        • Mr B J Mann

          Was he ever accused of rap!ng boys?!

          • goodsoldier

            Yes. They have a tendency to declare certain people unreliable witnesses when what they have to say is too shocking. Brittan is innocent until proven guilty but the boys who claim to be harmed by him must be given a chance without intimidation which is what happens. The Establishment really will not allow these allegation of boy rape to brought into the open. That is why they focused on the female rape which they knew was bogus. Now they don’t allow comments on the article today about the subject. They are trying to control opinion, and hope that people have no accepted that there is nothing more to investigate regarding Brittan but there is. Tom Watson probably knows this and that is why he is condemned roundly by the establishment. Why are people so certain there is nothing more to investigate?

        • He was. ‘Nick’ accused Brittan of raping him and so did a poor wretched special needs man who had been manipulated by Chris Faye the Labour activist convicted fraudster, ex-social worker.

          Unfortunately for the police, ‘Nick’ has asserted that the gang of paedophile torturers drove a car over his pal when he and the ‘dead’ boy were walking to school one day and murdered him ‘as a warning’ to him not to tell on them. Panorama pursued this matter and discovered that no boy at Nick’s school died or was involved in any such incident. The school confirmed this and Nick’s contemporaries confirmed that no boy was run over or killed and there are no missing person files that would fit this accusation. Nick is not the credible witness some police have suggested. I predict that nothing will come of Nick’s accusations, not because the police are intent on protecting paedophiles but because he is full of cr @p.

          The other fellow (Faye’s puppet) that I mentioned, stated on Panorama the other week that he had been manipulated by Faye into naming Loen Brittan as an abuser, though he had never met him. He said that Faye kept badgering him and insisting that Brittan had abused him. He claimed tht Faye kept telephoning him and saying so. He also said, ‘I think I named Leon Brittan, but I don’t know him’. This poor man has undoubtedly been abused – by sex abusers and by Faye who has manipulated him into accusing someone who he has never met.

      • I actually had an apology from the producers of the Radio 4 Woman’s Hour programme about their handling of one of the early investigations into the sexual abuse of girls. They dealt with the issue without ever mentioning the racial aspect of it, simply referring to the perpetrators as ‘male abusers’. I emailed the producer asking why they could not bring themselves themselves to utter the truth, that this street grooming, seduction and pimping of vulnerable girls was almost entirely perpetrated in northern cities by Pakistani and Muslim heritage men – a thing that anyone and everyone living in these cities knew full well. I got a sort of simpering response indicating that they might have to consider their policy. In fact, like the councillors and police in these cities, they were totally in the grip of the PC / Multi-cultural terror of ever suggesting that perhaps not all cultures and groups of the population are onside in creating a lovely rainbow nation where we all respect each other and celebrate the wonderful contribution these newcomers bring to our land.

    • AJH1968

      Tilting at
      windmills is more important to this wretched narcissist than shining a light on
      a national shame. Why such elaborate diversions are encouraged I cannot rightly
      say perhaps it is waycist to assert the rights of vulnerable children and to
      try to prevent ethnic cleansing. Gibbeting this fellow would send a clear unequivocal
      lesson to the left and their fellow travelers that they are unable to
      comprehend via debate or logic. Children by the thousands have been trafficked
      and exploited and gang raped in the most egregious manner FFS.

  • Joe Long

    Bit of a suprise Porky hasn’t demanded a “complete investigation” into the claims made by Carol Felstead

    “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.”


    No more than crazy than “Nick’s” lurid outpourings I wouldn’t have thought

  • Jackthesmilingblack

    “Anonymous Exposing UK Pedophilia Ring MP’s & MI5”
    Check it on YouTube, Britisher pals.

    • red2black

      That can’t possibly be true! It’s got nothing to do with Muslims or the Labour Party; well, not much. (tee hee)

      • Jackthesmilingblack

        You watched it?

        • red2black

          I’ve just watched it, having previously read transcripts of most of what was said. Yes, there’s Labour involvement (along with the other mainstream political parties), so I take that back.

  • Chingford Man

    Mr Jackson, why did your hour-long programme did not touch on the fact that a large number of complaints is currently before the IPCC from former police officers alleging that their investigations were improperly hampered or closed down by superiors?

  • Michael H Kenyon

    Er, is this “absence of evidence” something to do with, for example, Uncle Leon’s poor filing skills, what with him losing documents and portfolios over 30 years ago? it’s hard enough to make sexual offences stick when they are investigated in a timely way. When Special Branch have done a first sift and shred at the time, just what do you think could be now used as unambiguous evidence to convict beyond reasonable doubt?

    • amicus

      Ministers are not filing clerks.

      • Michael H Kenyon

        Indeed. But ministers should conscientiously care for information they have to review, given the office they hold; the information should be stored in a professional way; and everyone involved should demonstrate rectitude proportionate to their responsibility. it’s all been a bit banana-republic what with the possible offences, sloppy ministers, disorganised offices, Special Branch raids on external offices to remove sensitive documents, and the general cynicism of the great and the good about this matter. The allegations may be a crock, or they may be now beyond resolution. Either way, it has not been edifying to see how much politicians and their house journalists gamed investigations into criminal offences, just as did the BBC, and various senior religious figures. And this is before Rotherham, which also exemplifies these matters.

        • soysauce1

          There is a clear chain of evidence, Brittan handed the files on for investigation it was after this point they were lost, old news I’m afraid done and dusted by C4.

  • rabbitaway

    They same force who had nerve to say they weren’t even going to be bother to investigate the claims made against Jimmy Savile. They just labeled him a criminal and moved on to other targets. How’s about writing about that then ?

  • Suleiman

    And why won’t the Met or the SFO speak out about all those corrupt, dishonest, cheating British judges ?

    • Todd Unctious

      How does one reveal “no evidence”. The clue is in the word no. There is nothing to reveal.

      • Suleiman

        The Government is blocking investigation into corruption of judges.

  • William_Brown

    What is that soft, chewy and sickly-sweet smell in the air?

    Wait, I’ve got it;……..Fudge!

  • edithgrove

    fertile ground for conspiracy theories created by a succession of inappropriate chairs appointed to investigating committees, the BBC’s attempts to cover up Savile and the inaction of social services to wide scale abuse.

    • Suleiman

      You forgot to add that this fertile ground was created also by people like Leon Brittan and other Home Secretaries covering up over Cyril Smith and his likes.

      And of course : by the fact that in history many events are the result of a conspiracy. Conspiracies are in the nature of ruling establishments.

      • edithgrove

        and they thrive in opaque societies. Enter Leveson to seal the deal.

      • Hang on…. Where is the evidence that Brittan covered up for Cyril Smith, or anyone come to that? If you are referring to the now ‘missing dossier’, Brittan handed that to the appropriate authorities who found nothing of substance in it. That he passed on the documents has been confirmed by the Home Office. The MP who created the dossier is well known to have been an alcoholic and as mad as a fish.

        • goodsoldier

          Where is the dossier? There must be a record of what happened to it. How come Brittan pretended to not remember anything about it? He lied. Somebody very clever this last year came up with a strategy: Let’s make a big deal about Brittan raping a woman (unlikely since he so obviously gay only his wife doesn’t know it). Then we will show that there is no evidence for this accusation and we will roar with indignation at the cruelty of such an accusation, stress that no evidence was found, and hope that they don’t dare to bring up the actual true allegation about the little boys where there is likely to be evidence. Anybody who mentions it will be shouted down, you want to put innocent people in jail? The media is behind Leon Brittan, that’s for sure. He needs to investigated for boy rape. The case against him is not closed.

    • ramesesthegrumbler

      So far very little ‘evidence’ has come into the Public Domain that shows Savile had the opportunity to commit any of the alleged crimes whatsoever. The vast majority of the small amount of ‘evidence’ cannot even place him in the same locations as his accusers at the right time. This does not mean he did not commit any crimes but there is little public evidence that he did. There is no evidence whatsoever in the Public Domain that Savile committed any sex crimes; only allegations. Full stop. So how can anyone say the BBC covered up for Savile, a man deeply unpopular there, when so little evidence has come to light after millions have been spent by the Police and the NHS? If he was so prolific where is the evidence?
      I deeply despise the BBC but based on the discredited Duncroft ‘evidence’ there is no case for them or Savile to answer. They were right to junk that story.
      One thing we cannot allow is for people, dead or alive, to be convicted of crimes on the basis of allegation only. There must be solid evidence for a justice system to be anything like just.

      • goodsoldier

        Well, the allegations should be investigated at least.

        • ramesesthegrumbler

          Indeed they should and if found to be true whatever action needs to be taken should be.
          What happens, though, when they turn out to be false and patently so? Nothing? A shrug of the shoulders?

          • goodsoldier

            Some allegations may prove to be false, then that allegation must be dropped. The remaining allegations don’t automatically become false just because one was false. That’s an old Agatha Christie trick in her murder stories.

            The Leon Brittan rape allegation was mean to turn our head in the wrong direction. It was obvious the moment it was dragged out, by whom, I would like to know. ‘Jane’? It is a shady business no doubt and there are some very nasty )possibly evil) people busy at present muddying the waters deliberately and smearing anybody who doesn’t follow their agenda, which is to get us to forget all investigations into child abuse, especially those against Leon Brittan and top MPs of all parties.

            Tom Watson is very brave to defy these people. I despise Watson’s politics because I am right-wing but I admire his personal courage in dealing with allegations of child abuse among MPs.

          • ramesesthegrumbler

            Watson is Labour’s Smear Meister. He helped run Gordon Browns smear campaigns. He is a disgusting partisan who is making false allegations in order to smear his rivals. In the meantime real abuse goes uninvestigated and unpunished because the Police have been forced to investigate high profile smears rather than low profile crimes.
            As to one equates to all; really? Is that what you took from my post? No. Should any of the claims be found to be true then whatever can be done should be done; Savile is dead so his punishment is moot. So far, though, I am yet to be convinced that any of the allegations come close to being evidenced. Remember this is about Justice and we cannot as a society allow conviction without evidence. That way lies trouble for all of use, not just the accused.

  • red2black

    It seems that the more socially important the alleged perpetrators are, the less the alleged victims are likely to be believed.

    • Joe Long

      Not necessarily

      Detective Superintendent Kenny MacDonald considered the following lurid fantasy “credible and true”

      “Nick was anally raped by MR PROCTOR and another male as “punishment”. The other males also anally raped the remaining boys. MR PROCTOR and two other males then began beating the chosen victim by punching and kicking. The attack continued until the boy collapsed on the floor and stopped moving. All of the men left the room. The remaining boys attempted to revive the victim but he was not breathing. They were left for some time before being taken out of the house and returned to their homes.

      Between May and July 1979 – in a street in Coombe Hill, Kingston. Nick was walking in this area with another boy (the victim) when he heard the sound of a car engine revving. A dark-coloured car drove into the victim knocking him down. “Nick” could see the boy covered in blood and his leg bent backwards……..”


      “Det Supt McDonald also appealed for other boys who might have been abused to come forward.

      “I would ask you to trust me. I will support you, and do everything in my power to find those responsible and bring them to justice. I need your accounts to help me do that,” he said.”


      Obviously it was never credible or true, and now the wheels have come off

      • red2black

        You’re right. Damned if they do believe them, and damned if they don’t.

      • approveds

        No you are wrong, only half of the inquiry is in the public domain. There are other witnesses, and others involved.

  • John Andrews

    Smeering mud on political opponents is standard left-wing practice, isn’t it?

    • goodsoldier

      Is it worse for you when it is right -wing rape of boys? Put aside your tribal loyalties and demand that these crimes be investigated.

  • Thomas

    I still think this was all dragged up to distract from Rotherham and similar. Who cares about Muslim misogyny (actual not just silly shit like taking up too much space on the bus) when you can go after THE HEART OF NUMBER 10

  • EUSSR 4 All!

    A Westminster paedophile ring in the late 1970s and the 1980s, in the age of the Private Eye, Murdoch, Conrad Black and the Keswicks?! I don’t know! There are definitely some dirty tricks by some of the old guards from the non-Trotskyite, non-Corbynite wing of the Labour Party, going on!

    This is a philosophical question: If something indeed did happen, but there is absolutely no proof of it, other than the garbled, controvertible recollection of an unemployed alcoholic, although not yet of a fully unsound mind, but who has nevertheless made a name for himself in the prescribed register “of a certain class of criminals”, when he was himself a toddler no older than 4 years of age, did it still happen; or, rather, can it still be said, or claimed, that something did indeed happen, or even might had happened?

    • approveds

      You are wrong on all counts. Things did happen, there are witnesses, (not just the ones in the public domain), and there are others involved as well.

      • EUSSR 4 All!

        Including Lord McAlpine as well?! Well, you can’t really deny that there is an element of anti-Tory Labour dirty-tricks going on! Even Nigel (Mr Farage) says so on the London commercial wireless this morning! And don’t please put words into my mouth, if you don’t mind!

        • approveds

          Thatcher knew what was going on, there were murders of children, and she protected them, ‘in case they were Tory MPs’, she didn’t know, but knew that some of them were,’ paedophiles’.
          She had investigations closed down, ‘just in case’, and so stopped murderers being caught.

          • Ron Todd

            And your evidence for your claims is what?

          • Stu

            He doesn’t have any just a long list of fantasies and unsubstantiated allegations.

          • The_Missing_Think


            “You sound very intelligent !!!”

            “thank you… oh… and by the way, coud you teach me how to use a ‘search engine’ like Google, I’ve still not worked it out yet…. as I’m so, so intelligent.

          • Ron Todd

            Only two days to come up with that reply you must be.

          • The_Missing_Think

            An extra two days for super intelligent you, to learn how to use Google… any luck yet?


            I suspect you’ll never learn how to use Google… deliberately. Keep your super intelligent head in the sand, it’s what clever people do.

          • Ron Todd

            If the establishment was so clever at hiding evidence how
            come Tom Watson got hold of so much of it. Think about what is likely. The
            people being accused even with the advantage of being part of the establishment
            would have not got into their high positions without some smarts.

            I do not need to know much about somebody high up to know
            that it is very unlikely they would do what was claimed. Would they send their
            staff to collect children for rape without ever considering the possibility
            that the staff might talk?

            Would they torture and murder children in a densely packed
            block of flats in the middle of London and never worry that the neighbours
            might notice?

            Would they rape somebody while being watched by uniformed
            policemen and not think that one of them might tell? Would the policemen not
            think that if they did not stop the rape one of the other policemen could some
            time in the future testify in court against him?

            Is it likely that Tom Watson believed the allegations to be

            Is it credible that all the accusers seem to have ties to the Labour party and the accused are all Tories.

            If Tom Watson was only concerned about victims why does he not seem concerned about Lord Janner or Harriet Harman?

            Typical conspiracy theory stuff all the evidence produced so
            far has proven to be bunkum so there must be more evidence that ‘they’ are hiding and if they are hiding
            evidence there must be a conspiracy so the whole think is proved.

          • The_Missing_Think

            “Is it credible that all the accusers seem to have ties to the Labour party and the accused are all Tories.”

            No it isn’t, but your statement is fake. If you learnt how to use Google – as advised – you wouldn’t make fake statements that destroy your credibility.

            “Geoffrey Kenneth Dickens (26 August 1931 – 17 May 1995) was a British Conservative politician.”


            “Geoffrey Dickens ‘said paedophile dossier was explosive'”


            Do try to keep up. (learn Google skills).

          • Ron Todd

            I should have phrased that as all Tom Watson’s sources are Labour…and I do know Zack Goldsmith jumped on the band wagon. The claims of Tom Watson’s informers remain unbelievable. And I wait for other evidence against the accused to be produced.

            What I have seen on the internet .(there is more than one search engine) is accusations not evidence and not proof.

          • The_Missing_Think

            If evidence keeps getting lost, how can it be viewed?

            eg… Geoffrey Dickens’ evidence.

            Why don’t you understand this very simple point?

          • Ron Todd

            Dickens evidence from decades back has little to do with the current accusations. That nobody at the time acted on it suggests it was of the same standards as Tom Watson’s evidence.

          • The_Missing_Think

            “That nobody at the time acted on…”

            Yes of course, same as with Rotherham, well called.

          • Leon Wolfeson

            Ah, so about the only sort of crime you care about…based on the perpetrators…

          • Joe Long

            Describing an apparently fairly random set of accusations in various letters as a “dossier” is a considerable stretch

            “On January 17, 1984, Dickens wrote to Brittan thanking him for offering “splendid support” and supplied some additional material, including more letters containing specific allegations.

            The following day he told the Commons: “This morning [sic] I handed a further dossier to the home secretary . . . [The] dossier contained allegations of a child offence in a children’s home.” Dickens’s description of his submissions as a “dossier” has resonated ever since.

            So what was in the second batch of letters? According to an internal Home Office inquiry conducted by an investigator from HMRC, “some . . . relate to the cult Children of God”, a religious sect widely accused of abusing children.

            The other letters involved matters that had already been dealt with by police or the courts or lacked evidence, such as a letter from a woman complaining about PIE advertising but without any examples.”


          • The_Missing_Think

            Your link contains none of the details you cite as fact.

            Forgive me if I don’t just take your word for it, but I prefer concrete facts, rather than blogger heresay.

          • Joe Long

            The Sunday Times article is apparently based on “an examination of a report by Peter Wanless, chief executive of the NSPCC, into the Home Office’s handling of the matter, as well as two internal inquiries conducted by an HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) investigator and Dickens’s speeches in the Commons”

            Have you actually got access to the Times site behind the pay wall?

          • The_Missing_Think

            Three (not lost) reports saying there was nothing to see in the lost evidence?

            Pull the other one mate, I’m not as stupid as you want me to be.

            Do you know what the word pattern means today?

            “A MOUNTAIN of files on historic VIP child sex abuse cases is missing, The Sun can reveal.

            Documents known as “Red Dockets” from highly sensitive cases have mysteriously vanished from police archives, well-informed sources say.

            And so-called X4 files containing unsubstantiated information on paedos, said to be “a goldmine”, were shredded.”


          • Joe Long

            I certainly know that it’s easy to jump to conclusions and arrive at 2 + 2 = 5 on the basis of wild speculation

            “Files which have disappeared include ones from the infamous 1980s Operation Circus inquiry.

            It was shut down after undercover cops allegedly photographed rent boys from London’s Piccadilly Circus with VIPs.”

            assuming that the “well informed sources” are accurate and have no axe to grind(a big assumption) this goes nowhere near supporting “Nick’s” lurid fantasies of 3 child murders
            involving very high profile public figures. It doesn’t support Watson powerful paedo ring linked to Number 10 in the slightest.

            Sure embarrassing information has no doubt been covered up and suppressed, regimes throughout history have done that; of itself that goes nowhere

            The accusations levelled by the alleged victims, “Nick”, “David”, “Darren”, “Jane” have been comprehensively discredited.

            Fay who has apparently set some of the hares running is a contemptible piece of work.

            One can’t then legitimately say; oh well we have a pattern on the basis of missing files so therefore what they are saying must be true.

            I am sure it is very public spirited of Porker to be sticking in his snout and snuffling through this historic detritus – which goes back over 30 years.

            But my point is why has he zero interest in group/gang CSE on the Rotherham pattern which has been suppressed by both the police and local bureaucracies, and which is occurring right now?

            And it isn’t too much of a stretch to conclude that he’s doing it to put up a smokescreen.

          • The_Missing_Think

            “One can’t then legitimately say; oh well we have a pattern on the basis of missing files so therefore what they are saying must be true.”

            And where did I state, ‘so therefore what they are saying must be (un)true’?

            Note, the inverse – your stance – is also true, hence the added (un).

            Just getting the pattern of missing evidence recognised was my point.

            Which is what you’ve now done.

            More here, not that it means anything:

            “Child sex abuse victims are asked to resubmit information to inquiry after everything in ‘share your experience’ section is DELETED from website”


          • Mr B J Mann

            Perhaps the website used the same technology as the Wail’s?!

            Every time I try to share my. Experience even in a supposedly UNmoderated section it is DELETED from website!!!

          • goodsoldier

            The police have access to facts. You can’t expect the general public to have access to these yet. This doesn’t mean that there aren’t facts.

          • goodsoldier

            It will take some time but it will have to be done. There are so many accusations and some may be fraudulent but many may not. It must be investigated. Don’t belittle people who are anxious to investigate these crimes.

          • Ron Todd

            I have no intention of belittling people who want to investigate genuine crimes.

            I want to belittle one man who is using obviously false claims to attack his political opponents. And by doing so he is not helping genuine victims.

          • goodsoldier

            How do you know that Tom Watson is doing this to attack political opponents? And how do you know what is a genuine crime when you don’t seem to believe the boys who are now men who are desperate to get their case across? You are too busy being political. Only by investigation will we discover if Leon Brittan genuinely raped young boys brutally all those years ago. It is painful to investigate but it must be done. Forget about politics and think of the children.

          • Ron Todd

            If Tom Watson makes unbelievable claims against Tories while ignoring Lord Janner and Harriet Harman the only assumption I can make is that he is being political. That a lot of his information comes from Labour party activists people with fraud convictions or people who want a which hunt against Tories does not help your case. The police have now investigated Britton twice and found no convincing evidence

            How do I know what is a genuine crime? I know that if the claim is past what is believable is a claim that is at odds with what real people would do and is something that even a member of the establishment would get away with at the time and which the police under pressure to find as many historic peados
            as they can find no evidence for then the balance of probability is that it is a false accusation.

          • goodsoldier

            All people who are accused should be investigated. I am right-wing and despise Watson’s political views but I find him courageous. Perhaps some brave Tory should go after Janner and Harman or any leftie who is accused of child abuse. Is there a brave Torry about willing to do this dirty work?

          • Ron Todd

            People should be investigated the level of the investigation should be proportional. The police should not be driven by politicians into putting their massive resources into improbable claims when real crimes need investigating. the accusations should not be made public until there is credible evidence. The Janner case has already according to the legal authorities enough evidence to go to trial and I thing Harman has admitted her links to PIE.

          • Didckens was a known drunk and unreliable nutcase – it is said.

          • goodsoldier

            Perhaps paedophiles spread this rumour. Do you have hard evidence of this?

          • Sorry. I don’t encourage the mad trolls here. Look him up for yourself. While you are at it, try and find some therapy for insane conspiracy theories.

          • goodsoldier

            People who glibly label something a conspiracy theory are usually those who want to intimidate and shame those who have a different view than the Establishment. It seems you are working hard to keep something under-wraps. Perhaps you should seek therapy for hating abused boys so deeply that you will accuse them of unreliability at every turn. You go out of your way to defend Leon Brittan who lied about the information he received from DIckens and had it destroyed. If he were decent he would have investigated the information and preserved it because the accusations were so serious. Children should come first before Home secretaries.

          • You really didn’t bother to read those reports I sent you did you? Had you done so, you would see that Brittan referred some of Dicken’s ‘stuff’ to the Police including Chief constables. Dickens thanks him for it and praises him for the support he received from him.

            ‘Hating abused boys’. I don’t. I hate the way our society is now prepared to smear people who have been charged with no offences simply because there is no evidence that would stand up in court. When an accusation is made but there is no evidence that might lead to a conviction, no case can proceed. We already KNOW for sure that the original accusation against Brittan comes via a tainted source – Chris Faye. ‘Nick’ alleged that his schoolfirend was run over and killed by hit and run paedophiles, but investigation has shown that this did not happen. Thus all accusations by ‘Nick’ fail, because he lied. The other child abuse accusation against Brittan was uttered by a poor fellow (definitely abused) whose name is not in the public domain, who stated on Panorama that Faye brainwashed him into accusing Brittan (whom he says he has never met). Nothing can make any of these accusations stand up in court. However, people such as yourself have some wonderful second sight and ‘know’ the truth. Sadly, you know nothing of the kind and simply, for some sick reason accuse a man against whom there is no evidence.

            People in the public eye carry fame, but also a great misfortune; in a climate such as the current one, they are fair game for insane and false accusations by people like Faye – the source of most of Brittan’s misfortunes. Once ‘outed’ by the police, any loon or money making scammer can say ‘he raped me thirty years ago’. The police rang up that Kershaw woman dj out of the blue because she had in the past worked with Dave Lee Travis and invited her to accuse him of molestation. When she declined and said he had never done any such thing, she says they said to her – are you sure? He assaulted other people. You can claim compensation if he did. Do you think that is fair? I don’t.

          • goodsoldier

            I didn’t see any reports. I will look again.

            I would love to believe that no boys have been raped. Until I can look further into these investigations, and not depend on a Panorama report, then I may be convinced that the allegations have been thoroughly and fairly dealt with.

            Again, if those dossier letter were so insignificant, and had been looked into, there would be evidence of this. It is too convenient that we only have Brittan’s word and Dickens one remark as so-called evidence that it was handled. As we know, the police did not investigate in those days any case that involved a high ranking MP. So what happened then remains untrustworthy. Brittan should have clarified recently exactly what investigations occurred at that time and been forthcoming with information, not because he is guilty, but because he is supposed to be a responsible adult. He just hidden away and has been doing this for 20 years. Decent men would have been as helpful as possible.

            Let us hope that you are right and no young boys were raped by MPs or anybody for that matter

          • I included two links from the Home Office reports on the destruction of the documents. Dickens said himself that he had handed documents to the authorities (Brittan and the Home Office) and that they had been investigated. In a letter to Dickens, Brittan says that some of the documents may be enough to initiate an investigation and that he has passed them on to the police after discussing them with the DPP. Dickens refers to Chief Constables having looked at the documents.

            Why should Brittan respond to false accusations in public for YOUR satisfaction. Such accusations have a vile stink about them. No sane person would want to dignify false accusations of that sort with a public response. Responding to any police requests would be different, and ought to take place in private.

            You persist on seeing a conspiracy here where there is none.

            I wonder if you have caught up yet with the affairs of the Select Committee today? Watson made a grovelling apology to the Brittan family. A senior police investigator who has had contact with Watson and informed him of progress on the allegations and why hey went nowhere (because they were not procedable with) described Watsons public statements about the matters as ‘a betrayal’.


          • goodsoldier

            I did watch the Select Committee meeting today and I certainly wouldn’t say that Watson gave a ‘grovelling apology’. On the contrary, he only made it clear he was sorry for Lady Brittan and did not seem to be sorry in the least for Leon Brittan. In fact the whole panel couldn’t catch him out on any misconduct whatsoever of any importance, though they tried, and to me at least it seems Watson has acted in good faith regarding his dealings with victims and the police. He was right to point out that it was important that Leon Brittan be questioned. Of course, Leon denied even knowing the girl at the time. It is one person’s word against another’s. There are probably many details involved that seem to have resulted in the police having opposing views themselves, and Watson having his own personal judgements. It is clear that there are other allegations that influence Watsons perception of Brittan that we are not yet privy to. The implication is that this information is not positive.

            I share Watson’s point of view on this, that the victim’s cases must be amplified in the face of so much pressure to disbelieve them. Probably these people have been mistreated and disregarded for so long that they doubt the process. Watson is a great help to victims and I’m sure he is hearing some very compelling material.

            The dossiers were not taken sufficiently seriously at the time and it is clear that Brittan did not take the same care as Watson in making sure that victims’ voices were heard loud and clear. I understand that at the time MPs were so elevated and the victims so lowly and sordid in the eyes of MPs that it was easy to brush them aside as unreliable. I have been shocked at the dismissive and threatening tones that some MPs have used against these witnesses as though they are disgusted by anybody who has a complaint. Earlier on, Danczuk was threatened ominously by an MP to drop the whole matter. There is plenty still rotten within the palace of Westminster. I only expect fair play. There is clearly no witch hunt going on at all. Let Justice be done!

          • We must have watched different programmes – either that or one of us is insane.

            Read this and repent – especially the bit towards the end which discusses ‘Nick’ Chris Faye and the evidence against Heath, Proctor and Brittan.


            It is a very dangerous and irregular thing when venal politicians start directing operational police work and dictating who the police should be investigating.

          • goodsoldier

            I am taking everything you claim seriously and will read the information you have given me. I may change my opinion if I am convinced. I appreciate your strong opinion on the matter.

          • Great. You are right to be down on child abuse. It is probably teh very worst crime on the books. This is why I have such a strong reaction to the public naming of people accused when there is little evidence to corroborate ancient allegations. People in the public eye are VERY vulnerable to false or fantasist allegations. When Dave Lee Travis was accused of sexual assaults on adult women, people he had worked with were contacted by police and invited to accuse him. The following extract from Paul Gambuccini makes clear what is going on:

            ” Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Mr
            Gambaccini said: “It is a tactic of the police to call out and ask if
            people would like to make accusations. “This was brought to my attention by Liz Kershaw of 6 Music, two weeks
            before I was arrested, she told me that [Operation] Yewtree had called
            her and asked her if she would like to accuse Dave Lee Travis. And she
            said ‘No, don’t you need evidence?’ and they said ‘No we need people who

            “That’s the premise under this mutation of the British
            justice system which has occurred from the centuries old,
            internationally respected, objective, evidence based system, into the
            subjective, rumour and accusation based system, there can be no
            evidence, only people who agree and hence Sandi was called up and asked
            if she wanted to accuse anybody.”

            SOURCE of quote ->


          • Mr B J Mann

            But he produced some wonderfully imaginative creative writing…….

            Oh you meant CHARLES Dickens!!!!!

          • Joe Long

            “Would they torture and murder children in a densely packed
            block of flats in the middle of London and never worry that the neighbours
            might notice?”

            Not only that the alleged survivors were given a lift home as well

            “When they all returned to the same room, Nick was anally raped by MR PROCTOR and another male as “punishment”. The other males also anally raped the remaining boys. MR PROCTOR and two other males then began beating the chosen victim by punching and kicking. The attack continued until the boy collapsed on the floor and stopped moving. All of the men left the room. The remaining boys attempted to revive the victim but he was not breathing. They were left for some time before being taken out of the house and returned to their homes.”


            “Is it likely that Tom Watson believed the allegations to be

            Hardly, he’s a bloated opportunistic fraud

          • Jackthesmilingblack

            Yet Rolf Harris was banged up on less evidence.

          • Mr B J Mann


            There were witnesses who saw him kiss a girl and made her cry.

            I think there is even a song commemorating the fact!

          • Dominic Stockford

            Ah, well, remember – the MP’s fought tooth and nail not to allow cameras into Parliament – just imagine what they must have been trying to cover up.

            (well, it’s another idiotic and unhelpful conspiracy theory to add to all of theirs, and has ‘evidence’ to support it!).

          • Ron Todd

            What they were covering up was just how few of them are there most of the time.

          • Dominic Stockford

            You are absolutely right, but it isn’t very exciting though. It is much more fun for posters here to chuck about life-destroying allegations with no evidence. It makes them feel important.

          • Ron Todd

            and it makes them feel superior to us ignorant peasants who cannot see what is going on.

          • Dominic Stockford

            Quite so. Interestingly, I knew Fr Tony McSweeney for some of the time he was involved in the Elm Lodge matters, and there was nothing obvious or odd going on. And he certainly had no ‘high-ups’ as friends or acquaintances.

          • EUSSR 4 All!

            Ever heard of Markov?! Who is to say it wasn’t the KGB (I am sure the Russians knew by then the 30-year-rule)?! Only British toffs and RC priests fancied boys?!

            The notion that Thatcher or indeed any other PM of the day would have known or be informed of every single going-on is really quite absurd. This was 1979, not 1909! When were Thatchers particularly known for their discretion?!

          • approveds

            From the Telegraph
            New dossier shows Mrs Thatcher was briefed on Sir Peter Hayman paedophile scandal when she had been in Downing Street only a year, and officials feared the diplomat’s offending went back to at least 1966.

          • Even if she were briefed – the PM is quite properly separated from police operational matters and that of the Crown Prosecutor. Imagine if politicians were empowered to order prosecutions or insist on particular decisions about operational policing, like who must be investigated. That’s what Putin and the Chinese government does isn’t it?

          • ramesesthegrumbler

            Indeed they might turn up at Parliament and start searching the offices of Opposition MPs looking for evidence after being primed by the government of the day.
            Of course this could never happen could it?

          • You ASSERT…. Sadly – no substance here.

      • Bulsh|T. Heath had close police protection from the early 1970s and he was never without their supervision. How could he be at some seedy guesthouse in London raping children – and – according to the ridiculous tales of one accuser, intervene when supposedly, Harvey Proctor was about to cut of the genitalia of a boy in full view of several aristocratic type folk. ‘Nick’ the so called credible and true witness also alleges that his pursuers revved up a car and ran over one of his school mates, killing him while Nick and he were walking to school. This, supposedly as a warning to Nick of what they could do to him if he talked. The thing is – no such event took place. Investigations reveal that no boy at Nick’s school died in any such circumstances, nor did any disappear. So – what do we make of Nick’s story? One of the professional ‘Survivor’ advocates says, ‘Do survivors sometimes get confused? Yes. Does that mean we can’t believe them? No.’ Well, for my money, if people EVER spin you a croc of you know what, you can NEVER believe a thing they say, which is as it happens, probably the reason most of these VIP paedo claims have come to nothing.

        • Joe Long

          Interesting piece in the Guardian here on spurious satanic abuse claims based on “false memories”

          They have this to say about “Nick”

          “It is noteworthy that on Friday the BBC reported similarly unsubstantiated claims, albeit not of a satanic nature, of the sexual abuse of children. These came from a man in his 40s referred to as “Nick”. The man, who had been undergoing counselling for 20 years, claims that he and other children were the victims of a sex-ring that included prominent MPs and powerful others. Exaro News has gone even further, reporting Nick’s claims that two children were murdered by the group.”


          The Sunday Times has expanded on this today

          TWO key witnesses cham­pioned by the deputy Labour leader Tom Watson in the VIP paedophile sex abuse scandal are being helped by a charity that uses a controversial ther­apy experts fear could generate false memories.

          The therapy, in which the victims are given the details of the effects of sex abuse suffered by their own counsellor, has prompted concerns of a repeat of previous scandals in which “recovered mem­ory” played a part in false claims of child abuse in cases such as the Cleveland child abuse scandal in 1987 and the Orkney satanic ritual case in 1991.”


          Significant that Porky is getting no support from the Guardian, which generally follows Labour slavishly – indeed there have been a couple of quite critical comment pieces I recall

          • Recovered memory = invented memory. That’s it; clear simple and the absolute truth. If you need therapy to remember something, you are inventing it, and anyone who knows anything about memory knows that it is an extremely fallible thing. A CCTV tape it is not. Suggestions made before asking a question will very often appear in accounts of staged incidents in research which were certainly not really there. For example, in research on eyewitness testimony in which participants are shown a video of an incident involving a road crash, some of the participants were asked a priming question – ‘How fast was the red car going before the crash. When later asked to write an account of the incident they had observed a substantial portion of those who had been primed with the question of the red car, reported that one of the cars was red. There were NO red cars in the video. ANY hypnotic type procedure will corrupt memory. Those who appear able to be hypnotised, willingly put themselves in a position where the hypnotist defines reality for them. This is extremely dangerous.

          • Joe Long

            “Recovered memory” is probably the most charitable way of looking at it. There’s probably a good argument for prosecutions for making false accusations; “vulnerability” should not give a free pass to bearing false witness in the most foully damaging way.

          • Agreed.

  • Steve

    The hetro sexual adult rape claim was not what Brittan was suspect of and is in fact a recent allegation. The fact that it has been dismissed does not explain the files held by the Government on a number of Politicians such as Brittan in which concerns were raised. I nice diversion but we see through it.

    • soysauce1

      Except you see through nothing, the allegation of rape against Brittan has been around for years, the so called victim couldn’t even correctly identify where the ‘rape’ took place…some witness. You are just an apologist for the tinfoil brigade, the greatest evil you can do is to take away someones good name, the shame of that lies with Watson and his supporters.

      • Steve

        ah ‘Tin foil hat brigade’ nice try but there is more to this than this specific claim. What for example is on those files the Government hold on Peter Morrison and Liam Brittan for example.

        • soysauce1

          I suggest you go and read some background rather than throwing odd snippets around, Morrison and Brittan have both been fully investigated ad nuaseam there is nothing there, it is just your wishful thinking.

          • Steve

            I have done a substantial amount of background reading and you still have not accounted for those existing Government files which detail concerns about Brittan. Your assertion that Brittan and Morrison having been fully investigated only applies if you mean by the security services as it certainly does not apply to the police. I know this because my background reading informs me that a number of police officers have went public to state their investigations were closed down pre maturely. Are you saying they are lying ?

          • You don’t think police lie? You haven’t had a lot to do with the court system then. Not only do they lie, but they systematically protect wrongdoers within the organisation. I realise that there are hard working, honest police and that there are decent internal investigation squads, but the police has from its inception had serious problems of members covering up for the inadequacies and down right criminal activities of individuals and groups within the ranks. At the rank and file level any cop who dobs in a colleague will be ostracised completely and possibly set up with some false accusation. If you don’t know this you have not been paying attention. I have been involved in matters in which even at the Chief Inspector level, police have agreed with me that ‘X’ was guilty of misbehaviour, but they have then said, ‘if you quote me on that, I will deny I said it.’ It is par for the course, unfortunately. Like the army, they depend on one another and the classic way to find yourself out on a limb is to tell tales on someone in the squad.

          • Steve

            I know more about the courts than you seem to think. Im sure some Police officers have lied to protect themselves but what would the motive be here ?

          • goodsoldier

            Yeah sure! You are doing damage control like all the rest on this site. How much are you paid?

      • Steve

        The rape allegation has been around for years has it ? Strange that most of us only heard about it after the Dickens dossier story started to make waves. Pray tell how did you know about it before anyone else ?

      • goodsoldier

        Brittan would never have raped a woman. They are chuckling behind the scenes in parliament that we are so gullible as to have ever believed this.

    • goodsoldier

      Finally somebody who sees what is actually going on! To me this is obvious.

  • john ward

    While myself hugely suspicious of the paedophile accusation industry, there remain three unanswered factors in the Brittan case:
    1. If he knew the Watson allegations to be so much codswallop, why did David Cameron look so utterly discomfited during the PMQs session concerned?
    2. It is now over two years since Mayor Johnson declared the Met’s handling of the Elm House enquiry to be making “very good progress”. Where is this progress, and when can we expect to hear about it?
    3. Why did Mrs Thatcher abruptly and without recorded reason banish Leon Brittan to an EU Commissioner post soon after the original allegations about him began to circulate?

    The Dolphin Square drivel distracted from Elm House in the same way as the Brittan rape fantasy distracted from the real suspicions about his predilections. While the BBC ‘celeb’ accusations were clearly orchestrated and vindictive, it seems to me that Mr Jackson is throwing out some very dirty bathwater with the baby in this piece: the Brittan case remains for me very possibly the exception that proves the rule.

    • Dominic Stockford

      You allege that Mr Cameron looked ‘discomfited’ – a subjective claim and as bad an attempt at blackening names as some of what Mr Watson seems to have done. Anyone who has a conscience would be discomfited by such matters, even if uninvolved.

    • goodsoldier

      Right on!

  • approveds

    Alistair Jackson ”The police have found no evidence for ‘a paedophile network linked to No. 10’. They should now admit it. No you are wrong. You know nothing about the Operation Midland Investigation. You do not know about the ‘other’ witnesses, or the other enquiries, ‘not in the public domain’ do you Alistair? You only know half of what is going on, or even who is involved.

    • Ron Todd


      • approveds

        You sound very intelligent !!!

        • Ron Todd

          thank you.

    • Chingford Man

      I have no idea what the Met is investigating under Operation Midland as the police have decided rather sensibly not to give a running commentary. It seems silly to attack a criminal investigation by attacking the witnesses whose allegations are already in the public arena when none of us commenting here (I hope) know what avenues the police may currently be exploring.

      The only sensible option is for everyone to calm down, keep an open mind, remember that people are innocent unless proved otherwise, and let the policemen conclude their investigations as they see fit.

      I see Mr Jackson hasn’t replied to my query. I bet he is regularly checking these comments, so why the silence?

      • Joe Long

        We know what the Met plods are “investigating”


        We know that the source of these lurid allegations is “Nick”

        We know that there are grave doubts about his testimony, unsuprisingly because it is insane


        We know now that plod at command level is very susceptible to pressure

        “It was felt that these were highly unusual circumstances where the previous independence of the police to tackle sexual offending by VIPs had been publicly called into question. A decision to take no further action in respect of this allegation would undoubtedly have resulted in media criticism and public cynicism, and there was clearly a very strong public interest in ensuring that the correct decision had been made.”

        “Lord Brittan could not therefore, at that point, have been informed that no action was to be taken in respect of this allegation. Although the MPS had concluded that there was not a strong case against Lord Brittan, the purpose of requesting a CPS view was to assess whether, in its view, it did reach the evidential standard.”


        the pressure in this case applied particularly by the malignant Tom Watson and Exaro, who whipped up the kind of hysteria last seen in this country with the 17th century “Popish Plot”

        Plod therefore is simply not trustworthy

        Another example of that is Operation Elveden

        “Michael Potts, of Byrne and partners, said : “The CPS decision to prosecute numerous journalists in Operation Elveden has proved an unmitigated disaster.

        “Despite juries’ rejecting case after case, the damage to journalists has already been done with many, who were just doing their jobs, subjected to raids, arrests, significant delays in investigations as well as prolonged, unjust criminal proceedings.”


        The overwhelming majority of journalists prosecuted worked for the Sun(29 prosecuted, 28 acquitted and 1 appeal pending) – no political motivation there then.

        The slimy former Director of Public Prosecutions was rewarded with a safe Labour seat for doing his masters’ bidding there.

        From further afield we have the utterly despicable SYP and WMP – who deliberately suppressed info about grooming gangs in the West Midlands on “community cohesion” grounds.

        There is no trust in these rotten organisations, and obviously left to themselves, to cover their backs, they will try to spin out their “investigations” in perpetuity.

        What’s really required is a thoroughgoing clear out at command level, and prosecutions for those who have borne false witness

        • Chingford Man

          If you really are capable of discerning the progress of confidential police investigations, of which you are not a part, shouldn’t you be applying your skills to something more lucrative like betting?

    • Mr B J Mann

      Why are the dodgy “wItnesses” and dodgy “evidence” made public while the good stuff remains hidden?!

  • Yiannis

    How the left voted this nasty, bitter, partisan, obnoxious, fat lump as their deputy leader is beyond anyone with half a brain. However, It tells you all you need to know about their judgement. They destroyed this country once before and will completely annihilate it if they ever held the reigns of power once again.

    • red2black

      Mr Watson emerged as the winner in the third round of voting.
      He received 160,852 votes – 39.4% – in the first round, 170,589 – 42.2% – in the second round, and 198,962 – more than 50% of the vote – in the third round.
      Ms Creasy came second with 26% and Ms Flint third with 22%.
      There was a standing ovation and huge cheers as his victory was announced.

    • Paul W

      Its obvious – they were mad enough to elect a trot as leader – you should not be surprised at the character of their newly elected deputy.

    • Richard

      He gives fat lumps a bad name.

    • approveds

      I hope people like you don’t live in London, at least in the better parts of London.

      • Yiannis

        Unfortunately for you I live in a very nice part of London. Don’t let it bother you leftie.

        • approveds

          Not Chelsea I hope, but we tend not to get people like you here, mos are polite, and intelligent.

  • “The police have found no evidence for ‘a paedophile network linked to No. 10’. They should now admit it.”

    Are you kidding? The Marxist co-opted Met? Why would the Met release the data it has on this scandal when it’s the Met itself that operates pedophile honey traps, and other sexual liaisons for blackmail purposes?

    The following is a discovery I made in April regarding the fake collapse of the USSR, and what that fraudulent collapse proves about the institutions of the West…

    When Soviet citizens were liberated from up to 74 years of horrific Marxist oppression on December 26, 1991 there were ZERO celebrations throughout the USSR, proving (1) the ‘collapse’ of the USSR is a strategic ruse; and (2) the political parties of the West were already co-opted by Marxists,* otherwise the USSR (and East Bloc nations) couldn’t have gotten away with the ruse.

    ZERO celebrations, as the The Atlantic article inadvertently informs us…


    Notice, however, the Kremlin staged anti-government demonstrations that took place in Russia (and other Soviet republics) in the years immediately preceding the ‘collapse’, yet ZERO celebrations after the ‘collapse’!

    For more on this discovery see my blog…



    The West will form new political parties where candidates are vetted for Marxist ideology, the use of the polygraph to be an important tool for such vetting. Then the West can finally liberate the globe of vanguard Communism.
    * The failed socialist inspired and controlled pan-European revolutions that swept the continent in 1848(1) taught Marxists and socialists a powerful lesson, that lesson being they couldn’t win overtly,(2) so they adopted the tactic of infiltration of the West’s political parties/institutions. In the case of the United States…(continue reading at DNotice)…


    Now you know why not one political party in the West requested verification of the collapse of the USSR, and the media failed to alert your attention to this fact, including the ‘alternative’ media. When determining whether the ‘former’ USSR is complying with arms control treaties, what does the United States do to confirm compliance? Right, the United States sends into the ‘former’ USSR investigative teams to VERIFY compliance, yet when it’s the fate of the West that’s at stake should the collapse of the USSR be a ruse, what does the United States do to confirm the collapse? Nothing!

    The fraudulent ‘collapse’ of the USSR (and East Bloc) couldn’t have been pulled off until both political parties in the United States (and political parties elsewhere in the West) were co-opted by Marxists, which explains why verification of the ‘collapse’ was never undertaken by the West, such verification being (1) a natural administrative procedure (since the USSR wasn’t occupied by Western military forces); and (2) necessary for the survival of the West. Recall President Reagan’s favorite phrase, “Trust, but verify”.

    It gets worse–the ‘freed’ Soviets and West also never (1) de-Communized the Soviet Armed Forces of its Communist Party officer corps, which was 90% officered by Communist Party members; and (2) arrested/de-mobilized the 6-million vigilantes that assisted the Soviet Union’s Ministry of the Interior and police control the populations of the larger cities during the period of ‘Perestroika’ (1986-1991)!

    There can be no collapse of the USSR (or East Bloc nations) without…

    Verification, De-Communization and De-mobilization.

    The West never verified the collapse of the USSR because no collapse occurred, since if a real collapse had occurred the West would have verified it, since the survival of the West depends on verification. Conversely, this proves that the political parties of the West were co-opted by Marxists long before the fraudulent collapse of the USSR, since the survival of the West depends on verification.

    The above means that the so-called ‘War on Terror’ is an operation being carried out by the Marxist co-opted governments of the West in alliance with the USSR and other Communist nations, the purpose being to (1) destroy the prominence of the West in the eyes of the world, where the West is seen (i) invading nations without cause; (ii) causing chaos around the globe; and (iii) killing over one-million civilians and boasting of torture; (2) close off non-Russian supplies of oil for export, thereby increasing the price of oil, the higher price allowing oil exporting Russia to maintain economic stability while she modernizes and increases her military forces; (3) destroy the United States Armed Forces via the never-ending ‘War on Terror’; the ultimate purpose of the aforementioned to (4) bring about the demise of the United States in the world, opening up a political void to be filled by a new pan-national entity composed of Europe and Russia (replacing the European Union), a union ‘From the Atlantic to Vladivostok’; which will (5) see the end of NATO.

    Now you know how Bolshevik Russia survived in 1917; how the West ‘lost’ China to the Communists in 1949; why the Eisenhower administration turned a deaf ear to the anti-Communist Hungarian uprising in 1956; why the Eisenhower administration in 1959 was indifferent to the Castro brothers’ Communist fidelity, actually used the CIA to overthrow the Batista government; why the Nixon administration abandoned Taiwan for Communist China, and signed treaties/provided economic aid to the USSR; why the Nixon administration refused to tell the American People that over 50% of North Vietnamese NVA regiments were actually Chinese People’s Liberation Army soldiers (attired in NVA uniforms, and proving that the Sino/Soviet Split was a ruse, as KGB defector Major Anatoliy Golitsyn told the West back in 1962), thereby (1) ensuring the Vietnam War would be lost; (2) destroying the prominence of the United States abroad and at home; (3) breeding distrust between the American people and their government; and (4) securing Communist victories in Southeast Asia. Working in the background within the political parties of the United States and Great Britain were Marxist agents doing their best to (1) ensure the survival of Communist nations when they popped up; and (2) sabotage any policies that would bring down a Communist nation. That’s why after the fake collapses of the East Bloc nations and USSR there was no mandatory Western verification process to ensure the Communists weren’t still in control.

  • Jackthesmilingblack

    The Spectator on damage control.
    Whitewash on back order?

    • Cornelius Bonkers

      Makes you wonder doesn’t it? What about Elm Lodge and Kincora? Are they fictions too?

      • Dominic Stockford

        Elm Lodge is not a fiction, however there is no EVIDENCE beyond that which has convicted the Roman Catholic Priest Fr Tony McSweeney and John Stingemore.

        • Cornelius Bonkers

          I wonder if there is a masonic element here? After all, masonry is an enterprise entirely devoted to the perfection of the art of conspiracy. I’m told that senior police are most enthusiastic masons – makes life tricky for “ordinary” coppers who MUST know whether all this is true…

          • Dominic Stockford

            It wouldn’t surprise me if there was some involvement, somehow – because masons protect other masons without knowing the exact nature of what they are protecting them from.

        • goodsoldier

          I will have to talk to Michael Portillo about this. We cannot take your word for it.

  • Sten vs Bren

    “Almost exactly three years ago, Tom Watson stood up in parliament and demanded the Metropolitan police investigate ‘clear intelligence suggesting a powerful paedophile network linked to Parliament and No. 10’”

    Yes and Watson DID have clear evidence of a paedophile network linked to Parliament and Number 10. It was called the Paedophile Information Exchange. Watson’s evidence was used to convict two of the network.

    The link to Parliament and Number 10 was at least twofold. 1. The PIE received at least £35000 in Home Office grants in 1980. 2. In 1981, Sir Peter Hayman was confirmed to Margaret Thatcher to have been a member.

    • Hamburger

      Have you evidence ?

      • jennybloggs

        Edwina Currie asserted in her book that Morrison was known to like 16 year old boys (21 was then the age of consent). Norman Tebbit said he had heard rumours about Morrison.

        • Hamburger

          Ah, rumours, I mean evidence. I know that your police seems to be more interested in rumours than facts, but we should not follow their example.

        • Mr B J Mann

          Ah, so Morrison liked to do what Labour liked to legalise?!?!?!!!!

    • Joe Long

      “The link to Parliament and Number 10 was at least twofold. 1. The PIE received at least £35000 in Home Office grants in 1980. 2. In 1981, Sir Peter Hayman was confirmed to Margaret Thatcher to have been a member.”

      That’s over 40 years ago, and it is thin stuff indeed

      Why are you ignoring the whole thrust of this article which is that Watson’s HOC 2012 allegations related to a former senior aide who is now a government minister, and like most of what Watson touts it is spurious?

      Meanwhile Porker’s Crusade continues to disintegrate

      “TWO key witnesses cham­pioned by the deputy Labour leader Tom Watson in the VIP paedophile sex abuse scandal are being helped by a charity that uses a controversial ther­apy experts fear could generate false memories.

      The therapy, in which the victims are given the details of the effects of sex abuse suffered by their own counsellor, has prompted concerns of a repeat of previous scandals in which “recovered mem­ory” played a part in false claims of child abuse in cases such as the Cleveland child abuse scandal in 1987 and the Orkney satanic ritual case in 1991.”


      The two “key witnesses” are “Darren”, now totally discredited and Esther Baker, whose Cannock Chase “vice ring” seems to have come out of the same stable

      “It is a testament to Graham Wilmer’s skill (as a survivor himself he practises a form of therapy using ‘peer counselling’ by other survivors) with the meagre funds available to his Lantern Project, that he can take such a deeply damaged girl with horrific memories buried for nigh on 26 years, and in a brief 12 months give her the confidence to provide verbal evidence of the links between Lords, Judges, the Elm Guest House, murdered children, indeed many of the threads of the stories the world media have been feeding on for months and which were starting to quieten down.”


      Porker demanded a “complete investigation” into Baker’s claims, but as to the real group/gang CSE scandal in the West Midlands


      He just doesn’t want to lnow

    • Mr B J Mann


      Wasn’t that the outfit people like Harriet Harman promoted?!?!?!!!!!

      Does Watson have a dossier on her? An that woman fro Tower Hamlets, or wherever I was?!

  • plainsdrifter

    The British police have become a national disgrace. Figures of contempt.

    • Jackthesmilingblack

      Policing with consent? Gimme a break!
      Contempt, going on hatred for the police is rising every higher in the social stratum. Summed up in the expression, “I wouldn’t lift a finger to help those bastards”.
      “I wasn’t there, I saw nothing, and it was two other blokes.”

  • Mr B J Mann

    For those who missed it at the other end of the thread I’ll repeat my earlier post:

    A short while before the Savile scandal blew up I heard an unrelated medical ethics documentary programme on BBC Radio 4 which discussed the problems of sedating children or adults with educational challenges.

    According to a Doctor one of the problems is that half of people recovering from general anaesthetic have such vivid hallucinations they cannot distinguish them from reality.

    And in half of those cases the hallucinations are of a sexual nature!

    Why have I never heard this raised in connection with Savile (or, for example, in cases where Dentists are accused of sexual impropriety with anaesthetised patients – and then publicity uncovers more “victims” with a similar story)?

    Could this be be why we read of thousands of nurses having heard rumours about Savile, but I’ve only read of one nurse having witnessed anything:

    And that was while she was a patient. And what she “saw” was him putting his tongue right down a child’s throat! How long was his tongue? And did she have X-Ray Vision?!

    Surely something for Panorama to investigate?

    If you don’t want to (or wouldn’t be allowed to) investigate with respect to Savile, how about the Dentist angle?!

  • kevin emmerson

    No-one saw the picture of that fat bloater Britton in a maid’s outfit with a boy on his knee then.You know the one that did not exist.Just as Saville escaped because the police had no evidence.

  • kevin emmerson

    Are you stupid or just defending the ‘good old boys’ .T

  • kevin emmerson

    Why was the image of Britton removed and then this redacted misinformation process started.Cliff is surviving because he’s going to spill the beans on someone big.Heath, Mcalpine,Mountbatten all died before this witch hunt could reveal their alleged parts ,Saville managed to carry on for over 40 yrs because of the power of the witch hunt.Of course the police tried desperately to pin something on him but with so few victims and so little evidence, they were probably trying to set him up.Just as the witch hunters at the moment are seeking to discredit these people for their own political ends.No one told the police to bury stuff on Saville just as no one told google to remove the picture of Leon and no one is working behind the scenes to minimise the damage.As the ‘without favour’ pledge has been taken we presume justice will prevail as it did for Saville.

  • MrJones

    This all started during the North wales child abuse inquiry when allegations about boys being taken to London for VIPs was ruled out of the inquiry.

    Panorama didn’t mention any of that.