Email
Password
Remember meForgot password?
    Log in with Twitter

article imageOp-Ed: How plausible is the Great Paedophile Cover Up?

By Alexander Baron     Dec 5, 2012 in Crime
In the wake of the Jimmy Savile affair, all manner of allegations have been made about the high and mighty, the rich and famous. How much substance is there to these claims?
Of the people who have written about the Savile affair on this site, I think it is fair to say that I alone have expressed a great deal of skepticism. There are reasons for this. One is that I have done a great deal of research on related subjects over the years and am all too aware of the frailty of human testimony. The other is that I have experienced lies, distortions and duplicity personally. Back in the 1990s I tried to have a police officer indicted for perjury and to force the disclosure of suppressed evidence by the same individual; this resulted in first a magistrate and then a High Court judge laughing in my face, literally. This has I think given me an insight into what we are really witnessing here. First though, let me give a cautionary tale about how lies and smears can be and are manufactured.
Earlier this year, the political activist and author Jonathan Bowden died at the young age of 49. It is fair to say that the last few months of his life were not happy ones. One thing he found extremely distressing was that he had been smeared as a paedophile. This came about after another individual named Jonathan Bowden, a teacher, was convicted of downloading what appear to have been indecent images of young boys. Incidentally, one of the judges who heard and upheld that conviction in 1999 was the very same High Court judge who laughed in my face at about the same time.
Years after this Jonathan Bowden's conviction, the other Jonathan Bowden's political enemies found the case and distributed a smear story to the effect that it had been him. It may have been a similar act of malice that led to Lord McAlpine being similarly smeared. While we need not take seriously the ravings of David Icke about serving presidents or humbler British politicians kidnapping, torturing, raping and even murdering children as part of their Satanic rituals, it is fair to say that there does appear to have been a culture of cover up over matters which although falling far short of murder are still extremely serious.
That word, culture, is important. Do not for Heaven sake use the word conspiracy or you will be laughed at and derided. You probably will be anyway. A visible example of this culture can be found in the case of Nicola Fisher and the far from fragrant Sergeant Smellie. According to District Judge Daphne Wickham this gratuitous assault amounted to lawful self-defence.
Does anyone imagine for one moment that any of us plebs would have been totally exonerated under similar circumstances, even allowing for this being a somewhat heated protest? The culture that led to the police attempting to cover up for one of their ilk over the death of Ian Tomlinson was even more outrageous, as were the contrived witness statements they produced at the time of the Hillsborough Stadium disaster.
The journalist and author David Rose is one of those foolish people who have supported murderess Linda Carty, among his other sins, and his book on the Broadwater Farm riot of 1985 which resulted in the murder of PC Keith Blakelock exhibits the same naiveté, but in that book he enunciated what he called The Police Infallibility Principle, which needs no explaining. The bottom line is we are always right, and you don't count. Any allegation of corruption or just plain rudeness against a police officer is inclined to be dismissed with prejudice if it emanates from a mere member of the public, and provided the officer is only bent for the job, rather than bent for self. This is the privilege money can't buy.
It is of course the police who are responsible for investigating the overwhelming majority of crimes in the UK - real and alleged. Having established that they are always at the top of the tree, the pecking order lower down can depend on all manner of things. Some allegations are always to be treated with a great deal of skepticism. Let's take a purely hypothetical one. Imagine you are a detective, you are sitting in the back office of the local copshop doing some paperwork, when the station sergeant escorts a young lady to you. She wants to report a rape.
You ask her to take a seat, and you ensure that you are not left alone with her. Then you ask her for some details. Who has been raped? She has. When did this rape occur? Six weeks ago. Not good. Why didn't you report it at the time? I've just escaped. You were held prisoner, miss? Yes. Where? Buckingham Palace, she replies.
Now, are you still investigating a rape, an alleged rape, or something else?
Obviously you would continue questioning her, you have to go through the motions, and although the likelihood of her being abducted and held prisoner at Buckingham Palace is close to zero, she may be telling the truth as she sees it. It may be for example that she has a low IQ, and has been drugged then kidnapped by a sexual predator who told her he was Prince Philip.
At some point though, you are going to give up on this woman and probably have her examined by a shrink. Unless of course your name is Detective Constable Icke!
What though of allegations made against people who do not reside at Buckingham Palace yet are powerful or influential at a national level or perhaps only within their own bailiwick? One would hope they would be investigated thoroughly and professionally, and, where necessary, tactfully, but this does not appear to have been always the case.
The allegations made against the former Government Minister Neil Hamilton and his wife by Nadine Milroy-Sloan were quickly shown to have been false, and the lady in question soon found herself in hot water, rightly so, because it is only proper than gratuitously false allegations of serious crimes should result in serious punishment.
In the wake of the Jimmy Savile scandal, historic allegations were raised against the liberal MP Cyril Smith, who died two years ago. As with Savile, there had long been whispers, rumours and more than one police investigation. Again, as with Savile the allegations had a certain consistency, although while Savile liked to grope underage girls. Smith liked to chastise and indecently assault boys.
Cyril Smith  Member of Parliament for Rochdale 1972-92
Cyril Smith, Member of Parliament for Rochdale 1972-92
Creative Commons
When Smith was elected to Parliament he quipped that it was no longer possible for people to claim the Liberals could all go home in one taxi, but the man who now occupies Smith's Rochdale seat, Labour MP Simon Danczuk, claims his predecessor actually raped (sodomised) boys at a children's home during the early 1960s.
What are we to make of all this? If allegations of this nature are investigated methodically and honestly, and it transpires they are totally without foundation, then there may be good reason for keeping the whole business under wraps, if only to avoid giving ammunition to the conspiracy cranks and gossip mongers. Most such allegations though cannot be dismissed so emphatically, more often or not they are he said-she said type allegations, or he said-he said, or in these two particular cases - Savile and Smith - he said-they said. It is difficult to know what to make of them much of the time, and again one should bear in mind that old saucer flap analogy. One media report of a flying saucer can and often does lead to a dozen or a hundred. Can they all be false? Apparently so.
There is though another possibility, one that has been popular in intelligent conspiracy circles for a long time. This is that certain politicians and other powerful people, or people the security services have an interest in, are allowed to get away with this sort of abuse or even indulged in order to keep them in line, and to perhaps influence them to do their bidding at some point. There is actually hard evidence for this in the notorious Kincora Boys' Home scandal of the 1980s. It was certainly not by chance that this happened in Northern Ireland, the most turbulent and troubled region of the United Kingdom.
We can but speculate as to what has happened in the past, but we can prevent this sort of thing happening in the future, and both the best and the easiest way to do this is by applying common sense, a common sense that our ancestors had back in Biblical times but that we seem to have completely lost. Or almost.
When the police question a suspect, there will be at least two of them wherever possible. This is so one can back up the other - even with the same lies! Does a male police officer search a female suspect? Not in this country, not unless it is a potentially life or death situation. Why not? Do you really need to ask that question? Yet often, professional people do not take such precautions, certainly in schools and elsewhere.
Last month, Red Saunders was given a life sentence for raping an 8 year old girl. How did he gain access to such a vulnerable victim? Not by waylaying her in the park as Antoni Imiela might have done; he was hired as a babysitter. While most of us would trust a close male relative to babysit, there is absolutely no reason for a man to be allowed to babysit a young girl. If you really don't understand why, ask your local imam or rabbi, but not apparently your local Catholic priest.
This is not a case of distrusting anyone, it is as stated simple common sense. If such common sense had been applied at the BBC during the 1970s especially, Savile would probably never have chanced his arm, nor would Gary Glitter, and many other people including Lord McAlpine and Freddie Starr would never have had their names dragged through the mud.
This opinion article was written by an independent writer. The opinions and views expressed herein are those of the author and are not necessarily intended to reflect those of DigitalJournal.com
More about Jimmy Savile, Paedophiles, Paedophilia, Pedophile, Pedophiles
More news from