Not surprising there may be some variance in what he remembered.

FWIW that is far superior to economical with truth as a phrase for explaining being incorrect about actual facts. Itsa fantastic piece of spin and BS and I applaud it. FWIW in the real world folk call changing your story lying but your description is so much prettier. You do make me laugh….its a character and charade on here isnt it?

All the hate here is politically motivated as Brittan was Home Secretary under Thatcher.

Yes the only reason I object to him lying and not investigating a paedo porn ring , losing the e and evidence, lying about whether he has it is because he served under Thatcher 🙄 Obviouxly the issue has FA to do with it….again AWESOME insight as per usual.
There is no way you went to Oxford with this sort of analysis…are you a member of the royal family and that is how you got in. An E in art and good connections?

and of course oh the irony of you saying it those questioning his role who are politically motivated given your unswerving support for the good egg Tory you met etc. This really is satirical genius.

Any MP of either side who says they voted for the Iraq war based on the 45 min claim or any other details provided by Blair are trying to re-write history

See above but to claim the dossier of “intelligence” did not affect anyone perceptions is as wrong as you always are. It had not other purpose but to do this and even you accept Blair was a good politician.

In memorium: Here lies a true ****

Maybe you’re right though. Lets give him the benefit of the doubt eh? Seeing as he seemed like a nice old chap. Maybe concentrating on politicising a police force, and deploying it as a militia to violently suppress ‘the Enemy Within’ plays havoc with your memory? If you’ve got the more important stuff to be getting on with, then the odd murderous peadophile ring can slip underneath the radar….

🙄

Lifted this from twitter:

Leon Brittan is guilty of nothing…. It’s all just lies, conspiracies & smears, except:

1) Hillsborough No cover up, ‘just a conspiracy theory’, blah blah…. Turned out to be true

2) Plot to stitch up Arthur Scargill via MI5 & Stella Rimmington – ‘just a conspiracy theory’ turned out to be true

3) No plot to de-stabilise Harold Wilson, it’s a ‘just a conspiracy theory’. Thatcher even ‘investigated it’ – turned out to be true

4) No plot via armed forces, Goldsmith, & Monarchy to launch a coup in 70’s – ‘just a conspiracy theory’– turned out to be true

5) Colin Wallace framed for murder to stop him blowing lid on Operation Clockwork Orange, ‘just a conspiracy theory’ – turned out true

6) We didn’t deliberately engineer the miner’s strike to break the industry, ‘just a conspiracy theory’, turned out to be true

7) The state not involved in Pat Finucane murder…’just a conspiracy theory’… Turned out to be true

8 ) The state not involved in Rosemary Nelson murder…’just a conspiracy theory’… Turned out to be true

9) No MI5 involvement in Australia Whitlam government coup – ‘just a conspiracy theory’~ turned out to be true

10) Peter Hayman, Cyril Smith, Peter Morrison – not paedophiles, ‘just a conspiracy theory’ – turned out to be true

11) There is nothing untoward in Dr David Kelly autopsy reports – so we’ll censor it for the next 70 years~ conspiracy?

KFC? That’s a new one on me. Even Urban Dictionary doesn’t give a reference to kiddie fiddling clubs.

Having been a witness in a civil case, I know only too well how one’s memory can let one down over a much shorter time frame than 25 years so I am hardly surprised that Leon Brittan recollection is inconsistent and I don’t find the fact that it is particularly damning. You should appreciate that:

(i) Geoffrey Dickens was a huge self publicist (even by the standards of MPs). This might mean his evidence was not given sufficient attention.

(ii) Leon Brittan would not have written any letters, he would only have signed them and I imagine he signed an awful lot of letters everyday.

(iii) That generation’s attitude to such allegations certainly failed to take into account the impact on the victims and was very different from current attitudes.

I don’t think it is therefore unreasonable to give him the benefit of doubt and, if he is innocent, it will be a very sad that he died with these allegations hanging over him.

BTW:

It is Chilcot inquiry, Winston Silcott was wrongly convicted of the murder of PC Blakelock – see how recollection can be tricky.

I thought Jambalaya went to Bristol that is what he said on the Rugby thread.

OH FFS!!! Will you, JHJ for the sake of everyone else on here, please just knock it on the ****ing head with snowballing every ****ing thread into your spirit-crushingly tedious David Icke-esque, tin-foil helmet wearing, we’re ruled by lizard overlords, ****ing nonsense?

PLEASE?! Its getting really, really, really, really ****ing boring now.

Aren’t there specific websites where you fetid bedroom-dwellers congregate to air your ludicrous conspiracy theories?

Wow. Your party loyalty/blinkers/rose tinted glasses is being stretched to the extreme on this one. I hated him for his involvement in the miners strike among other things, but that pales into insignificance against the stench of child abuse, rape, murder, and potential cover-ups to protect those who were involved.

Bang on.

Out of all the people thought to be involved in this vile abuse case it’s his name that keeps popping up time and time again. It’s got the wiff of old uncle ‘Jimmy’ as in everyone knew before he died but it was easier to address it once he was dead.

Chill out binners, I was just adding some weight to your argument…

Don’t be such a buzzkill dude

😆

the most recent conspiracy theory with Leon Brittan was that he had stood down as a non exec director of several banks because of the allegations regarding child abuse. What we now know is that he was in fact dying of terminal cancer – but you won’t hear any of the conspiracists having the integrity to apologise for what they were saying at the time.

Just the same as how you won’t hear the apologists speak out if/when he’s proved to be up to his neck in the whole disgusting episode.

Few examples…

~114 missing files on high level paedophilia,

~Multiple allegations of Leon Brittan’s personal involvement in such crimes across the country

~Dark acts carried out by the Home Office and it’s agencies under his leadership

would suggest apologizing for his dying would be a little insincere…

That’s before you take into account the crimes of the banks themselves; remind us by what means 1% of the worlds population are on course to own more than the other 99% in the near future please

Of course, I could mention his links to Jimmy Savile and the like, but because it’s not on the BBC, you may have trouble swallowing it.

peteimpreza – Member
..
My uncle wroked in the civil service at the he was in the Thatcher government and then suddenly moved to a role in the EC. There was no doubt at the time it was linked to his predaliction for young boys.

Brave of you to share you uncle’s predilection for young boys with us all but I’m struggling to see how that’s remotely relevant to Leon Brittan. If your clumsily constructed sort-of-sentence was mostly referring to Brittan however, then you’re either misinformed or deliberately distorting history –

He resigned from the government (“fell on his sword”) in early 1986 in the fallout from the Westland kerfuffle. As “sudden” moves go, his appointment to the European Commission in 1989 is pretty glacial really.

globalti – Member
No doubt in my mind; senior politicians all involved so the longer the enquiry can be deleyed, the better. And child abuse isn’t confined to Rotherham, for sure.

senior politicians all involved? Really? Every last one of them? Wow. BTW, how are you defining “senior” – Front Bench? Privy Council?

I don’t think anyone has ever, anywhere claimed that Rotherham was isolated or unique – the unique feature in Rotherham was someone independently keeping robust records of sufficient quality to provide third party verification of the volume of claims that had been ignored over a long period.

It might even (I don’t know) be robust, independently verifiable and independent enough to be useable as evidence of something. This might seem hard to comprehend to some on here, but I don’t think any of this evidence includes drawings of pyramids.

“I don’t think anyone has ever, anywhere claimed that Rotherham was isolated or unique”

Spot on. In fact the Children’s Commissioner said on record in December that the same sort of grooming was taking place in nearly all towns and cities in England – they were /are looking at another 16,000 children who are victims of grooming gangs.

I thought Jambalaya went to Bristol that is what he said on the Rugby thread.

I am sure he will clarify but he said he went to Oxford in the Honours thread iirc [ iirc for the thread not the claim]

Probably why he admire Leon so much as he is equally accurate with facts “forgetful”

What Binners said at Jive but I just see his log on and then skim past the BS that follows. You know what it will be on every single topic

Filing? Is that what it comes under? So a fellow MP comes to you with an extensive dossier claiming that a number of your colleagues

@binners BBC journalist said that Dickens was not the sort of MP/person who would have put together a detailed dossier, it would much more likely have been a loose collection of notes or press cuttings.

JY you and others seem unable to grasp the fact I have never voted Conservative despite posting that numerous times, they are hardly “my party” and there is certainly no rose tinted glasses wrt the Thatcher era. I just wonder what you think is my logic for defending Blair. If there is any trolling here it’s you trying to pigeon hole me.

The mob here and others want to do is slime a senior Tory with unsubstantiated allegations which even in their strongest form don’t directly involve Brittan at all.

We still haven’t had any comment about why Dickens didn’t have a copy although it does sound like he was all at sea organizationally so perhaps he did hand over the only copy

I said we should wait for the enquiry and if it’s proven there was wrong doing I’ll be back with a condemnation for whoever is concerned.

@mefty Bristol for my first degree and Oxford for my post grad. Mathematics and Computer Science JY.

What I don’t understand is why Dickens didn’t go to the police. If I had information or suspicions about child abuse I’d go straight to the police, not an MP or a Minister especially if the people concerned in the allegation where fellow MPs.

Its not a case of going to any old MP though, is it? He was the home secretary. As the allegations concerned a conspiracy involving both senior police and MPs, then if you had the access, surely its the obvious place to go.

And, at the risk of sounding repetitive: do you have any confidence in this particular enquiry, given its woeful shambolic record so far? And the fact that it might be disbanded shortly, and all its evidence discarded? Resetting the whole process (quite conveniently, some might say). Some of the witnesses have already stated that if this happens then they won’t/can’t face going through the trauma of giving evidence again?

If so, you’d appear to be in a minority of one. The whole thing is a farce! And has been from day 1!

There hasn’t been an inquiry yet so it’s hard for me to have a negative opinion of it. I personally thought the candidates picked for leading it where credible, especially the second lady. The main argument against her seemed to be she’d had dinner with Lean Brittan once and also lived in South West London. Leon Brittain was a lawyer and most inquiries are lead by lawyers so it’s going to be very easy for the detractors to talk of “the establishment”. If the inquiry is disbanded as you suggest those who made so many complaints against its formation should ask themselves whether that was the right course of action.

well from what ive seen of the elm street guest house allegations, the police had already been told and ignored it so going to the home sec makes sense

but leon briton was old and ill and it was a long time ago, its totally plausible that he genuinely cant remember

the problem is that jimmy savilles predilictions were widely suspected in government (fathchas own advisors warned her) by the bbc and by the press and the police, yet he got away with it for decades
and so many other celebs and even the odd MP of the time have turned out to be paedophiles and theres still some that mysteriously seem to be untouchable [cough]Cliff [/cough]

all this and JHJ et als random conspiracies wouldnt seem so bad if it wasnt for the the fact the Theresa ‘piss up in a brewery’ May had made such a ridiculous farce of the inquiry

What set of t..ts some of you are, lets hope none of your family are accused of something while suffering from cancer.

Insult me at your leisure.

There hasn’t been an inquiry yet so it’s hard for me to have a negative opinion of it.

Seriously… have you been living in a cave? Given everything thats happened so far, you don’t have a negative opinion of it? The whole thing looks like its been organised by Laurel and Hardy!

You’re faith in our political and legal system (lets not use the word ‘establishment’ this time eh?) is touching. Its not one shared by many people, if anyone, in this instance, but its touching none the less.

so mt if a paedophile has cancer does he get a pass?*

* personally I dont believe he was, the problem is that its taken sooo long for any sort of real investigation to almost be launched that its hard to know who to trust

Can’t imagine why the inquiry has been so flawed…

Not sure if I’ve missed it, but has anybody yet suggested that his death was all part of the conspiracy – he was given cancer in order to silence him.

It is indeed touching you have faith in the enquiry despite the fact they have failed to organise it numerous times….such unquestioning faith is admirable if somewhat naive.s.

I also agree its pretty credible to hand it direct to the Home secretary and pretty despicable you will defend him whilst happy to blame the whistle-blower in posts like this

What I don’t understand is why Dickens didn’t go to the police. If I had information or suspicions about child abuse I’d go straight to the police, not an MP or a Minister especially if the people concerned in the allegation where fellow MPs.

We still haven’t had any comment about why Dickens didn’t have a copy although it does sound like he was all at sea organizationally so perhaps he did hand over the only copy

What did you say about Britten – was he to blame for it not being filed?

Your principled stance that you apply to these people equally is highly commendable.
Your ability to be apply double standards seems limitless
Your faith in the system is . as binners notes, shared only by you.

JY as I understand it Brittan passed the file to the DPP and the police. The Home Secretary isn’t personally responsible for the filing of something passed to him and if you are the individual who has put it together you wouldn’t hand over your only copy surely ? S why are people choosing to publicly slime Brittan but not those organisations and other individuals. Given JHJ’s post above you’d expect similar focus on all those other individuals of both parties. I think there is plenty of pre-election party politics going on here.

JHJ, that statement comes from an entirely different enquiry, is it clear she is referring to this matter ?

jivehoneyjive – Member
Lifted this from twitter:….

I think a fundamental problem is that you seem to think that this constitutes “doing your own research” and that what you find in some way constitutes “evidence”. Based on the strength of your previous efforts this might do your head in:

It is believed that jivehoneyjive off of singletrackworld is a shape-shifting space lizard with links the illuminati, the masons and Peppa Pig.

There, it’s been said on the internet. Therefore it’s true.

The Home Secretary isn’t personally responsible for the filing of something passed to him and if you are the individual who has put it together you wouldn’t hand over your only copy surely ?

Can you not see the conflict in what you’ve just said? On the one hand you have a person in high office which demands of him the utmost responsibility and scruplessness (is that even a word?) which you generously excuse because ‘it’s not his job to file things’. And on the other a whistleblower who is probably looking over his shoulder and a bit paranoid, who you criticise and dismiss for making either a simple error in judgement in failing to keep a copy of a report handed to the home secretary, or being naive enough to think it would be acted upon? Who do you believe should be held to the higher level of responsibility in this situation?

I think a fundamental problem is that you seem to think that this constitutes “doing your own research” and that what you find in some way constitutes “evidence”.

Cool, pick any number off that list (except 11, as that is still unknown), do the research, and get back to us with your findings…

And on the other a whistleblower who is probably looking over his shoulder and a bit paranoid

This is Geoffrey Dickens, who was a rent-a-quote MP, so I think this is a bit dramatic. However, not making a copy is hardly a major issue, and I wouldn’t criticize him for it – photocopies were expensive in those days

Telegraph: Leon Brittans accusers must show us their evidence

Jive will love this

The Home Secretary isn’t personally responsible for the filing of something passed to him and if you are the individual who has put it together you wouldn’t hand over your only copy surely ?

I know what your view is [ I even explained it] and I still think its a ludicrous double standard you adapt that displays no principles and is hypocritical. You are once more shooting the messenger whose only mistake seems to have been he had the same faith in Leon as you now exhibit*

Leon ” lost it” you make excuses. He gave it to the highest person in the land and you say he should have copied it Shouldn’t Leon have *?

I hope, by repeating my point, you get it this time. 🙄

* another double standard Well played.

If, and it’s a very big if, the whole truth comes out about this high level paedo thing, I think it could very well spell the end of the current status quo. If you look at the reverberations from wikileaks, localize that to the uk and our very old school elitist ‘system’, and carry it through, we could end up with something like the French Revolution.

Bring it on.

It’s no wonder why those in power seek to airbrush history, suppress evidence and kick things into the long grass. Especially when there is so much at stake for them. I seriously believe that full disclosure will implicate all the established political parties, and we could see a step change in how the levers of power work.

I reckon the three major parties are all shitting themselves about this. For this reason, I think it may well take a martyr to tip the scales.

What you also have to remember is that in addition to having the responsibility of the dossier the Home Secretary is also responsible for:

~The Police

~MI5

~Border Control and Customs

So if any incriminating evidence was discovered, the Home Secretary (Be that Leon Brittan, or any subsequent holders of the post), has the authority to shut down any relevant investigations in the interests of ‘National Security’ (i.e. the protection of the establishment).

Take for example the reasonably convincing case of the video seized from Russell Tricker in 1982 by Dover Customs, said to have included footage of Leon Brittan at a Child Abuse party…

and Brittan’s statement a couple of years later in 1984: “I do not think Customs should supply to the police names and addresses of everyone receiving obscene or indecent articles, regardless of whether an offence has been established.”

add to the mix further allegations from later in his career (late 80s) as EU Commissioner in Brussels:

“Almost a year ago I interviewed a very senior detective who was handling the Brittan investigation. He was very clear that the Customs Officer (referred to above) had made a clear and credible statement about stopping Brittan at Dover, and seizing child pornography video tapes from him. The Customs Officer stated that he viewed the tapes and was able to describe what was on them.

That statement is – or should be – still held at the Metropolitan Police station from which the investigation was conducted.

I believe that it is essential that the historic child abuse enquiry – assuming it survives – is given a copy of the statement.” – Tim Tate

Link

I could go on, but sure you get the picture…

…the video seized from Russell Tricker in 1982 by Dover Customs, said to have included footage of Leon Brittan…

You’re really not getting this. Anything you like can be ‘said to be’ the case, by, well, saying it. That doesn’t make it true and it doesn’t constitute evidence in any way.

I followed that link, and then to the telegraph thing linked from that. If I’m reading it right, the assertion is that Leon Brittan was a senior MP named in a dossier passed by Geoffrey Dickens to… Leon Brittan. That must have been an interesting conversation, don’t you think? Reminds me of the final scene of Where Eagles Dare. Dickens must have been disappointed he didn’t walk over to the window and take a step…

So, Dickens passes a dossier to Brittan accusing Brittan of being a nonce and what? Brittan says “leave it with me” and Dickens says “yeah alright” and that’s the end of that? Interesting theory…

See you’ve failed to rise to the challenge edlong…

I think a fundamental problem is that you seem to think that this constitutes “doing your own research” and that what you find in some way constitutes “evidence”.

Cool, pick any number off that list (except 11, as that is still unknown), do the research, and get back to us with your findings…

Never mind that though~

since:

What you also have to remember is that in addition to having the responsibility of the dossier the Home Secretary is also responsible for:

~The Police

~MI5

~Border Control and Customs

Of the available options for seeking justice, presenting Brittan with the dossier was the best available move, as rather than police investigations being halted from above

It would force a degree of due process and scrutiny, placing the pressure and responsibility directly on Brittan.

With regards to the claims many have made that Dickens only had one copy of the dossier, that is wrong, There was at least 3 copies, one of which was destroyed by his widow, as she viewed it as too dangerous~ their home was professionally burgled twice shortly after the dossier was submitted to Brittan.(perhaps as a means of intimidation?)

I’ve not got any challenge to rise to since I’m not making any assertions that require supporting evidence. Or is the idea that you make whatever unsubstantiated claim you like and the challenge is to produce evidence that disproves it?

Well on that basis I’m going to assert on no stronger basis than I’m saying so, that you’re part of the conspiracy, your role being to discredit the allegations with your pyramids of Masonic illuminati and links to clearly bonkers, paranoid blogs. I could stick it on WordPress and link to it as a ‘source’ if that would help. If you can’t produce evidence to the contrary, it must therefore be true, no?