Edward Heath

Home Forum Chat Forum Edward Heath

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 30 total)
  • Edward Heath
  • Akshewally, can’t be bothered with that.

    So….

    Any comment on today’s charges in Rotherham, JHJ?

    rene59
    Member

    Why every time one of these reports is published, does it fail to mention interactions with other prominent abusers and the networks they mixed in?

    Oh go on then, post it. You know you want to!

    Any comment on today’s charges in Rotherham, JHJ?

    Yep… why is the wider network exposed in the Rotherham case, but not when Politicians and the intelligence services are involved.

    And why if you’re so concerned about Rotherham, have you not started a thread…

    All being well, Alexis Jay will put the same level of investigation into such matters, but when you’re on the 4th head of the Child Abuse Inquiry and the Home Secretary who recruited all the previous inappropriate heads of the inquiry has been promoted to Prime Minister, you have to wonder…

    mikey74
    Member

    A good way of getting May off the front pages?

    Premier Icon sadmadalan
    Subscriber

    Go JH – publish and be dammed.

    Given that they have spent £1.5m if they had anything that they could publish. All they have is allegations which are unproved. The fact that they would have interviewed Heath under caution means nothing. Being under caution gives the interviewee a lot of legal protection.

    I would rather that they had spent the money on investigations in current abusers and active networks. We seem to have a lot of these investigations recently and most of them have fizzled out since there is no evidence. In some cases the accusers are been prosecuted for wasting police time.

    But I’m sure the conspiracy theorists out there will soon be spinning this to show how it is just the elite protecting themselves!

    I would rather that they had spent the money on investigations in current abusers and active networks.

    Whilst that’s a fair point, since there appears to be a consistent pattern of cover ups and intervention by Special Branch and Mi5, what’s to say such things aren’t still occuring…

    We seem to have a lot of these investigations recently and most of them have fizzled out since there is no evidence.

    Strangely the investigations of prominent people who were actively involved with the Paedophile Information Exchange never seem to pursue leads via their links within the Paedophile Information Exchange

    In some cases the accusers are been prosecuted for wasting police time.

    Can you provide me with any examples of that please?

    pondo
    Member

    jivehoneyjive – Member 

    Any comment on today’s charges in Rotherham, JHJ?

    Yep… why is the wider network exposed in the Rotherham case, but not when Politicians and the intelligence services are involved.[/quote]
    That’s a question, not a statement.

    What’s the general consensus on allegations that a former Prime Minister was abusing kids?

    How could such a thing be allowed to happen?

    Why every time one of these reports is published, does it fail to mention interactions with other prominent abusers and the networks they mixed in?

    RichPenny
    Member

    It is a comment though 🙂

    Junkyard
    Member

    The fact that they would have interviewed Heath under caution means nothing

    Well it does not mean he was guilty but it does mean there is something to be asked about. I assume they dont routinely drag folk in after a 1.5 million investigation when there is no evidence to suggest their guilt.

    Can you provide me with any examples of that please?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/24/fantasist-facing-charges-false-ted-heath-paedophile-claims/

    Its only an allegation so – as it counters the sort of allegation you make I expect you to denounce it as flimsy and then post something up with even less substance to it 😉

    CountZero
    Member

    Can you provide me with any examples of that please?

    You’re the ‘alleged’ expert on these matters, you should surely have those examples at your fingertips, no?
    You have, over recent years, made statements, then, when called to back them up, told questioners to do their own research.
    I have better things to do with my time than pander to your accusations and obfuscations.
    Bored now.

    I’m sure Exaro News will be all over the story.

    nealglover
    Member

    Can you provide me with any examples of that please?

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaa 😆

    Do your own research. 🙄

    Patience you grumpy lot, my internet keeps dropping out… 25-30kbps means I’ve had to reload this page about 4 times to get the buttons that let you post links and such like.

    But I persist…

    Regarding the link that Junky posted; a quick note: I will avoid casting people as fantasists since that is a dangerous and insensitive prescedent to set… no doubt genuine survivors of abuse by Jimmy Savile, Cyril Smith and Edward Heath will have been thought by many to be fantasists over the years, before the truth began to filter out.

    So, regarding prosecution of people who’ve come forward to help police with their enquiries, there is a prescedent (the legal system relying on prescendents as it does)

    it was the police that sought his statement not Fellows who had actually initially refused. So he had not deliberately set out to pervert the course of justice.

    The survivor Nick is in the same position. He did not go to the police demanding they investigate the Westminster paedophile ring. The police sought him as a potential witness when they contacted Exaro asking whether we could provide his details to them.

    Exaro made it clear to the police that it would be up to Nick whether he talked to them. Exaro also remained neutral on whether he wanted to talk to him – we did not pressurise him to go to the police. In the end he decided he would – but it was because the police requested it.

    Now, on that note, let’s not forget that Nick’s allegations included Edward Heath and military institutions…

    from today’s report:

    8.12.1 Three victims made disclosures of organised paedophile activity within military settings in the United Kingdom. Two of those disclosures named Sir Edward Heath as a perpetrator, disclosing abuse at military settings in Wiltshire.

    8.12.2 The military strand of Operation Conifer included a review and re-examination of case papers from 1989 relating to a criminal investigation concerning allegations made against two of the victims’ parents. During this review a note was found on the case papers that indicated that one of the victims had also mentioned to investigators in 1989 that they had been allegedly abused by Sir Edward Heath. As a result, a referral was made by Wiltshire Police to the IPCC concerning a potential failure to act on this information.

    Please refer to 12.1 on page 89 for further detail.

    poly
    Member

    Jhj – you might want to brush up on what a legal precedent is…

    Internet connection working fine here – makes you think…

    Premier Icon cubist
    Subscriber

    Say what you like about paedophiles but at least they drive slowly past schools!

    Jamie
    Member

    Say what you like about paedophiles but at least they drive slowly past schools!

    I’m not a permanently triggered snowflake, but hmmmmmm.

    Anyway, I like JHJ, and support him in all his endeavours.

    Premier Icon teethgrinder
    Subscriber

    jivehoneyjive – Member
    …no doubt genuine survivors of abuse by Jimmy Savile, Cyril Smith and allegedly Edward Heath will have been thought by many to be fantasists over the years, before the truth began to filter out.

    Fairly important distinction. For now.

    cranberry
    Member

    Has anyone noticed that you never see JiveHoneyJive and Ted Heath in the same place at the same time ??

    What do you think that means ?

    ( do your own research, sheeple )

    Would I be surprised if EH had been an abuser? No.

    Would I be surprised if he managed to continue it when PM. Yes.

    Was it good that the allegations were properly listened to? Yes.

    Should attention now be turned to ongoing abuse issues, like Rotherham. Yes.

    teasel
    Member

    I’m not a permanently triggered snowflake, but hmmmmmm.

    C’mon, that’s a cracker. If Cubist came up with that rather than borrowed it then he’s wasted on this forum…

    Premier Icon chakaping
    Subscriber

    What’s the general consensus on allegations that a former Prime Minister was abusing kids?

    The general consensus is that we don’t know if they are true.

    However I’m a bit concerned that people are saying it was a waste of £1.5m to investigate a stack of such serious accusations.

    Premier Icon kimbers
    Subscriber

    Should attention now be turned to ongoing abuse issues, like Rotherham. Yes.

    I believe that those investigations have been expanded greatly.

    Premier Icon nickc
    Subscriber

    What’s the general consensus on allegations that a former Prime Minister was abusing kids?

    Well, with him being dead an’all, it’s gone as far as it ever will, and they’ll just remain allegations. The vast majority of the allegations appear to have spurious (I guess a publicity announcement for “victims and survivors will probably do that). One of the people contacting the inquiry pretended to be 3 different victims.

    How could such a thing be allowed to happen?

    You don’t know that such a thing like this happened.

    jekkyl
    Member

    Have we decided whether or not he was a shape shifting blood drinking alizard alien yet?

    Premier Icon scotroutes
    Subscriber

    Well, with him being dead an’all, it’s gone as far as it ever will, and they’ll just remain allegations

    Like Saville?

    Mr Woppit
    Member

    jivehoneyjive – Member
    Any comment on today’s charges in Rotherham, JHJ?

    Yep…

    And why if you’re so concerned about Rotherham, have you not started a thread…

    He’s not “so concerned”.

    He’s just idly poking a lumbering, bovine dimwit to see if it will predictably get into it’s usual peurile mode of disassociations, and lo and behold…

    What a shocker.

    Premier Icon neilv
    Subscriber

    Obviously I have no idea if he is guilty or not but the investigation seems to be pretty shoddy. From today’s Times….

    Edward Heath case was a shambles right from start – dr richard hoskins: the criminologist

    I was brought into the investigation just over a year ago, but began to have qualms about what I had been asked to do, as right from the start the case seemed to be a shambles.

    I had been asked to examine some of the evidence and come to a conclusion.

    I had previously warned them not to trust all the claims. After two months I completed a 158-page report which the police were obviously very unhappy about; I understand, now, because it didn’t prove what they wanted it to.

    They believed from the outset that Edward Heath was guilty. That is all they wanted me to prove. When I appeared to question their position they pressured me about this. Never before in 200 criminal investigations has this happened to me as an independent expert witness.

    My report exposed a catalogue of fabrication and eventually the police accepted my points in full. But they carried on regardless. In conversation with officers, they were adamant Ted Heath was a paedophile.

    Meanwhile, they say they are left with seven credible witnesses against Heath. It’s important to remember that this doesn’t mean he is guilty. Had he been alive he would have been questioned, which is a long way in British law from guilt.

    Friends and family have said he was asexual and that this behaviour would have been totally uncharacteristic and extremely unlikely. I’ve been told clearly that Chief Constable Mike Veale will be logging five of these allegations as crimes rather than allegations. However, that is not his place to do so. He has no proof. They have become obsessed with this idea.

    Police are acting as judge, jury and executioner. They have spent £1.5 million of taxpayers’ money over two years trying to prove something they want to think is true.

    The real tragedy here is the avoidance of real child abuse. The true victims are those not getting the attention because police have been celebrity obsessed. I think that this whole thing is a massive witch-hunt which is unnecessary, especially when their time could be spent better off investigating the bigger issue of child abuse.

    Dr Richard Hoskins is an author and criminologist

    bikebouy
    Member

    Have to say the Police are complicit in sparking a trial by media by releasing allegations and indignation’s …

    So as balance why haven’t the Police been called up to explain thier motives, for sure it’s not to prosecute merely sully a dead persons personality.

    It’s a catch 22 when the people involved are protected throughout their life… how many opportunities were there to investigate and prosecute Jimmy Savile?

    How about Cyril Smith or Greville Janner?

    The same happened with Heath, but for some reason, the media are steering away from that aspect… perhaps it would reveal some unsavoury truths about how they were to some degree complicit in the cover up (as in the case of the shelved Newsnight investigation into Jimmy Savile)

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 30 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.