Anorak

Anorak | Westminster paedophiles: Vishal Mehrotra’s killer escaped because the police never listen

Westminster paedophiles: Vishal Mehrotra’s killer escaped because the police never listen

by | 3rd, March 2015

vishal-mehrotraWestminster paedophiles: a look at reporting on allegations of child abuse in high places.

The Daily Telegraph has news:

“IPCC to investigate police ‘cover up’ of eight year old boy’s murder”

Can police find Vishal Mehrotra’s killer in what police didn’t do?

Can it be that the Westminster “abuse conspiracy” was carried out under the very noses of the police without them knowing?

Bill Gardner reports:

The official police watchdog is to investigate claims that Scotland Yard covered up the murder of a young boy at the hands of a Westminster paedophile ring. The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) will examine whether corrupt Met Police officers ignored clues to the death of eight-year-old Vishal Mehrotra in 1981.

Twenty-four years have past. Memories have faded. Pensions have been drawn. People have died. You wait long enough and you can bury the sins of the past with the guilty dead.

Vishal’s father, Vishambar Mehrotra, suspects police had deliberately covered up his son’s killing. He told police that Vishal had been – maybe – at a brothel in London, a place allegedly frequented by VIPs. Police “poo-poohed it“.

There are dots – Vishal… the Elm Guest House… the depraved Sidney Cooke…  but linking them might not be posisble. You need evidence. Sure, Home Secretary Teresa May said,  “There might have been a cover-up”, but with all statments it’s good to turn the words around a little: “There might not have been a cover-up,” says May.

The skull and several rib bones of eight-year-old Vishal Mehrotra were discovered in 1982 by pigeon shooters in remote marshland at Durford Abbey Farm, at Rogate, close to the Hampshire-West Sussex border… A mystery letter writer, who told police he might know the identity of a man who had driven to Rogate from Putney on Royal Wedding day, was later traced but soon afterwards the trail went cold.

What happened before that? Well, we know:

Mehrotra’s son, Vishal, went missing in July 1981 in Putney, less than a mile from the Elm House guest house in Rock Lane, Barnes, while on his way home with his family from watching the wedding of the Prince of Wales and Diana Spencer. He had been walking slightly ahead of his family in the crowded streets where revellers were celebrating. Seven months later the upper half of his torso was found buried in woodland in West Sussex…

Mehrotra, a retired magistrate, said he was contacted by a man in his twenties a few months after his son’s disappearance who suggested the boy’s abduction might be connected to the activities of a group of “powerful, high-profile” paedophiles who frequented the guest house. He taped the phone call and passed it onto detectives investigating his son’s abduction, but was told it was probably a crank call, and the information was never followed up. The man said he had already informed the police of the activities of politicians, judges and other high-profile individuals abusing boys at the guest house, but had not been contacted again.

Mehrota said in late 2014:

“I have come to the conclusion that maybe, for whatever reason, they have not really done their homework. If high-profile people were involved this must be exposed, if there was a cover-up I need to know. There was information passed to me which I gave the police at the time, but it was never looked at and the trail went cold. I taped the whole conversation and gave a copy to the police. They just dismissed it, said it was probably a crank call. If the police have any sympathy for us as a family, for what we have been through and are still going through, they should be in touch with me now to tell me that this has come to light, they need to be looking at my son’s case in connection with this. I have not heard from them on this, I have not heard from them for years and years. A detective contacted me 10 years or so after my son’s death to say he was going to look at it again, to reinvestigate. Then nothing. It all went quiet.”

But now the police are on it. New brooms and clean minds are sweeping for filth. Sure, it is the same police force. But nowadays they are completely different to what went before. For one thing, they have a twitter account. For another thing, they, er, have a twitter account.

And, as ever, the police don’t listen. The police tell.

Today Mr Mehrotra went on LBC radio. He said:

“I was very pleasantly surprised because it seems that somebody is taking things a bit seriously for the first time after 33 years. It was thanks to the media that something is happening. Whether they uncover something, time will tell.”

A spokesman for the Met Police adds:

“The Met were made aware of a complaint alleging corruption relating to the Met Police’s original missing person investigation into the disappearance of Vishal Mehrotra via the press. This complaint has been referred to the Met Police’s Directorate of Professional Standards. This matter will shortly be referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.”

Journalism matters. Freedom of the Press matters. Don’t let them take it away by poxy Royal Charter and Hacked Off. Freedom of speech. No buts.

Unless that ‘but” is asking why we are so quick to mistrust the police? Why Teresa May is so quick to blow on the embers of a conspiracy theory? Is it because they are wielding the simple sword of truth? Or are they just uncertain and inadequate? Or are they more conniving, using children and the spectre of child abuse to bind the nation to a common purpose?

In other news, The Telegraph also reports: “Oxford grooming: How young victims were ignored”

And not only the dead ones.

Police and prosecutors failed to bring charges against a paedophile for having sex with a 13-year-old girl because she looked older than her real age, the new report into Oxfordshire’s child protection measures disclosed.

There was widespread misunderstanding of basic aspects of the law on sexual consent, which states that no-one under 16 can agree to sex and the abuser is therefore committing an offence, it found.

In one remarkable example the Crown Prosecution Service decided not to bring charges against a paedophile because the teenager looked older than she really was.

One detective wrote in an official report: “She is a 13-year-old girl who could easily be mistaken for being 16 years old.”

A convenient excuse to ignore or to be complicit?

The review went on: “The Crown Prosecution Service reviewed the evidence and decided against a prosecution for sex with a 13-year-old girl, as her appearance, actions and saying she was 16 would, in their view, have meant there was no realistic prospect of conviction.”

Describing another case the report added: “One of the victims found with several Asian adult males told the author that the police did not even ask her age.”

Entries from the police missing persons database showed that girls who were being sexually abused were described as “wilful”, “streetwise” and as someone who “deliberately puts herself at risk”, reducing the likelihood that they would be seen as victims of sexual grooming.

The law is there to protect the vulnerable. Once upon a time sex with a 13-year-old girl was legal. But then tabloid journalism, set about the abusers.

In England and Wales, the age of sexual consent for women has been set at 16 since 1885, when campaigners fought to raise it from 13 to prevent child prostitution. Key to promoting that law change was the journalist William Thomas Stead. He wrote lurid stories about “The Violation of the Virgins” and “The Confessions of a Brothel Keeper”. Readers lapped them up. Sales of his London newspaper skyrocketed. He helped create the style that would become the tabloid way.

Make it big. Make it loud. Give them a story no-one can ignore.

In 2010, the Chartered Institute of Journalists honoured the man billed as Britain’s first investigative journalist:

William Thomas Stead was acknowledged as Britain’s leading campaigning and investigative journalist in the late 1800s, particularly for his work in exposing the white-slave trade and child sex abuse in London’s brothels by the nation’s upper classes. This resulted in the passing of the Criminal Amendment Act which raised the age of consent from 13 to 16.

As part of his campaign, Stead “bought” a chimney sweep’s 13-year-old daughter (Eliza Armstrong) for £5 which earned him a three-month prison sentence. He continued to edit the Pall Mall Gazette (which later merged into the Evening Standard) from his prison cell.

If you want to solve a problem, you need to understand it. Fail to diagnose correctly or to identify the issue and you have no chance of fixing it. You can find a reason why a child was abused. But what you need to ask is why crimes went ignored for so long?

 

 



Posted: 3rd, March 2015 | In: Reviews Comment | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink