Anorak | VIP Peados: police believe what they want to and seek to control media

VIP Peados: police believe what they want to and seek to control media

by | 22nd, September 2015

VIP paedo


The story that three children were murdered by VIP child abusers in Westminster is based on the words of ‘Nick’, a man who says that he had witnessed the sadistic abuse.

The Metropolitan police said the stories of a cabal of wealthy and powerful perverts raping and killing children for sport were “credible and true”. Circumspection and all other barriers to guilt were done away with. The police were on the side of the angels. The conspiracy was fact.

The Met’s spokesman has now reduced the temperature:

“We acknowledge that describing the allegations as ‘credible and true’ suggested we were pre-empting the outcome of the investigation.”

You can read the full report hereunder ( via) :

The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) recognises the media’s and the public’s interest in its historic child abuse investigations, and in particular, in Operation Midland. The focus of this investigation is on allegations of the homicide of three young boys. There are also allegations of sexual abuse but the MPS has made clear from the outset that this is, and remains, a murder investigation.

No bodies. No evidence. No proof. But that’s not to say no crime was committed.

The historic nature of the allegations means this is a complex case where the normal avenues of evidence-gathering from CCTV, DNA and telephone data, are not open to us. These cases take time, but the public can have confidence that allegations from witnesses will be investigated thoroughly. We can all see the legacy that has been created by police and other authorities who appeared not to take allegations seriously in the past and the impact that has had on the confidence of victims to come forward.

Appeared not to have been taken seriously by police in the past. Now the accused appear to be guilty.

There are particular challenges where details of the allegations and those facing accusations are in the public domain. This can create potential conflicts between media and criminal investigations, and have an impact on vulnerable witnesses and those accused. This has been especially true in Operation Midland, and we wish to highlight to the media and to the public the risks that our investigation may be compromised. We raised this concern when we initially appealed for more witnesses and it continues to be an issue. We also need to clarify our investigative stance in cases of this kind

When you go looking for victims advertising for them the investigation becomes a trawl.

Our starting point with allegations of child sexual abuse or serious sexual assault is to believe the victim until we identify reasonable cause to believe otherwise.

It is now. It was for long the police’s position to disbelieve the victim. What we want is for the alleged victim to be treated in an even-handed manner. Accepting a claim as fact is as wrong as to dismiss it as a lie.

That is why, at the point at which we launched our initial appeal on Midland, after the witness had been interviewed for several days by detectives specialising in homicide and child abuse investigations, our senior investigating officer stated that he believed our key witness and felt him to be ‘credible’. Had he not made that considered, professional judgment, we would not have investigated in the way we have.

But considered and professional judgements have not always been correct. It was a considered a professional judgement not to investigate Cyril Smith. It was a considered a professional judgement to investigate Jim Davidson, nicking the entertainer as he flew INTO Heathrow Airport . And there’s Paul Gambaccini, the BBC DJ falsely accused of sexually abusing two boys between 1978 and 1984. He was arrested and locked in a cell. That was a considered and professional judgement.

The DJ says :

“I was accused of having sex with two males, whom I have never known in my life, in the decade before I started having sex with males,” he says. “It was completely absurd and yet I lived under the jackboot of the Metropolitan police for a year…The Metropolitan police, which we must now expand to include several British police forces, and the Crown Prosecution Service, have reduced our beloved country to the moral equivalent of Russia.”

The Met continues:

We must add that whilst we start from a position of believing the witness, our stance then is to investigate without fear or favour, in a thorough, professional and impartial fashion, and to go where the evidence takes us without prejudging the truth of the allegations. That is exactly what has happened in this case.

Rubbish. The police have an agenda. Just ask Paul Gambaccini. And why have no police been interviewed under caution?

The integrity of our investigation is paramount, and the public can have confidence that allegations of homicide are being investigated thoroughly. Our officers have the resources to test all the evidence, and we have not yet completed this task. It is then for the Crown Prosecution Service to make a decision on whether to prosecute. More significantly, only a jury can decide on the truth of allegations after hearing all the evidence.

What about if the accused is dead?

We should always reflect that in our language and we acknowledge that describing the allegations as ‘credible and true’ suggested we were pre-empting the outcome of the investigation. We were not. We always retain an open mind as we have demonstrated by conducting a thorough investigation.


You have already read 1 premium article for free today
Access immediately the premium content with Multipass

Or come back tomorrow

Posted: 22nd, September 2015 | In: Key Posts, News Comment | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink