How much evidence is there of long term high level UK paedophile ring?

[bluescreen]

OK, it's the Sun but it still makes me shudder. (story from the graun)

The Sun had 7ft safe with 30 years of ‘eye-popping’ unprintable stories, court told

Unprintable tales of explosive scandals involving politicians and celebrities were stored in a “wild-west-style” safe in the Sun’s newsroom if they could not be used, a court has heard.

The tabloid’s former deputy news editor Ben O’Driscoll, 38, said more than 30 years of unpublished stories were stored in the 7ft-high safe.

He told Kingston crown court on Wednesday how the paper kept hold of “eye-popping” reports, pictures, and videos that had not made the paper because they were not in the public interest.

“At the time I was there, there was an enormous safe, about 7ft high, like something out of a wild west film, with big metal handles,” he said.

“It was full of 30 years of stories that are confidential and did not pass the public interest test. They remained there in that safe, and what’s in there is quite eye-popping, I have to say.”

He said MPs and celebrities featured in the material, joking: “If you were to publish everything in that safe, I think the Sun’s circulation figures would go upwards.”

 

[hot air baboon]

Somewhere in this thread there'll be a link to an article with an explanation that still seems to resonate for me.

Basically explaining that the prevailing attitude among the upper ranks of the security services and special branch at the time was that protecting the establishment was the priority, and if that meant covering up a few indiscretions involving no mark kids from children's homes in the provinces, then so be it....

...I think that was the Norman Tebbit statement...

"At that time I think most people would have thought that the establishment, the system, was to be protected and if a few things had gone wrong here and there that it was more important to protect the system."

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...bbit-theresa-may-cover-up-child-abuse-dossier

also seems a fitting time for a mea culpa as I alluded to that Female MP story....from catching up with the Savile master-thread on DIF :

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1062311199&postcount=82007
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1062314963&postcount=82029

...this is quotable aswell in terms of where we are now..

Child Sex Abuse: Will the police finally catch the perpetrators ?

Posted on November 24, 2014 by david hencke

The extraordinary revelations at the weekend by my Exaro colleague Mark Conrad and the Sunday People should finally dispel fears that the police have no intention of investigating the VIP paedophiles and now possible murderers in the Westminster paedophile scandal.

I could tell until this weekend many in the mainstream media were sceptical ( and some still are) that such horrendous acts involving MPs could ever have taken place in the 1970s and 1980s without the Westminster lobby knowing. Some, including one of my long-standing former colleagues on the Guardian, emphatically told me no MP could possibly be involved in the murder of a young boy.I’ll spare his blushes until there is an arrest.

http://davidhencke.wordpress.com/20...ll-the-police-finally-catch-the-perpetrators/

 

[ViolentPanda]

That article up there criticising Exaro is a good read.

The more that this story sprawls further into conspiracy theory, the more certain elements of it reflect aspects of the SRA hysteria of the 80s and early 90s.

As someone who followed "the Satanic Panic" and subsequent events, including the La Fontaine report, fairly closely (friends were affected by some of the backlash on occultism), frankly I can't see any reflection of "certain aspects". Even psychologically, the profile of both abusers and victims are different. There's no evidence of therapist-derived "recovered memories" with regard to the historic paedo thing either, something that was a massive factor in getting social workers and others in authority to "believe" in SRA.

 

[DotCommunist]

the sra stuff and todays post saville revelations, cyrill etc the whole foul shitstorm- was discussed in depth on another thread. Diamonds just grasping for an analysis to feel superior with. The SRA stuff was taken up in a separate thread specifically so as not to muddy the waters on this one

 

[bluescreen]

One of the more intriguing aspects of this situation for me, assuming that those doing the covering up were doing it at least in part to give them a level of control over those who's crimes they'd covered up..... is what did they then do with that control over those high up political assets?

Make money?

 

[bluescreen]

This doesn't relate specifically to high level paedophile activity but perhaps sheds a couple of lumens on why it's so hard to get any comprehensive picture. Gojam attempts to track down the follow-up from a conviction of possession of an alleged snuff movie and meets typical Brit bumbling.
http://theneedleblog.wordpress.com/2014/11/27/the-underfunding-of-ceop-and-the-police/

 

[butchersapron]

Here we go
Rebecca Keating @RebeccaKeating
Sir Paul Beresford says Home Office must decide if the child abuse inquiry is "speedy... but of no depth" or "will go on for years"

 

[Diamond]

the sra stuff and todays post saville revelations, cyrill etc the whole foul shitstorm- was discussed in depth on another thread. Diamonds just grasping for an analysis to feel superior with. The SRA stuff was taken up in a separate thread specifically so as not to muddy the waters on this one

Wait a second - I didn't make the link first.

It was drawn out in detail in that barrister's blog a page or so back that another poster linked to.

I'm not going to reinterpret that barrister's stuff, mainly because he makes a set of very lengthy and detailed arguments better than I could, so it's best to go directly to source and read them (assuming you have the time and inclination and weren't looking to simply take a lazy, cheap pop at me...), but the one thing I would note is that when we've got to the stage where there are allegations of mass paedophilic orgies featuring the murder of children as part of the central purpose of proceedings and which are protected by secret and quasi-secret groups of people in positions of power, then we're getting fairly close to SRA style claims.

Hell, you just need to lop the Satanic element off of it and replace it with another descriptor - Tory Ritual Abuse / Establishment Ritual Abuse / White Middle Aged Men Ritual Abuse.

 

[elbows]

but the one thing I would note is that when we've got to the stage where there are allegations of mass paedophilic orgies featuring the murder of children as part of the central purpose of proceedings and which are protected by secret and quasi-secret groups of people in positions of power, then we're getting fairly close to SRA style claims.

Hell, you just need to lop the Satanic element off of it and replace it with another descriptor - Tory Ritual Abuse / Establishment Ritual Abuse / White Middle Aged Men Ritual Abuse.

Certainly one of the reasons I won't treat the missing Dickens 'dossiers' as some kind of holy grail is that he got quite into hyperbole about Satanism at times during his campaigning.

The extent to which modern accusations resemble SRA style claims really depends what additional emotive words someone may attach too readily to the stories we are hearing. I'll use some of your words as an example because they are fresh and right in front of us:

'mass paedophilic orgies' - depends what threshold is used to justify use of the word mass. We have heard a number of plausible stories about a couple of different party scenes, both in the last several years and historically via old Scallywag articles, with partial overlap. The exact scale of the parties is often not well described, often because the articles understandably focus on the details of the abuse rather than the broader party picture. I've spoken before of the possibility of a number of different types of parties, with different central characteristics, which would affect whether the parties were paedophilic as a whole or fair to call orgies. Likewise I've no reason to speak of 'one ring of elite paedophiles' as opposed to considering something far more complex and at least partially fragmented.

'murder of children as part of the central purpose of proceedings' - the recent murder accusations are quite a new feature. Historical stories have focussed on two other sorts of murder - murder of victims or 'people on the trail' as part of cover-ups well after the abuse event. And the death of boys due to sadism and doping being taken too far in specific instances, by the likes of Sydney Cookes gang. The latter is actually a better fit for your words 'central purpose of proceedings' than the recent accusations are. I have no way to judge the current accusations, but if tempted to judge them by the motives the accuser has ascribed to the murders, I have to consider the possibility that he may have misjudged the motives and even gotten certain details wrong, but is still describing something real.

Anyway unless other victims have come forwards since the pleas for them to do so, we are still at a point where it doesn't sound like enough 'party victims' have spoken to police that we can have confidence we're going to learn more in court about such abuse, let alone murder. If more victims fail to come forwards then we are left with our individual inclinations of what to believe, ranging from 'no more victims came forwards because there are no victims' to 'they are too intimidated to come forwards or long since are long since deceased'.

Snuff movies remain in a similar state for me - the possibilities are worth exploring and their existence is plausible, especially if we don't get carried away with a sense of how many were ever made. And there are one or two known historical stories, rumours and attempts at investigation that throw up various details that could be something, or could be nothing. And certainly even if snuff movies don't exist, we'd expect some people to believe they do, once the idea of them is out there.

 

[elbows]

This doesn't relate specifically to high level paedophile activity but perhaps sheds a couple of lumens on why it's so hard to get any comprehensive picture. Gojam attempts to track down the follow-up from a conviction of possession of an alleged snuff movie and meets typical Brit bumbling.
http://theneedleblog.wordpress.com/2014/11/27/the-underfunding-of-ceop-and-the-police/

What seems to be missing to me from analysis of the failings of that line of inquiry is any sense of what country the possible snuff movie was filmed in. Thats going to make quite a difference to how the authorities in the UK treat it, and the operation already had an international dimension given that the video seems to have come from an internet site that Russian authorities provided relevant visitor info to this country (and presumably others) about.

 

[elbows]

Here we go
Rebecca Keating @RebeccaKeating
Sir Paul Beresford says Home Office must decide if the child abuse inquiry is "speedy... but of no depth" or "will go on for years"

Several other tweets of relevance there too:

Rebecca Keating @RebeccaKeating · 4 hours ago
MPs have been given stern warning at the start of the child abuse inquiry debate not to compromise any police investigations #HoC

Rebecca Keating @RebeccaKeating · 3h3 hours ago
Simon Danczuk names Sir Edward Garnier as MP who warned him "challenging Lord Brittan on child abuse would not be a wise move"

 

[elbows]

"The night before my appearance at the committee I had an encounter with the right honourable learned Member for Harborough [Sir Edward Garnier].

“After the 10pm vote he drew me to one side outside the chamber and warned me to think very carefully about what I was going to say the following day.

“He told me that challenging Lord Brittan on child abuse would not be a wise move and that I might even be responsible for his death as he was unwell.

Sir Edward was the Coalition's solicitor-general from May 2010 to September 2012.

Sir Edward, who has known Lord Brittan for 40 years, declined to comment when Mr Danczuk’s remarks were put to him by the Telegraph on Thursday afternoon.

It is understood that Sir Edward was intervening after a personal request by Lady Brittan, who was worried about the strain on her husband's health.

He is now considering answering Mr Danczuk’s allegations as a point of order in the House of Commons.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...ing-Lord-Brittan-over-child-abuse-claims.html

And just to clarify we had heard about the warning some months ago, its the warners name and the justification for it thats new.

 

[elbows]

Some press about Garnier from December 2012:

According to Quentin Letts, Sir Edward Garnier QC was “stupendously rude – a real collector's item” to his fellow Tory MP Therese Coffey during the Leveson debate in the Commons yesterday. Letts is spot on. Coffey, an advocate of an unfettered press, intervened when Garnier, a libel lawyer, decided to share with the House the fact that he is currently representing “a well-known claimant whose reputation has been grievously damaged in the recent past”. He didn’t name Lord McAlpine, but that’s who it is. Coffey wished to point out that McAlpine’s grievance was with TV, not the press, a perfectly fair and valid point. Garnier was having none of it: “I think I might be permitted to know a little more about that case than my hon. Friend does”, he said. When Coffey dissented, Garnier snapped: “Would she stop mumbling?” Good to see that old-fashioned, gentlemanly courtesy is alive and well on the Tory benches.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/d...r-edward-garnier-and-the-art-of-good-manners/

 

[brogdale]

I'm figuring that nothing here from Goldsmith is new? elbows ?

Richmond MP Zac Goldsmith said during the debate that Scotland Yard had since confirmed that Cyril Smith had been a visitor.

He told MPs how a child protection campaigner had been told by Mrs Kasir before she died 30 years ago that “that boys had been brought in from a local children’s home—Grafton Close, also in Richmond—for sex, and that she had photographs of establishment figures at her hotel.

“One of them apparently showed a former Cabinet Minister in a sauna with a naked boy. She had logbooks, names, times, dates, pictures of her customers and so on.”

Mr Goldsmith said it was “astonishing” that all the evidence from raids on the guesthouse had simply disappeared and no longer exists.

 

[free spirit]

Yeah right, never mind the fact she was burnt out as a political force and that she valued loyalty over competence.

She needed a margin of 56 votes to win outright, and came up just short on a 52 vote majority.

I don't think it's a massive stretch to imagine that a half decent campaign could have swung 2 more MPs in her favour, maybe one that had Thatcher and her campaign team actually out campaigning immediately before the vote rather than Thatcher being off at some meaningless thing in Europe, and Morrison sitting on his hands in his room having apparently decided that there was no point in campaigning.

I'm not saying it's definite that he was put in there as a puppet to fuck up her chances in the leadership election, but it looks extremely suspicious to me that someone who was as badly compromised as him was placed in that position, and then ran an abortion of a campaign for her, and persuaded her not to fight on after being just 4 votes off a first round win. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, looks like a duck etc then sometimes it's fair to conclude that it it probably is a duck.

 

[elbows]

If you are interested in that theory then you simply can't skirt round the question of whose decision it was to give him that role. As far as I know the versions of history available to us put Thatcher squarely in that frame. And if colleagues were guilty of anything it was the usual mistake they were guilty of with Thatcher, they didn't have the guts etc to try to clue her into aspects of reality that were well within her blind spots, of which there were many.

For example:

Morrison, readers are told, “was the first backbencher to urge Mrs Thatcher to stand for the party leadership. The Morrisons were so intimate with Mrs T that women in the family even gave her fashion tips. And over the years, no political colleague was more close to her than Peter ... The red-haired Old Etonian with an Oxford law degree soon climbed the slippery Westminster ladder with her help”.

Yes? Yes yes? Yes yes yes? “Yet despite a smooth ride to the top and a knighthood in 1988, many colleagues were surprised when Mrs Thatcher chose Morrison as her Parliamentary Private Secretary (PPS) in 1990 ... For, by then, rumours were spreading about bachelor Morrison’s unorthodox private life: his love of the bottle and his dangerous sexual appetite for young men”.

Nothing gets past the Mail, does it? There is even an appearance from Simon “Enoch was right” Heffer, who tells “A very senior person in the party said that Peter had been discovered by police kerb-crawling for rent boys in Sussex Gardens, London. There was serious concern about his private life among those who surrounded Mrs Thatcher”. Edwina Currie told us about that ages ago.

And one thing the Mail wants us to know: whatever Morrison did, Mrs T did not, repeat did not, repeat DID NOT know about it. Heffer again: “They should have had a word in her ear. I don’t believe they ever did. They treated her as if she was Queen Victoria”. Nor, it seems, do they want to credit the late Simon Hoggart with revealing the reason for Morrison’s “retirement” in his Guardian column.

Hoggart was told “After the 1987 general election, around 1990, I attended a meeting of Chester Labour party where we were informed by the agent, Christine Russell, that Peter Morrison would not be standing in 1992. He had been caught in the toilets at Crewe station with a 15-year-old boy. A deal was struck between Labour, the local Tories, the local press and the police that if he stood down at the next election the matter would go no further” by the former head of Chester Trades Council.

Moreover, he included the item in his diary for 16 November 2012.

( from http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/mail-discovers-paedophile-20-months-late.html )

 

[Kaka Tim]

I'm not saying it's definite that he was put in there as a puppet to fuck up her chances in the leadership election, but it looks extremely suspicious to me that someone who was as badly compromised as him was placed in that position, and then ran an abortion of a campaign for her, and persuaded her not to fight on after being just 4 votes off a first round win.

She did initially decide to fight on after the initial vote - but the rest of the cabinet went in one by one to tell her it was over and she resigned. And even had she scraped over the winning line after the first vote im not sure that would have been enough to save her - she needed to win decisively. (anyway - derail)

 

[free spirit]

She did initially decide to fight on after the initial vote - but the rest of the cabinet went in one by one to tell her it was over and she resigned. And even had she scraped over the winning line after the first vote im not sure that would have been enough to save her - she needed to win decisively. (anyway - derail)

there was obviously a significant movement against her, not disputing that, just querying the exact form that movement against her took - ie if it was all entirely above board, or if there were also some underhand tactics involved to ensure she was removed. Worth remembering how close the vote actually was to a Thatcher victory.

The presence of this obviously badly compromised person at the heart of her campaign who then went on to barely lift a finger to attempt to get her re-elected, to the point that the likes of Alan Clarke are left fuming at his lack of effort.... well that raises suspicions in my mind, not sure about other people.

These cover ups happened for a reason, not everyone doing the covering up would have been an active paedophile themselves, so why did the coverups happen, was it really just about protecting the establishment (in which case exactly who was Peter Morrison to the establishment, he doesn't seem that worth protecting just in his own right), or were there more sinister motives involved.

The way I look at it, those who've had their activities covered up would then be in debt to those who did the covering up, who'd probably have retained the ability to uncover it / reinstate the investigations / throw them to the wolves if they didn't play ball, so they know their card is marked, and they then have to do their bidding when the time comes. If someone who's obviously in that position then ends up in the position of running the prime minister's re-election campaign, it seems pretty unlikely to me that those with the dirt on him would chose not to use it at that decisive point in UK politics (assuming they weren't on Thatchers side).

btw I'm taking it as read that there actually was a cover up of his and others activities.

 

[free spirit]

Morrison, readers are told, “was the first backbencher to urge Mrs Thatcher to stand for the party leadership. The Morrisons were so intimate with Mrs T that women in the family even gave her fashion tips. And over the years, no political colleague was more close to her than Peter ... The red-haired Old Etonian with an Oxford law degree soon climbed the slippery Westminster ladder with her help”.

it's not so much that he was given the position that I find suspicious, as that someone with that level of background with Thatcher, and that level of experience, would end up running such a piss poor campaign for her re-election.

From his Independent obituary.

Morrison suddenly seemed to lose his touch, hitherto a very certain one, in party matters. He took far too much for granted and was singularly lacking in the pursuit of doubtful votes in the leadership challenge mounted by Michael Heseltine in 1990: Alan Clark claims to have found him asleep in his office at a critical point when the walls of the Thatcher battle order were crumbling. When Thatcher went down, Morrison went down with her.

 

[bluescreen]

Alan Clark claims to have found him asleep in his office at a critical point

Just as likely that his alcohol habit had got the better of him? But that may possibly have been related to other pressures, as you suggest.

 

[free spirit]

Just as likely that his alcohol habit had got the better of him? But that may possibly have been related to other pressures, as you suggest.

that's it, did he just happen to turn into an incompetent raging alchoholic at the defining moment of his career, or was there something else involved that triggered his descent into alcoholic incompetence?

I think it's at least worth considering, along with the wider question of 'what motivated those who covered up for these high level paedophiles? What was in it for them?'

 

[bluescreen]

post deleted

 

[hot air baboon]

 

[Diamond]

Certainly one of the reasons I won't treat the missing Dickens 'dossiers' as some kind of holy grail is that he got quite into hyperbole about Satanism at times during his campaigning.

The extent to which modern accusations resemble SRA style claims really depends what additional emotive words someone may attach too readily to the stories we are hearing. I'll use some of your words as an example because they are fresh and right in front of us:

'mass paedophilic orgies' - depends what threshold is used to justify use of the word mass. We have heard a number of plausible stories about a couple of different party scenes, both in the last several years and historically via old Scallywag articles, with partial overlap. The exact scale of the parties is often not well described, often because the articles understandably focus on the details of the abuse rather than the broader party picture. I've spoken before of the possibility of a number of different types of parties, with different central characteristics, which would affect whether the parties were paedophilic as a whole or fair to call orgies. Likewise I've no reason to speak of 'one ring of elite paedophiles' as opposed to considering something far more complex and at least partially fragmented.

'murder of children as part of the central purpose of proceedings' - the recent murder accusations are quite a new feature. Historical stories have focussed on two other sorts of murder - murder of victims or 'people on the trail' as part of cover-ups well after the abuse event. And the death of boys due to sadism and doping being taken too far in specific instances, by the likes of Sydney Cookes gang. The latter is actually a better fit for your words 'central purpose of proceedings' than the recent accusations are. I have no way to judge the current accusations, but if tempted to judge them by the motives the accuser has ascribed to the murders, I have to consider the possibility that he may have misjudged the motives and even gotten certain details wrong, but is still describing something real.

Anyway unless other victims have come forwards since the pleas for them to do so, we are still at a point where it doesn't sound like enough 'party victims' have spoken to police that we can have confidence we're going to learn more in court about such abuse, let alone murder. If more victims fail to come forwards then we are left with our individual inclinations of what to believe, ranging from 'no more victims came forwards because there are no victims' to 'they are too intimidated to come forwards or long since are long since deceased'.

Snuff movies remain in a similar state for me - the possibilities are worth exploring and their existence is plausible, especially if we don't get carried away with a sense of how many were ever made. And there are one or two known historical stories, rumours and attempts at investigation that throw up various details that could be something, or could be nothing. And certainly even if snuff movies don't exist, we'd expect some people to believe they do, once the idea of them is out there.

As far as I understand, one of the main characteristics of the various SRA episodes was the manner in which the allegations developed over the course of the relevant investigation. In other words, the alleged events became incrementally more extreme and, to a certain extent, the consequent, more bizarre allegations could never have been believed without that unfolding process. That unfolding essentially lent any given SRA investigation a degree of verisimilitude as it allowed the investigators (counsellors/police/lawyers) to believe that they were peeling back the layers to unveil an important hidden truth.

That was all very understandable - the problem was that it was epistemologically problematic and lead to some very wrong conclusions and, in some cases, wrongful convictions.

The resulting lesson is, IMO, that one consistently has to try and look at what is being claimed or revealed by an investigation in isolation.

We have got to the stage now where the following allegations are being aired:

• Boys were being picked up by chauffeurs to be escorted to abuse sessions.
• There is the suggestion that the boys were being picked up from their homes with the complicity of their parents, probably for money.
• These sessions took place at at least two separate locations in London.
• There was commonly more than one adult present.
• For some of these adults the infliction of pain was central to their enjoyment of the abuse.
• At least one boy died at one of these sessions for that reason.
• The adults were powerful or had powerful connections and were protected by the police/security services.
• One of the boys was run down in a car on a London street by one of the adults and died as a form of intimidation.

I think it is pretty clear that there is an escalation going on there so I think it's appropriate to start asking questions about how these allegations are developing and their essential validity.

 

[Diamond]

As an aside, I had no idea that Dickens had a stab at SRA too - it seems he had or claimed to have another dossier on that too. Very interesting...

I wonder whether we might be dealing with the same set of mechanics in any even more intimate way than I had previously thought...

 

[bluescreen]

What are you suggesting, Diamond? Yes, there is clearly an escalation of claims. This could be accounted for simply by virtue of earlier (admittedly shocking) claims being believed and preparing the ground for more grave/outlandish claims. Are you suggesting that the progression of claims is in itself an indicator of falsehood? I would disagree. If someone has a grave/outlandish claim they are unlikely to put it forward until there is already established a degree of open-mindedness on the part of the listener.

Yes, obviously I realise this cuts both ways, but I don't think the escalation argument necessarily demolishes some of the more incredible claims.

 

[Diamond]

The bottom line is that I don't think we know enough about how these claims came to light - whether they were revealed or evolved, for instance, and, if it is more the latter, under what conditions?

SRA proved how easy it is for vulnerable people to come up with constructs that adhere to a sensationalist narrative when being questioned (or more accurately coached) by authority figures. It also demonstrated how easy it is for large groups of people to indulge in and subscribe to a sensationalist narrative even when it spirals into the realm of pure fantasy.

It's also interesting that Dickens was so centrally involved in pushing the SRA narrative while also pushing the Westminster abuse narrative.

 

[butchersapron]

The bottom line is that I don't think we know enough about how these claims came to light - whether they were revealed or evolved, for instance, and, if it is more the latter, under what conditions?

SRA proved how easy it is for vulnerable people to come up with constructs that adhere to a sensationalist narrative when being questioned (or more accurately coached) by authority figures. It also demonstrated how easy it is for large groups of people to indulge in and subscribe to a sensationalist narrative even when it spirals into the realm of pure fantasy.

It's also interesting that Dickens was so centrally involved in pushing the SRA narrative while also pushing the Westminster abuse narrative.

I agree that we don't. Your posts on this thread suggest that we do.

 

[bluescreen]

Er, I think Dickens's pursuit of the SRA narrative was later. But it indicates a taste for sensationalism I suppose. Basically we have victims and it's them rather than Dickens or other intermediaries that we should be listening to.

 

[Diamond]

I agree that we don't. Your posts on this thread suggest that we do.

Er, I think Dickens's pursuit of the SRA narrative was later. But it indicates a taste for sensationalism I suppose. Basically we have victims and it's them rather than Dickens or other intermediaries that we should be listening to.

The current problem, as sketched out by that barrister's blog, is that all of a sudden the claims have leapt up the scale of extremity and now sit fairly close to some of the less extreme SRA stuff, while at the same time the source of the claims appears to want to have them mediated through Exaro, who also provided a journalist to sit in on the source's police interview.

On top of that, this is the biggest story going for Exaro.