How much evidence is there of long term high level UK paedophile ring?
- Thread starter free spirit
- Start date
DaveCinzano
WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!
In relation to
Depending on the specifics of the claimed libel, would it be possible for those against whom the action was brought to bring a counter-action against Anglesea to recover that award?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
...and what else they got?
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
So he's been granted bail until 4th November.
I have a sneaking suspicion he might do a John Owen (the teacher whose sexual abuse over decades resulted in his death by suicide just before he was due to attend court to - finally - answer charges).
Unless he's the kind who can maintain a sense of his own innocence in his mind, he has lost everything, and been critically implicated in an activity arguably worse than the sexual abuse of children itself - namely, being part of a group which procured children for abuse widely - this has to be an absolutely catastrophic outcome for him.
I am gratified to see that people who have successfully held the accountability for their horrible deeds at bay for so long are finally being called to account. And it is only proper that the sentence is not diminished in any way by the amount of time that has passed since their commission of these offences.
I have a sneaking suspicion he might do a John Owen (the teacher whose sexual abuse over decades resulted in his death by suicide just before he was due to attend court to - finally - answer charges).
Unless he's the kind who can maintain a sense of his own innocence in his mind, he has lost everything, and been critically implicated in an activity arguably worse than the sexual abuse of children itself - namely, being part of a group which procured children for abuse widely - this has to be an absolutely catastrophic outcome for him.
I am gratified to see that people who have successfully held the accountability for their horrible deeds at bay for so long are finally being called to account. And it is only proper that the sentence is not diminished in any way by the amount of time that has passed since their commission of these offences.
DaveCinzano
WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!
Indeed, and those who have actively avoided justice since their having commissioned their crimes, e.g. by (possibly fraudulently) instituting civil actions against those accusing them of the very crimes they have later been convicted of, would - presumably - face a tariff reflecting such evasive behaviour.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
I hadn't thought of that latter thing - yes, in a way, the fact that Anglesea was prepared to go to court and sue for libel should be an exacerbating factor, so I wonder if that gets factored in. The only way to know would be to get hold of the judge's sentencing statement. On the other hand, I suppose he might argue that he could hardly not sue for libel if he was claiming his innocence...
In any case, I'm not even sure that the length of the tariff is the most significant issue. As I understand it, life inside is nastier if you happen to be a copper or a child molester. I'd imagine that a child-molesting copper is going to be Uncle Target in prison, so he'll presumably be on Rule 45, with all that entails. And he's getting on, and doesn't look to be in brilliant health. Nor does he seem to be the type who's going to accept what he's done, take the consequences, and make the best of it - I would guess that he is going to be nursing a serious sense of injustice, which is going to make the tribulations of prison even harder to bear.
I can't say that my heart is bleeding for him. I do hope that this verdict, regardless of the sentence, is some comfort to those he abused.
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
In this week's 'Spectator's Notes' Charles Moore mentions a recent 'Times' piece (no links for either) in which an "unnamed participant" in the enquiry accused Lowell, not only of racism, but also of "nursing a deep reverence for the royal family".
Interesting?
e2a: Moore, of course, thinks this is an absurd thing to be cited as in any way a valid criticism of her fitness to lead the enquiry.
Interesting?
e2a: Moore, of course, thinks this is an absurd thing to be cited as in any way a valid criticism of her fitness to lead the enquiry.
Last edited:
Lurdan
old wave
I doubt it. The Times has run an enormous number of articles about the problems of the enquiry, and about Goddard, and why she may have left etc etc. Frankly I can barely summon the interest to even look at most of them. There is no central editorial focus to the Times approach. It ranges from concerns about the size of the enquiry based on understandable skepticism about the tendency of highly paid and ambitious lawyers and civil servants to engage in 'mission creep' or the competence of any chair to control things; through less acceptable concerns about whether some or all of the allegations of abuse are genuine or 'serious'; through to attempts to position the 'enquiry' as a potential political lever or weapon to be applied to May; and on to some barely concealed special pleading by friends and relatives of the notables and celebrities whose names have been dragged into it. Amongst a lot of other things.
Today Goddard is simply one more piece to be deployed. Whether she was impossible to work with, or held 'views', or had underestimated the entrenched vested interests she would encounter (not just in the 'establishment' but in the 'counter-establishment' of victims 'champions' and 'representatives'), or wasn't up to the job, or concluded the potential outcome didn't justify the personal cost : we will never know. All we get to see is a particularly venomous and hypocritical level of political gossip. In due course there may be some 'official' version but I doubt I'll believe it or indeed care much.
As far as I am concerned the 'politics' surrounding the enquiry is really only of any interest in terms of it's current and future activities, and whether it produces any information of interest. Goddard is yesterday's woman.
That all being said if you can narrow down which Times article this might be I'll have a look for it if you want. But otherwise meh, indeed meh squared.
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
Sorry, no...it'll be behind Murdoch's £wall, I'm afraid...and I'll have to bow to your greater knowledge of its output/editorial angle(s).
I merely thought it interesting that a "deep reverence for the RF" had become an (alleged) issue at all, and under what circumstances such a view might have had any bearing on her work.
That's all.
Lurdan
old wave
Apologies, I was a being bit grumpy earlier. I have a 'magic key' which gets me behind the paywall. I had a quick search and found this :
‘Tantrums and shocking racism’ of inquiry’s dysfunctional dame
Staff say Dame Lowell Goddard should have been removed earlier
Andrew Norfolk | Sean O’Neill
October 14 2016,
On a summer afternoon this year Dame Lowell Goddard stood at the doorway of her Westminster office and shouted in anger. Unless she got her own way, she is said to have declared, “I’m going to pack my bags, go back to New Zealand and take this inquiry down with me.”
A visitor to the headquarters of the national child sex abuse inquiry might have been shocked, not least because the threat was made by the judge paid £500,000 a year to lead an investigation forecast to run for a decade at a cost of £100 million.
Dame Lowell’s staff, however, barely flinched. They were used to her tantrums, and worse. Multiple senior sources have told The Times the judge peppered her 16 months at the helm of Britain’s biggest public inquiry with racist remarks and expletive-ridden outbursts. Insiders say Dame Lowell, 67, also appeared to have memory lapses and failed to grasp legal concepts.
She allegedly said Britain had so many paedophiles “because it has so many Asian men” — a comment that left colleagues stunned. “I was so shocked to see the number of ethnic people,” she is said to have told a colleague, while she allegedly commented she had to travel 50 miles from London to see a white face. Her home in the capital was a smart, taxpayer-funded flat in Knightsbridge.
Several sources described Dame Lowell’s reluctance to question the propriety of the royal family. Discussing the Prince of Wales’s friendship with a bishop jailed last year for sex offences against young men, the judge is said to have insisted: “Prince Charles couldn’t possibly have had anything to do with that, not with his breeding.” The source added: “For someone who claimed not to understand what the establishment was, she had a reverence for it that was quite astonishing.”
On the 23rd floor of Millbank Tower, where the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) has its offices, staff soon realised they had a problem. They were supposed to be putting in place the foundations of an investigation into suspected abuse at dozens of institutions, including schools, care homes, the church, the armed forces and parliament.
Since being launched by Theresa May in 2014, IICSA has hired more than 150 staff, opened three regional offices, started the Truth Project to allow abuse victims to give testimony anonymously, commissioned an academic study and begun a legal disclosure exercise demanding that institutions under investigation hand over millions of pages of documents.
Yet it was so dysfunctional under Dame Lowell’s leadership that work often ground to a halt because senior staff felt “totally paralysed”, one said.
Former colleagues, who have asked not to be named, were puzzled then increasingly troubled. One said that staff who were committed to the inquiry’s success felt trapped in “an impossible situation”. They felt they were led by someone who at times behaved “like a very angry child”.
“The pressure was immense. She was rude and abusive to junior staff, she didn’t understand the issues and worse than that she used appalling terms all the time. It was almost intolerable,” the insider claimed.
Senior staff held furtive meetings to discuss their options. It was agreed the best hope lay in sharing their concerns with the Home Office. Mrs May, then home secretary, hired Dame Lowell. Only she could fire her.
Whitehall’s instinct in the face of calamity is often to hide it, however. Until now, the true picture remained secret. Observers have pointed to the irony of a body established to dissect a culture of institutional secrecy, denial and cover-up becoming an exemplar of the problems it was designed to expose. The inquiry’s senior team were all complicit, said one insider. “Goddard should never have been appointed and she should have been removed so much earlier than she was. She was catastrophic.”
Dame Lowell arrived in the UK from New Zealand after two false starts in the search for someone to lead the inquiry. Its first two chairwomen were forced to step down in quick succession over their alleged closeness to the British establishment, and the home secretary could not afford a third mistake. When the appointment was announced in February last year, it was claimed that Dame Lowell was selected after 150 nominees were put through an exhaustive vetting process. The lead counsel, Ben Emmerson, QC, hailed a due diligence exercise of “unprecedented depth and detail”.
Insiders tell a different story, of the Home Office’s “blind panic” after the resignation in October 2014 of the inquiry’s second chairwoman, Dame Fiona Woolf. She survived a month; her predecessor, Baroness Butler-Sloss, had lasted six days. “They were desperate. It couldn’t be a judge from England and Wales so they decided to look at the Commonwealth, but they also wanted a woman. There wasn’t much choice. Then Goddard’s name popped up. It was all signed and sealed very quickly,” a source said.
Doubts over Dame Lowell soon emerged. She spent six weeks negotiating a pay deal that eventually included a £360,000 salary plus a £110,00 annual housing allowance, a chauffeur-driven car and four return flights a year to New Zealand with her husband, Christopher Hodson, QC. One senior source viewed such perks as “completely inappropriate for a public servant”. Dame Lowell, however, is said to have been outraged the deal only entitled her to business-class not first-class seats.
“We all had to tiptoe around her. It set the tone for an organisation that became secretive,” said a source who accused the judge of behaving like an “autocratic and dictatorial” monarch.
Sources described her regular use of racist language as like “going back to the 1950s”. One described a sense of shame that no complaints were made. “You’ve got someone making racist comments who clearly has a racist attitude, and nobody says anything because we’re all bloody pussy-footing around.”
Dame Lowell was heavily reliant on Mr Emmerson, 53, a leading human rights QC who is not renowned for his emollience or team-working skills. In early 2015, before he began working with her, he described Dame Lowell as a woman of “courage, independence and vision”. Within weeks of her arrival, he is understood to have thought differently. In tandem, said one observer, their impact was “utterly toxic”, adding: “So many people were devoted to trying to make the damn thing work, to getting to the bottom of some really egregious societal problems. They all deserved so much better.”
In public, every senior figure stayed silent, including Professor Alexis Jay, then a panel member, who won praise for her leadership of the Rotherham child abuse inquiry. She became IICSA’s fourth chairwoman after Dame Lowell abruptly stood down.
Mr Emmerson resigned last month, 24 hours after being suspended for undisclosed reasons. His departure came two weeks after the unexplained resignation of his junior counsel, Elizabeth Prochaska, 35.
Professor Jay, 67, and others may yet be asked to explain why they did not challenge Dame Lowell. Insiders insist they took the only course of action open to them and prayed for an intervention from Mrs May.
Sources described many months of behind-closed-doors discussions during which panicked staff were assured their concerns were being shared with the Home Office, yet officials “sat there and did nothing”. The Times has been told that those “kept in the loop” included Mark Sedwill, the Home Office permanent secretary, and Liz Sanderson, Mrs May’s special adviser.
Eventually the concerns entered the public domain. At a hearing in late July, the judge’s stumbling performance did not go unnoticed. When she admitted her unfamiliarity with “local law”, the inquiry was exposed to ridicule. Finally, insiders made their move. On August 4, The Times revealed she had been overseas for three months of her first year in office. Within hours, she resigned.
The events of that final day have remained secret until now. That morning, she was approached by senior colleagues and informed her position was no longer tenable. Her response was a two-sentence resignation letter that she sent to the Home Office before leaving for lunch. Amber Rudd, the newly installed successor as home secretary, swiftly accepted it. After lunch, the judge tried to withdraw her resignation. Her reversal was not accepted, and the inquiry lost its third head. That loss should have come many months earlier, her colleagues believe.
Dame Lowell’s lawyers denied all the allegations last night.
October 14 2016,
On a summer afternoon this year Dame Lowell Goddard stood at the doorway of her Westminster office and shouted in anger. Unless she got her own way, she is said to have declared, “I’m going to pack my bags, go back to New Zealand and take this inquiry down with me.”
A visitor to the headquarters of the national child sex abuse inquiry might have been shocked, not least because the threat was made by the judge paid £500,000 a year to lead an investigation forecast to run for a decade at a cost of £100 million.
Dame Lowell’s staff, however, barely flinched. They were used to her tantrums, and worse. Multiple senior sources have told The Times the judge peppered her 16 months at the helm of Britain’s biggest public inquiry with racist remarks and expletive-ridden outbursts. Insiders say Dame Lowell, 67, also appeared to have memory lapses and failed to grasp legal concepts.
She allegedly said Britain had so many paedophiles “because it has so many Asian men” — a comment that left colleagues stunned. “I was so shocked to see the number of ethnic people,” she is said to have told a colleague, while she allegedly commented she had to travel 50 miles from London to see a white face. Her home in the capital was a smart, taxpayer-funded flat in Knightsbridge.
Several sources described Dame Lowell’s reluctance to question the propriety of the royal family. Discussing the Prince of Wales’s friendship with a bishop jailed last year for sex offences against young men, the judge is said to have insisted: “Prince Charles couldn’t possibly have had anything to do with that, not with his breeding.” The source added: “For someone who claimed not to understand what the establishment was, she had a reverence for it that was quite astonishing.”
On the 23rd floor of Millbank Tower, where the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) has its offices, staff soon realised they had a problem. They were supposed to be putting in place the foundations of an investigation into suspected abuse at dozens of institutions, including schools, care homes, the church, the armed forces and parliament.
Since being launched by Theresa May in 2014, IICSA has hired more than 150 staff, opened three regional offices, started the Truth Project to allow abuse victims to give testimony anonymously, commissioned an academic study and begun a legal disclosure exercise demanding that institutions under investigation hand over millions of pages of documents.
Yet it was so dysfunctional under Dame Lowell’s leadership that work often ground to a halt because senior staff felt “totally paralysed”, one said.
Former colleagues, who have asked not to be named, were puzzled then increasingly troubled. One said that staff who were committed to the inquiry’s success felt trapped in “an impossible situation”. They felt they were led by someone who at times behaved “like a very angry child”.
“The pressure was immense. She was rude and abusive to junior staff, she didn’t understand the issues and worse than that she used appalling terms all the time. It was almost intolerable,” the insider claimed.
Senior staff held furtive meetings to discuss their options. It was agreed the best hope lay in sharing their concerns with the Home Office. Mrs May, then home secretary, hired Dame Lowell. Only she could fire her.
Whitehall’s instinct in the face of calamity is often to hide it, however. Until now, the true picture remained secret. Observers have pointed to the irony of a body established to dissect a culture of institutional secrecy, denial and cover-up becoming an exemplar of the problems it was designed to expose. The inquiry’s senior team were all complicit, said one insider. “Goddard should never have been appointed and she should have been removed so much earlier than she was. She was catastrophic.”
Dame Lowell arrived in the UK from New Zealand after two false starts in the search for someone to lead the inquiry. Its first two chairwomen were forced to step down in quick succession over their alleged closeness to the British establishment, and the home secretary could not afford a third mistake. When the appointment was announced in February last year, it was claimed that Dame Lowell was selected after 150 nominees were put through an exhaustive vetting process. The lead counsel, Ben Emmerson, QC, hailed a due diligence exercise of “unprecedented depth and detail”.
Insiders tell a different story, of the Home Office’s “blind panic” after the resignation in October 2014 of the inquiry’s second chairwoman, Dame Fiona Woolf. She survived a month; her predecessor, Baroness Butler-Sloss, had lasted six days. “They were desperate. It couldn’t be a judge from England and Wales so they decided to look at the Commonwealth, but they also wanted a woman. There wasn’t much choice. Then Goddard’s name popped up. It was all signed and sealed very quickly,” a source said.
Doubts over Dame Lowell soon emerged. She spent six weeks negotiating a pay deal that eventually included a £360,000 salary plus a £110,00 annual housing allowance, a chauffeur-driven car and four return flights a year to New Zealand with her husband, Christopher Hodson, QC. One senior source viewed such perks as “completely inappropriate for a public servant”. Dame Lowell, however, is said to have been outraged the deal only entitled her to business-class not first-class seats.
“We all had to tiptoe around her. It set the tone for an organisation that became secretive,” said a source who accused the judge of behaving like an “autocratic and dictatorial” monarch.
Sources described her regular use of racist language as like “going back to the 1950s”. One described a sense of shame that no complaints were made. “You’ve got someone making racist comments who clearly has a racist attitude, and nobody says anything because we’re all bloody pussy-footing around.”
Dame Lowell was heavily reliant on Mr Emmerson, 53, a leading human rights QC who is not renowned for his emollience or team-working skills. In early 2015, before he began working with her, he described Dame Lowell as a woman of “courage, independence and vision”. Within weeks of her arrival, he is understood to have thought differently. In tandem, said one observer, their impact was “utterly toxic”, adding: “So many people were devoted to trying to make the damn thing work, to getting to the bottom of some really egregious societal problems. They all deserved so much better.”
In public, every senior figure stayed silent, including Professor Alexis Jay, then a panel member, who won praise for her leadership of the Rotherham child abuse inquiry. She became IICSA’s fourth chairwoman after Dame Lowell abruptly stood down.
Mr Emmerson resigned last month, 24 hours after being suspended for undisclosed reasons. His departure came two weeks after the unexplained resignation of his junior counsel, Elizabeth Prochaska, 35.
Professor Jay, 67, and others may yet be asked to explain why they did not challenge Dame Lowell. Insiders insist they took the only course of action open to them and prayed for an intervention from Mrs May.
Sources described many months of behind-closed-doors discussions during which panicked staff were assured their concerns were being shared with the Home Office, yet officials “sat there and did nothing”. The Times has been told that those “kept in the loop” included Mark Sedwill, the Home Office permanent secretary, and Liz Sanderson, Mrs May’s special adviser.
Eventually the concerns entered the public domain. At a hearing in late July, the judge’s stumbling performance did not go unnoticed. When she admitted her unfamiliarity with “local law”, the inquiry was exposed to ridicule. Finally, insiders made their move. On August 4, The Times revealed she had been overseas for three months of her first year in office. Within hours, she resigned.
The events of that final day have remained secret until now. That morning, she was approached by senior colleagues and informed her position was no longer tenable. Her response was a two-sentence resignation letter that she sent to the Home Office before leaving for lunch. Amber Rudd, the newly installed successor as home secretary, swiftly accepted it. After lunch, the judge tried to withdraw her resignation. Her reversal was not accepted, and the inquiry lost its third head. That loss should have come many months earlier, her colleagues believe.
Dame Lowell’s lawyers denied all the allegations last night.
FWIW I can't say I'm particularly convinced by it. This looks like precisely the sort of thing that I would expect inquiry staff to say as they try to shovel as much of the shit as possible onto Goddard's doorstep and a little onto Emmerson's. Just stir in some snobbery about 'colonials' and their uncouth ways.
Some strange coded messages going on in the Podesta emails.
References to walnuts, cheese, pasta, handkerchiefs seem like a code but what of?
Internet Is On Fire With Speculation That Podesta Emails Contain Code for Child Sex | We Are Change
References to walnuts, cheese, pasta, handkerchiefs seem like a code but what of?
Internet Is On Fire With Speculation That Podesta Emails Contain Code for Child Sex | We Are Change
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
Anglesea: 12 years.
Ex-police chief Gordon Anglesea jailed for child sexual abuse
Given the extent and severity of his offending, that seems quite light. On the other hand, he's nearly 80, he's ex-filth, and I shouldn't imagine that even half that time is going to be anything other than deeply unpleasant, especially since he's almost certainly going to be on rule 45.
ETA: OK, that was on 2 counts of indecent assault (he had to be charged in accordance with the law prevailing at the time - now, he'd probably have been done for something rapey).
According to the Sentencing Council's guidance, the maximum penalty for indecent assault between 1986 and the new Act in 2003 was 10 years. So I'm not quite sure how he ended up with a 12 year sentence. I'll go and look.
ETA2: Ian Hislop (who lost a libel case for accusing Anglesea of being a child sex abuser) describes the sentence as "almost as if he had committed the offences now". And alludes to the possibility of an appeal by Anglesea.
One of the witnesses in the libel case killed himself after Anglesea won it - he, of course, can't know that he has been vindicated, but it adds a depressing and "grim" note to a business that is miserable even so.
Ex-police chief Gordon Anglesea jailed for child sexual abuse
Given the extent and severity of his offending, that seems quite light. On the other hand, he's nearly 80, he's ex-filth, and I shouldn't imagine that even half that time is going to be anything other than deeply unpleasant, especially since he's almost certainly going to be on rule 45.
ETA: OK, that was on 2 counts of indecent assault (he had to be charged in accordance with the law prevailing at the time - now, he'd probably have been done for something rapey).
According to the Sentencing Council's guidance, the maximum penalty for indecent assault between 1986 and the new Act in 2003 was 10 years. So I'm not quite sure how he ended up with a 12 year sentence. I'll go and look.
ETA2: Ian Hislop (who lost a libel case for accusing Anglesea of being a child sex abuser) describes the sentence as "almost as if he had committed the offences now". And alludes to the possibility of an appeal by Anglesea.
One of the witnesses in the libel case killed himself after Anglesea won it - he, of course, can't know that he has been vindicated, but it adds a depressing and "grim" note to a business that is miserable even so.
Last edited:
Lurdan
old wave
The heavily redacted versions of parts of Richard Henriques review of Operation Midland have been released by the Met and can be downloaded here (scroll down to the bottom of the page).
Commissioner's statement following Sir Richard Henriques Review
Hogan Howe's accompanying statement states :
In a separate statement the Met have confirmed that
A Deputy Assistant Commissioner has also been referred to the IPCC over 'potential breaches in the code of professional standards of behaviour' in respect of Operation Vincente which investigated the claim that Brittan had raped a woman. This presumably refers to DAC Rodhouse who was in charge of it.
Commissioner's statement following Sir Richard Henriques Review
Hogan Howe's accompanying statement states :
In a separate statement the Met have confirmed that
The Guardian are stating that the Met have since confirmed this refers to 'Nick'.
Statement by the Metropolitan Police Service
A Deputy Assistant Commissioner has also been referred to the IPCC over 'potential breaches in the code of professional standards of behaviour' in respect of Operation Vincente which investigated the claim that Brittan had raped a woman. This presumably refers to DAC Rodhouse who was in charge of it.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
did he get anything added on for perjury in the libel trial?
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
I don't think that was on the charge sheet. But I imagine that, in principle, a prosecution on that could take place now that his crimes have been proven to a criminal standard of guilt. It wouldn't even need the original libel defendent to sue - presumably the police could charge him quite independently.
Chilli.s
mingling jets and statuettes
Would be only proper thing to do, so prolly wont happen.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
Sirena
Don't monkey with the buzzsaw
I should imagine that breach of trust is a factor in sentencing but I have always thought it should be counted as an explicit and separate factor in cases involving those (like politicans and the police) whose position is one of public authority and gives them power over others.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
For someone like Anglesea, who clearly put quite some store by his social standing (senior police officer, senior Freemason, bit of a pillar of society all round), the worst hell is going to be in the reputational damage he will feel he has suffered. I was quite astonished, in the case I have most experience of, that the effect on the perpetrator's public reputation was actually cited by his barrister in mitigation.
Ah, so that wasn't especially unusual (from the Grauniad):
Sasaferrato
Super Refuser!
To be honest, I don't think anyone is capable of heading this enquiry. It is just too vast.
It would perhaps have been better to split the enquiry geographically, with 'county' teams investigating, and reporting to a central point.
Sasaferrato
Super Refuser!
Perhaps he should have thought about the effect on his family, before he did such despicable things.
Sasaferrato
Super Refuser!
This business of police forces investigating police forces needs to stop.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
I don't know how the mind of a paedophile works, but I suspect that quite a lot of them do think about such things, but are still unable to stop themselves from offending. That's not in any way meant to excuse them: after all, as we know from the Anglesea case, his behaviour has cost at least one victim his life, and I can only speculate at the number of lives he has blighted with his actions. But we'd be barking up the wrong tree if we really thought that stopping these offences was merely about them having a good think...
And a big part of stopping these offences is the knowledge that, if they're reported, crimes like these will be investigated and taken seriously. Which is what is somewhat worrying about Hogan-Howe's recent comments about reviewing the policy of "believing allegations".
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
perhaps there should be a thread "how much evidence is there of police intelligence"
discokermit
Well-Known Member
lots of stuff coming out about abuse at crewe alexandra, dunno if this is being discussed elsewhere,
Paul Stewart: I was sexually abused by my football coach for four years
Paul Stewart: I was sexually abused by my football coach for four years
Kaka Tim
Half Arsed and Slapdash till I Die
interesting development. wasn't aware they were still digging into heath's (alleged) noncery - but sounds like its very much still happening.
Edward Heath child abuse investigation 'not a witch-hunt'
Edward Heath child abuse investigation 'not a witch-hunt'
elbows
Well-Known Member
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
At 79 his cause of death could be anything, including the shock of being in prison. But looking back to the trial there was no mention of any dramatic medical condition from his defence team (or at least not in my cursory search). More interestingly, I hadn't realised Anglesea had won massive damages against private eye and others over 20 years ago (probably covered already, but, y'know, 215 pages):
Gordon Anglesea: Paedophile ex-police boss gets 12 years - BBC News
The private eye clip suggests the police federation were considering funding his appeal.
Similar threads
- Poll
