I missed this story when it came out a few days ago. It is still relevant. It will be relevant so long as the patterns of human behaviour observed in the Salem Witch Trials last, which is likely to be a long time.
“The Met was duped by fantasist Carl Beech. A decade later, the real victims are still suffering”
Here is an excerpt:
Ten years ago this month, Harvey Proctor, the former Conservative MP, received a letter from the Metropolitan Police informing him that he would not be facing charges of multiple child rape and murder.
Following an 18-month investigation, which had cost more than £3m, the country’s leading police force had concluded there was, after all, not enough evidence to prove that he had been part of a VIP paedophile ring that had spent years torturing, abusing and killing children.
There was not enough evidence, of course, because the entire thing had been made up by a fantasist called Carl Beech, who was, in fact, a paedophile himself.
and
The police investigation – which became known as Operation Midland – began in earnest in November 2014, when Beech, an NHS manager, went to police, claiming to have been abused for almost a decade by a powerful cabal of politicians, establishment and military figures.
He had already met with Tom Watson, the Labour MP, who enthusiastically encouraged him to take his allegations to Scotland Yard and then, without any due diligence, made a speech in the Commons warning of a “powerful paedophile network linked to Parliament and No 10”.
The list of those Beech – or Nick, the pseudonym he was given – accused read like a Who’s Who of the 1980s establishment.
He named Edward Heath, the former prime minister; Lord Brittan, the former home secretary; Lord Janner, the former Labour grandee; Harvey Proctor, the former Tory backbencher; Field Marshal Lord Bramall, the former head of the Army; General Hugh Beach; Field Marshal Roland Gibbs, the former Chief of the General Staff; Maurice Oldfield, the former head of MI6; Michael Hanley, the former head of MI5; and Major Raymond Beech, his own stepfather. He also threw Jimmy Savile’s name into the mix, perhaps to add a semblance of credibility (Savile’s crimes had become known in late 2012).
The list of people “Nick” claimed had abused him was a great deal longer than that. The Times journalist David Aaronovitch wrote an article (which I cannot now find to link to) before “Nick’s” true identity had been revealed that dared to question Beech’s tale on logistical grounds. I say “dared to” because at that time the witch-hunt was at its height and the comments filled up with people who said that for Aaronovitch to quibble about the likelihood of so many of the most scrutinised men in the country (including Edward Heath who as a former Prime Minister was given round-the-clock police protection) being able to slip away for murder parties quite that often must mean that Aaronovitch was in on the conspiracy too.
The Telegraph article continues,
In December 2014, in line with a new national policy that demanded the police must start from a position of believing all victims, Scotland Yard held a press briefing at which it declared Beech’s claims to be “credible and true”. Seasoned crime journalists present, including me, were somewhat surprised to hear detectives declaring allegations to be “true” at the outset of an investigation.
Sir Richard believes that this was a fatal mistake from the police. “For senior officers to stand outside New Scotland Yard and say Carl Beech was credible and true before they had even spoken to him or read his interviews really was outrageous.”
The senior officer who stood outside New Scotland Yard and said that Carl Beech’s accusations were “credible and true” was Detective Superintendent Kenny McDonald. It was no mere slip of the tongue. Here is a BBC video from 2014 of him repeating it. I once thought that the presumption of innocence was drilled into every police officer.
What happened to Detective Superintendent Kenny McDonald? He and the other officers who led Operation Midland to disaster were allowed to retire early on full pensions.
What happened to Tom Watson, the Labour MP who used Parliamentary Privilege to amplify Beech’s accusations in Parliament? Sir Keir Starmer sent him to the House of Lords. He should now be addressed as “The Right Honourable the Baron Watson of Wyre Forest”.
What happened to Harvey Proctor, the former Tory MP falsely accused of multiple rapes and murders of children? He lost his job and his home and says he will never feel safe again.
What happened to Field Marshall Lord Bramall and Leon Brittan? They did not live to see their names cleared. Their last days were darkened by the knowledge that millions of people believed they had raped and murdered children, because the police said the accusations were true.
What happened to “Nick” a.k.a. Carl Beech? He was released from jail early having served less than seven years of his 18 year sentence.
The establishment, including the police and Members of Parliament, think ideologically – at least they pretend to.
Any police officer, or Member of Parliament (or whatever) who said “this is all lies” would be attacked, and likely be forced out.
As the post points out – even after the lies are exposed as lies, the innocent continue to suffer – and the liars, including Members of Parliament, are rewarded for their lies.
Welcome to modern Britain – indeed to the modern world.
The principles of objective truth and universal moral law (natural justice) are rejected – and, in their place, we have have “Critical Theory” (which is not critical at all – it is utterly dogmatic and closed against reason) – and it does indeed come from Marxism – although its roots are much older than Marxism.
I would guess that the amount of Establishment figures being named was responsible.
The Fabians who want to tear society down most likely saw this as a great opportunity. Yeah there were a couple of Labour people in there but not many, and there were some heavy hitting Tories in there along with real Establishment stalwarts.
Further proof, if any were needed, that despite all of our soi-disant modern sophistications, man is as susceptible to “Extraordinary popular Delusions, and the Madness of Crowds” as he ever was. And it’s not as though there weren’t plenty of recent examples of fantastic hoaxes put forward by deluded fantasists to act as a warning. The US was rife with this sort of thing in the 80s and 90s, and you almost have to wonder whether the semior leadership at the Met wasn’t motivated in part by thinking along the lines of ‘those dumb Septics fell for hoaxes like this, but this time it’s for real!’
I did not realize that the odious Cressida Dick was a part of this fiasco. Makes you wonder, doesn’t it? From the execution-style killing of a Brazilian electrician, to the multi-year investigation of a laughably-obvious hoax being peddled by a delusional fantasist – just how bad do you have to be at being a police officer to prevent you from rising to be Commissioner of the Met?
llater,
llamas
Met Plod has been a total waste of space for some time. They would be better served investigating their own ranks, which seem to number far more murderers and rapists than the Houses of Parliament.
I fear I cannot repeat what I would call him, but he is one of a number of New Labour figures who should have been decorating a gibbet long ago.
@llamas
Spot on!
Of them all, I would suggest that Dick is one of the very worst, although the competition is stiff.
Anyone remember the Cleveland ritual sex abuse nonsense? Or the Orkney one? It’s a mystery (to me) how anyone would fall for this stuff, but somehow they do, over and over.
Peter MacFarlane,
Yes, and I remember quite clearly prime minister Thatcher say “Something should be done.” A reminder, should any be needed, of how little control the elected pyramidion has over the massive bulk of the unelected government.
Speaking of unelected government, the videos of Rupert Lowe vs civil servants are a sight to behold. No Sir Humphreys, let alone a Sir Arnold. A bunch of palid, undead NPCs you wouldn’t trust with a corner shop. Unsackable, unaccountable and incapable of explaining themselves. Indeed, they seem to find the notion that they should explain themselves quite bizzare.
Peter MacFarlane – they “fall for this stuff” because they think ideologically (not rationally) – or they pretend to, knowing that if they oppose the ideology they will be sacked and lose their pensions.
This country is trapped.
There are always some people who yearn to believe the worst about others, despite hard evidence. Unfortunately some of those people have infested the police, government and the lanyard class.
On the other hand there are always some people who yearn to believe the best about others, despite hard evidence.
And so you get a mix of people persecuted for no good reason, while others escape criticism (like grooming gangs, Jimmy Savile etc.)
Just a small quibble: This is drilled into every court officer and functionary.
it is NOT drilled into every copper. (At least not in my corner of the world.)
They are not 2 different sets: they are 2 subsets of the broader set of people who refuse to consider hard evidence against their pre-conceived beliefs, while taking any flimsy evidence for their pre-conceived beliefs as confirmation.
Discovered Joys and Snorri Godhi – interesting points.
bobby b – if you are of the “wrong” demographic group, or have the “wrong” opinions, then the presumption of innocence is going in Britain – many judges (although NOT all of them) treat you as guilty, and if you insist on your innocence then the system seems to hate you – with people endlessly being told “you will get a much a harsher sentence if you do not plead guilty” (by the way that is sometimes a LIE -as people intimidated into pleading guilty, for crimes they have not committed, and then the book is thrown at them anyway).
In neither Scots Law or (till recently) German Law did pleading guilty get a person a reduced sentence – the principle was that everyone deserves a trial, and no one could be held long in prison before the trial – but that has collapsed in Scotland in recent years, with people finding themselves in prison for months before being brought to trial.
As recently as the 1990s this was NOT so – even in big, and violent, cities such as Glasgow – a person was not pressured to plead guilty, and would be brought to trial (trial by jury) after no more than a few days in prison, if they were sent to prison to await trial at all.
The key is to get the officials, lawyers and judges to “pull their finger out” – and the only way that can be done is a fixed (and enforced) limit on how long after someone is charged that the person is brought to trial – and how long the trial can last.
Not “utopian” – as, again, I can remember when this was the case in Scotland, even in the big cities.
“Devolution” has had a terrible effect on Scots Law and on Scottish education.
I certainly think there was a time, in the UK at least, when it was axiomatic that a person should be regarded as innocent until proven guilty and that the police were fully aware of that. It is, or should be, transparently obvious that the notion that those claiming to be the victims of crime must be believed, as in the Beech case or the ‘me too’ movement, is inimical to justice.
That it is no longer regarded as obvious is one indication among many that our societal standards have fallen badly in recent decades. Paul Marks does of course know the reasons!
bobby b. wrote:
‘Just a small quibble: This is drilled into every court officer and functionary.
it is NOT drilled into every copper. (At least not in my corner of the world.)’
Absolutely-true in my corner of the world as well, and one of many reasons I’m not involved in that world any more. I blame two things i) the ‘academy’ mindset and ii) the huge influx of ex-military police into civilian policing. MPs/APs/SPs are generally untroubled by the presumption of innocence and seem to be trained on the principle that every service member they contact is guilty of something, else why would they be there? Service members can also be guilty of a myriad of infractions that are simply not matters for the police in the civilian world, but old habits die hard. When I see a police officer wearing military ribbons and badges, or command officers wearing O-rank badges (like colonel’s eagles or collar stars) I know that this mindset pervades the department. Used-to-was, a Michigan sheriff wore no uniform, but a business suit, with a badge out the breast pocket as required. Nowadays,they all seem to be dressed like Ruritanian admirals, with the addition of full tactical costume whenever they appear on the street. Radley Balko was prescient.
llater,
llamas
Nor in mine. I’ve been pulled over or rolled up on a few times by the plod in my younger years.
Very interesting to note that I was treated largely as a “cheeky young chappie”, whilst my Asian mates were treated as “definitely criminals”, for exactly the same thing.
(I’ll leave aside the amount of times they tried it on with whatever partner I was with at the time. No, Matthew, they do not actually, “love a man in uniform” when you’ve just pulled me over lol)
I probably should expend on what I said above – that police in the US are not drilled on the presumption of innocence. (llamas’s response sort of surprised me.)
I’m not sure that cops SHOULD be “presumption of innocence” holders.
They are the investigatory arm of the justice system, and I would expect them to be neutral on that presumption. If you go into a factual investigation presuming innocence, I’m not sure many crimes would ever make it to the prosecutors’ desks.
I’m comfortable knowing that the prosecutors and judges have this principle drilled in. (Well, in theory. In practice, when you get your next promotion based on your conviction record, maybe not so much.)
I say this as an ex-crimdef lawyer, knowing that most of my clients actually DID what they were accused of. Sure, the state’s power over us must be narrowly limited, but we still do have to be able to find and punish bad acts, and cops acting on the innocence presumption would gut that process.
bobby b
I remember a film (alas my Swiss cheese brain has forgotten the title) where a defense lawyer, whose client did not commit any crime, is so disgusted by the system, which keeps offering his client deals if he will confess to lesser charges – and threatening him with telephone number prison time if he refuses, that he says the following to the jury…..
“A defense attorney says many things in defense of his client – trying to cast doubt on the evidence that the prosecution brings forward, but a defense attorney never says “my client is innocent – my client did not commit any crime”, indeed a lawyer can be disbarred for saying that – ladies and gentleman of the jury, my client is innocent – my client did not commit any crime”.