UKC

Leon Brittan , days after his death is now revealed as one of the "Nick" abusers.

http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5464/leon-brittan-was-under-met-probe-ove...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/leon-brittan-sex-abuse-allegatio...

So the fox was handling the dossier on the hen house all along?

.....this stinks to high heaven

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Its a bit dubious that he wasnt named till he was dead and the libel disappeared.

In reply to dissonance:

the claim is the police were building a case against him and nobody wanted to prejudice a future trial. Who knows what forces are at work to keep this covered up?

If he is featured in a video that the police have of an abuse party, then I struggle to see how he could defend himself. But I am only reading the same stuff that we all have access to, I don't know the truth, but it certainly stinks as far as i am concerned. Only dead politicians named/accused publicly so far. Hopefully Tom Watson and the police can get to the bottom of this without much interference.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

If you did any digging on the internet say over the past ten years his comes up implicated as chief nonce again and again, house of paedo repute in Barnes etc. I think his name was even mentioned in the newspapers back in the 80s under carefully worded lawyer consulted copy. Are you going to be surprised when the Police investigation admits they never questioned him under oath before he conviently died? That's what stinks about the dossier going missing - plenty of people still alive who could be questioned in connection to the contents and names in it, unfortunately one of biggest who could of very well have sanctioned its burial is now dead. Its pretty clear to me that the forces you mention are working overtime.

D

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

The Times the other day said that he was completely innocent of any wrongdoing. Seemed a bit prematurely dismissive to me...

In reply to dissonance:


EXACTLY.... and more importantly he's not here to defend himself.

In reply to Dauphin:

>they never questioned him under oath before he conviently died?
What an utter rotter!

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

What was the cause of death?

He didn't top himself, did he?

In reply to dissonance:
Not sure it's dubious, it fits with what happened with Savile and the general attempts to play accusations down by some people. And some news sources say he was under investigation by the police for this too.

In reply to Trangia:


No, he died after a long 'battle with cancer', apparently.


That was my first thought, but apparently not.

The real powers of the establishment, with the help of the police, in clamping down on the truth and giving protection from the law in such cases is terrifying. There are quite a few such cases ...

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

The whole worlds a conspiracy to you isn't it!

In reply to Indy:


Did you read the links in the OP, specifically this one: http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5464/leon-brittan-was-under-met-probe-ove...

That story states there is specific evidence from two witnesses and two video tapes and the reason the story was not being discussed was so as not to interfere with a police inquiry and potential prosecution rather than to avoid libel.

I have no idea how reliable that website is but if that story is halfway true it is shocking.

In reply to Indy:

Absolutely not. A minute fraction of a percentage of the world's activities is.

In reply to Indy:


As with Jimmy Saville.... Interesting to see the different response to the 2 cases both in the media and on UKC.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I saw a headline the other day that a social worker claimed to have seen photos of him with 2 young boys.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

If there had genuinely been a video tape of Leon B abusing children then he would have been arrested and put on police bail and a trial would have been set. As for the 2 'witnesses' I assume theses are of the 'Nick' variety!

The only place anyone should be looking for information on this is with the Police.... period.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus: i think it's telling Tom Watson described the two witnesses as 'sincere. ' It would be nice to say that 'tre truthfully will out' in these causes, but i'm not it's possible either way.

In reply to Indy:


My goodness, you're trusting!

In reply to Dauphin:


I'm sure he didn't find it that convient [sic]...

In reply to Indy:


Who has been described by the police as 'credible'.

In reply to Indy:

Let us know which country you're living in - I'd like to live there, too

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

I recently read extracts from a private forum for serving and ex-Met officers. A number of contributing officers report putting a lot of time and effort into investigations into organised child sex abuse by senior govt officials. And they express anger at having their findings buried, or their evidence dismissed by their superiors, or their investigations closed down before they were concluded. They were angry, and welcomed the current investigation.

Does this ring bells with anyone? Anyone got a link?

I found the link I was looking for:

http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5434/police-discuss-submitting-statements...

Anyone know about the reliability or otherwise of Exaronews?

In reply to stroppygob:
These allegations have circulated for at least 25 yrs. Everyone, plod, current home secretary, prime minister, mi5 knows he had difficult questions to answer. Let's muddy the water with an enquiry into the disappearance of the original report which concluded 'we know nothing'. Plenty of fellows still alive who could be questioned over its contents, including the now dead home secretary who signed off on it. Why do you imagine the kerfuffle about apointing anyone to lead the enquiry in anyway connected to Brittan?

D

In reply to Dauphin:

I remember reading (in the 80s) that the security services were unhappy when he was made Home Secretary. IIRC, the unhappiness was not about policy direction and whatnot, but personal background and suitability.

In reply to Dauphin:



I still don't think he found dying "convient"[sic].

In reply to Indy:

Oh look, a UKC thread about sexual assault. Oh look, Indy's appeared saying the witnesses shouldn't be believed. This is starting to get really, REALLY weird.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Yes, it's very odd and a bit disturbing, especially since the police seem to think they should and Indy must have much less info than them. Makes you wonder what's going on with them I have to say.

In reply to Tony Naylor:




Well Exaronews have been the ones recently who have been exposing details and heading up the investigation. They've got access to Nick and other witnesses, and also I believe plenty of ex-police sources who as you mentioned got angry about their investigations being forcibly dropped.

They've been working with the police on this and some MPs have also openly praised their efforts in the Commons. So I think they've got a lot more credibility than a tabloid looking for a sleaze story. But it goes without saying that they've got a big stake in these allegations continuing to come out.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

I was left alone with him in a kitchen when I was a a teenager, visiting my parents' house for work reasons, creeped me out at the time although it has to be said that his looks didn't help. Think he was just a home office minister at the time. I've watched this story with interest though I hope he doesn't end up effectively found guilty with no chance to put his side to it (the Saville principle, albeit the evidence appears to have been overwhelming in that case).

In reply to Skyfall:

To me the whole thing rings of a Jefferies ( the Joanna Yates style incident) scenario.

ie " he looks odd and therefore he is guilty".

Sad really.

In reply to neilh:

To you with no access to any evidence. The police are investigating and there are witnesses of which there were none in the Jefferies case.

In reply to Skyfall:


I suspect that is down to whatever evidence there is, I hear it is substantial but don't actually know, clearly he has no chance to put his side to it.

In reply to JayPee630:

None of us have evidence, just hearsay at the moment and the internet.

I will wait until a successful prosecution.

In reply to neilh:



The police seem to think they have evidence, which wasn't the case in the Jefferies case. In Britton's case a prosecution clearly isn't going to happen.

In reply to neilh:


That's never going to happen now he is dead and it was convenient both for him and the establishment to let the investigation drag on long enough to allow that to happen before any embarrassing actions like arresting an ex home-secretary were necessary.

There have been a few cases where prominent people managed to keep substantial wrongdoing out of the public view until after they died: Saville and Robert Maxwell spring to mind. I don't think there is much doubt that in the 80s and 90s the establishment would have been perfectly capable of burying inconvenient evidence against prominent people. It did far worse than that: e.g. fighting the first independence referendum in Scotland based on an assertion there was hardly any oil in the North Sea and classifying their own report which said there was so the electorate wouldn't know.

In reply to The New NickB:


Brittan, it's even there for you in the header.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:




The entire British establishment does, at the centre of which is Westminster.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Could you find it possible to separate the two issues - child abuse scandals vs the remaining potential oil reserves in the waters surrounding the UK. One is deeply troubling whilst the other is rather childish political point scoring, hopefully you can work out the difference for yourself.

In reply to Cuthbert:


Tom Watson stinks? That seems an odd thing for you to say.

In reply to cander:


Child abuse is a disgusting but relatively frequent occurrence which courts deal with tens of thousands of times a year. The devolution referendum was a once in a generation occurrence and what was at stake was whether a trillion pounds worth of oil money would get spent in Scotland. Lying about the amount of oil in the North Sea and classifying the government report on oil reserves to cover the lie in order to fix a referendum is massively more important than lying about a sex scandal.

The underlying issue is a coterie of powerful people in London who feel they have a god given right to power and can lie with impunity to the rest of us in order to preserve it. It is tied in to the remnants of a feudal aristocracy such as the House of Lords, the Monarchy and powerful landowning families which this country badly needs to break away from.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I will wait until proper evidence is produced, and I will ignore internet tittle tattle and conspiracy theories.

Saville was sorted after his death ( unfortunatley). So lets see what happens.


Its all idle gossip at the moment.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I thought we were an anarcho-syndicalist collective?

In reply to neilh:


I see where you are coming from but I think that without the internet tittle tattle and conspiracy theories the establishment is going to passively suppress this. It is only when the tittle tattle looks like getting out of control they will be motivated to investigate properly. Otherwise they will just follow the standard tactics of banning anyone from saying anything during the police investigation and letting lawyers argue back and forward for months over every detail to spin things out as long as possible (cf Chilcot Enquiry) in the hope that when it finally finishes nobody will care anymore.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

So from that I see you are unable to separate the two issues - give yourself a shake son.

In reply to neilh:

So the police have opened a new investigation "Operation Midland" on some idle gossip. The same as Fernbridge and Fairbank I suppose. As for Theresa May ordering an independent CSA enquiry on idle gossip....this idle gossip really must be dynamite! Especially as they couldn't appoint a head to the enquiry because of idle gossip linking Woolf to Brittans wife. But we didn't know that this tittle tattle at the time was actually to do with LB being at the centre of the allegations rather than just losing the dossier, just that there was a big headache for May at the time trying to appoint a head of the enquiry.

But now LB is dead, tongues have really started wagging,

Yes, lets see what happens. But idle gossip it isn't.

In reply to neilh:

Nope, it's the police having evidence which they believe to be strong enough to pursue a case. Nothing to do with gossip, or tittle-tattle, or internets.

In reply to cander:


They are the same issue, the devolution referendum was 1979 and these allegations are the early eighties, its the same group of establishment people doing the same kind of thing.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

I will wait and not rely on speculation from internet forums , tongues wagging etc.

In reply to dissonance:

It wasfairly widely reported in his lifetime that Leon Brittan had questions to answer, and not just of his handling of a dossier.
So perhaps not so dubious.

It will likely be the same when Sir Cliff dies.
At the moment Lots of speculation, rumour (the odd raid),, and when he dies, all that and more will come out.

In reply to neilh:

I tend to agree with Tom.

These same establishment figures, have been exposed as 'being economical with the truth' far to often on too many issues, to give them the benefit of the doubt.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Indy went very, very quiet after his early appearance!

In reply to Jim C:

Which establishment figures? I'm not dismissing the premise, I just don't know who you mean.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Pick pretty much any of them, so many have been caught out over the years doing so, it'd be harder to find an honest one!

In reply to neilh:


Do you actually understand the nature and content of most internet forums? What is it that you're here for?

('Climbing' probably won't wash.....)

In reply to Martin not maisie:

Idle chit chat!!

In reply to Mark Sheridan:


Children need to be put to bed.... quality time needs to be spent with the wife, supper etc

Or is there room for some more conspiracy theories?

In reply to Indy:

When will you stop dismissing victims and police investigations as just 'conspiracy theories'? It's a pretty nasty position to say the least.

In reply to JayPee630:

Look, Indy believes in "innocent until proven guilty" and often after that.

In reply to Indy:


That's probably what Leon said...




Very strange thing to be defending. You do know how weird you are looking, don't you?