CROSS POSTED ON BYLINE.COM
The storm after the damning Henriques report into how the Met Police police handled a series of high profile paedophile investigations -including Operation Midland and Yewtree -has led to demands that one of the principal accusers called ” Nick ” be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice.
I have never met ” Nick” as the story was handled by my colleague Mark Conrad but am aware of the circumstances of the Exaro investigation.
Henriques himself – while deciding that all the prominent figures accused in Operation Midland are innocent and were subject to false allegations – stops short of actually recommending this despite being pressed by the Janner family and seeing the strong demands from former Tory MP Harvey Proctor.
He says “Such a course is well outside my terms of reference and may well be cited as a ground for staying any criminal action against ” Nick.”
But the Met Police decided to ask Northumbria Police to investigate whether ” Nick” had indeed done this.
Unless Henriques, who has only released 84 pages of a 500 page report,has secret information on Nick proving how he made all this up I have considerable scepticism that the police could make a charge of perverting the course of justice stick or even be accepted by the Crown Prosecution Service.
My reason is that there is a precedent. Just 16 months ago a person was tried at the Old Bailey in a court case that most of the national newspapers could not be bothered to cover.
I was a prosecution witness alongside other journalists in that trial in a case brought by the Met Police against Ben Fellows who had accused the former Tory chancellor, Ken Clarke, of sexually abusing him.Clarke denied it vehemently and Henriques backs him up.
My involvement – which is contained in a statement on this website after the trial was over – was because I had given a statement to the Met Police while they were investigating his claims.
Fellows was a member of an undercover sting by the Cook Report which was looking at Ian Greer Associates, a long defunct lobbying company, and it was while he was working with us he alleged this had happened.
The Met Police in the end not only did not find any evidence but decided to prosecute him for perverting the course of justice.
He was acquitted of this charge by the jury.
We do not know why the jury decided this. However it was put to them by his defence barrister that it was the police that sought his statement not Fellows who had actually initially refused. So he had not deliberately set out to pervert the course of justice.
The survivor Nick is in the same position. He did not go to the police demanding they investigate the Westminster paedophile ring. The police sought him as a potential witness when they contacted Exaro asking whether we could provide his details to them.
Exaro made it clear to the police that it would be up to Nick whether he talked to them. Exaro also remained neutral on whether he wanted to talk to him – we did not pressurise him to go to the police. In the end he decided he would – but it was because the police requested it.
Given that – unless again there is something secret that Henriques knows but is not telling the public – it is going to require a high bar to prove he deliberately set out to force the Met Police to spend £2m on an investigation.
There is also another point to this. If the police ask a survivor to make a statement to them so they can pursue people where child sexual abuse crimes are alleged to be committed are they now going to issue a warning to the survivor. Are they going to tell survivors that if they cannot prove the case – or no other witnesses come forward – they will liable for prosecution for perverting the course of justice. If that is the new era survivors are going to be very reluctant to come forward to the police in future.
When Harvey Proctor did a U-turn in 1987 and decided to stop denying the child sexual exploitation offences he was charged with, the leader of the Tory Group on Basildon Council acused Proctor of telling his constituency party “a tissue of lies” and taking the people of Billericay for a ride – https://spotlightonabuse.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/mirror210587b.jpg
The more I hear criticism of “Nick”, the more I’m reminded of Proctor’s own reputation for truthfulness.
Simple really, all complainants sign a statement and all are warned of the consequences of not telling the truth. Therefore, this argument is flawed.
Not so simple Gojam. When I was asked to sign a statement re the Clarke investigation I had to sign the statement to the police saying everything I had told them was true to the best of my ability.So that already happens. I assume this happens in all cases. No mention that I would be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice if it turned out there was contrary evidence.
David, in 2012, Nick went to the Met of his own volition and then went to Wiltshire Police.
Talking of which, do you and Mark believe that Nick has ever even met Jimmy Savile?
I don’t know whether he met Jimmy Savile or not.
Nick claims that he was abused by Savile. I know that you don’t know if he ever met him, I’m asking whether you believe this allegation or indeed ever met Jimmy Savile.
I have never met Savile, always thought he was creepy when I was a kid. My view of him as a paedophile and sexual abuser is taken from Dame Janet’s BBC report, the Broadmoor report and Stoke Mandeville. As for whether Nick was abused by Savile I have never investigated it and would need to before coming to a conclusion.
I think the term Henriques used was “complainant” – he was emphatic about this! It completely misunderstands the nature of these investigations!
It is easy to say that the report has been released in its’ current form, and with its’ perfect timing for “burial” to allow Hogan-Howe to publicly apologise, without proper media scrutiny, AND at the same time continue the Panorama led shift that “none of this ever happened” and “complainants” are not to be believed – despite the governments own statistics which number children who were abused at 6 million at this time………..
It doesn’t add up…..and what input did Henriques get from “complainants,” “victims,” “survivors,” or anyone who understands the injustice of the situation?
There are IPCC complaints about the Met Police’s action which come from the side of the powerless, voiceless…..and those abused by the justice system. Why have they not been consulted, considered, or even recognised????
Come and talk to me, and others like me, Sir Richard – until then – the jury is out on your one sided piece of propaganda! Where is the contrary view – from those without access to limitless resources and column inches? How can people make up their minds in the absence of the facts?
Shame on you……..and those who abuse their power…….and fail to consider the experience of the non – “complainant!”
Reblogged this on Support for Survivors of Childhood Abuse .
I don’t see any issue at all which would stop honest complainers come forward. If you are telling the truth then you ought to have no concerns whatsoever. None. If the police have a lack of other supporting evidence or witnesses to pursue or prosecute a valid claim, there is no prospect whatsoever that they would then charge you as a complainer. If, however, you lied then I think the full force of the law ought to be brought against you. If you lied then I’d certainly support a sentence that equalled or exceeded the maximum you would have served upon an innocent individual. As an aside, my own son was sexually abused by a female and it goes without saying that police have a gendered policy which demands they resist prosecuting females for child sex offences and the national statistics provide evidence of their policy Nonetheless I made a complaint and full statement. I told the police that , should they believe or have evidence that I lied in the statement then I expected – indeed I demanded – formally in writing that they charge me with any and all available options. I had absolutely no fear whatsoever of being charged with lying. No truthful complainer should have any concerns whatsoever. This myth that it will stop valid victims coming forward is simply that – a myth. The only ones that will stop coming forward are not victims, but false accusers.t
tell the truth get done for it just about right in this modern society were the guilty go free and those who are injured by them get prosecuted hmmm
The police are in a tricky area here, whichever way they turn.
People who maliciously tell lies to get others in trouble should certainly be prosecuted. However how can they be shown to be lies unless the evidence has been tested in court and clearly shown to be untrue?
It seems to me the CSA has to decide whether the harm done by the ‘lies’ is sufficiently important for a prosecution to take place. That’s a difficult judgement to make. Whose reputation should be protected? A politician’s? A famous musician’s? Generally unless an informant is very clearly lying, no prosecution can or should take place.
It’s vital the police continue to follow allegations seriously as they are doing, otherwise we will not reduce predatory behaviour against children.
“The survivor Nick” Surely, you mean the malicious delusional fantasist Nick, don’t you?
This is from a person who blogs that Jimmy Savile isn’t a paedophile
I have provided chapter and verse on why Savile was not a paedophile, as have other investigative bloggers in much more detail. If you want to ignore the evidence they have uncovered, then I will leave it to your conscience to explain why you want to prevent the truth coming into the wider domain about the scurrilous Exposure programme which initiated the lies and deceptions about Savile.
The bloggers you talk about have been obsessively trying to find discrepancies in every single case involving Savile – and sure there will be some or they will decide that it is the fault of the teenagers themselves if he pawed them.
However given that Savile has been investigated by Operation Yewtree, Dame Janet Smith ( on the BBC), Broadmoor, Stoke Mandeville, Jersey, Leeds etc by a number of different inquiries you would be hard put to say he is not. Not only is he a paedophile and a sexual predator he is also manipulative and possibly corrupt (if the deals he proposed at Stoke Mandeville and Broadmoor are anything to go by). Indeed there is unresolved business at Broadmoor which I have alluded to in a previous blog with one of the people he associated.
As a kid I always thought he was creepy and wouldn’t have ever wanted to meet him, Now I know why.
I too found Savile creepy on Top Of The Pops but it is a huge leap of imagination to assume that this makes him a paedophile. With regard to Yewtree, non of the allegations against Savile have been investigated by the Police, the accusers have been deemed to be victims without any consideration of their claims. I have not yet studied in detail the NHS and BBC reports into Savile so until I do I will refrain from commenting on them. What I have studied in great detail is the ITV Exposure programme that started the Savile furore. The evidence is compelling that it is a deliberate attempt to blacken Savile’s reputation through fabrications, exaggerations and distortions, in pursuit of the agenda of the presenter and his sponsors. The evidence is there in great detail on my blog which you have read. What I am truly shocked by is why supposedly ‘investigative’ mainstream media journalists like yourself wilfully look away when presented with this evidence. As I said before, that is a matter for your conscience.
For heaven’s sake man, there is footage of Savile groping a girl on Top of the Pops: perhaps you are going to argue that she was not a child, or that such behaviour is not a sexual assault? And if you have not studied the NHS and BBC reports, you are not entitled to conclude that Savile’s reputation has been blackened, rather than that his repellant activities have been catalogued after lengthy and detailed inquiries.
thoroughly I will reach my own conclusions on their merits or oWell woman, I never claimed that the BBC and NHS reports blackened Savile’s reputation only the ITV Exposure programme, which is largely fabrications and distortions, and the source of much unwarranted public paranoia. When I can find the time to read the NHS and BBC reports I will reach my own conclusion on their merits or otherwise. Sadly, vast numbers of both men and women engage in groping. If that is all people have to put up with in life then they have had an easy time of it. If you find this behaviour ‘repellent’ I fear to think how you react when something genuinely nasty occurs. Try and get a sense of proportion and go easy on the outrage. The ‘child’ in question was a fully developed adolescent, well above the age of puberty, so clearly no paedophilia here. That being said I don’t condone this behaviour and in my blog post on Savile I do recognise that he was a bit too touchy-feely with women and teen girls.
You and Donald Trump must be soulmates on this issue!
Zestify’s advert for their 14 CD collection Romancing the 60’s is worth a look. TOTP clip.
‘Mr Voxpopper’ – ‘A bit too touchy feely’?
The fact that you think a. that vast numbers of men and women engage in ‘groping’ rather than consensual sexual activity, and that b. such behaviour is not repellant, says all we need to know about you. That is rather pathetic, in fact. More serious is the fact that you think it is acceptable for any adult man to behave like that with an adolescent girl. That is if we are to take you at face value, which is probably a mistake.
I made it clear that I don’t condone this kind of behaviour, which regrettably I believe is widespread and practiced by both sexes. But to describe it as repellant is a ludicrous over-reaction when there are much worse evils in society such as journalists with a deceitful modus operandi, which is what I was commenting on, and which both you and our host are strangely silent on. As I said before your really do need to get a sense of proportion and channel your deep anger into more deserving causes.
Got a daughter Mr V.? What if a child of yours was groped or worse. Would you put it down to old enough to bleed old enough to breed. Obviously you are a sad and twisted individual and are probably a raincoat who leers at schoolgirls when deliberately riding the bus between 3 and 4 pm.
As I made clear I don’t condone groping and I have never practiced it myself. But It would appear that I am in a minority, if my own experience and and that of many people I know is any guide. Having experienced it, I have to say it is not something that has bothered me in any way. I am curious to know at what age you stopped admiring attractive teen girls on your bus journeys.
To Mr Henke – your comparison with Donald Trump is a cheap insult. I have never used such language as he has uttered about women and I have certainly not done so in my comments on your blog.
I think your attempts to dismiss ‘groping’ by minimising the distress and damage it causes the victim speaks for itself: you want to ignore the fact that it is a sexual assault – and an offence – and the behaviour of a sexually predatory person, usually male, involving someone who has not initiated such behaviour. It is an abuse of power, and in the case of people like your hero Savile, facilitated by their celebrity status. It is an assault that is traumatic for anyone, but for a child or ‘adolescent’, the impact is far worse, for obvious reasons: obvious, that is, to anyone but people like you who feel so compelled, for reasons best known to yourself, to excuse it.