Sir Edward Heath: Paedophile or No Paedophile?

edward heath

Sir Edward Heath Pic credit: BBC


The long awaited Operation Conifer report  by Wiltshire Police into allegations against the former late Prime Minister  Edward Heath sums up the dilemmas investigating historic child sex abuse when the alleged perpetrator is now dead.

Child sexual abuse – because it is essentially a shameful and private act – is one of the most difficult crimes to prove and even more difficult when it is historic and the person accused is dead. An adult rape victim may be able to recognise their assailant, a child will have more difficulty unless it is a member of their close family or a teacher or youth worker.

Wiltshire Police have been attacked for spending public money investigating these claims and as a result damaging the reputation of a very prominent public figure when he can’t answer back.

In my view they were completely right to do so because of the number of people who came forward making these allegations. To refuse to do so would amount to complicity in a further cover up of these allegations and to assume  that all the people who made them were liars without examining any of the facts.

And it would compound the present scandal of  child sexual abuse – which is why we are having an inquiry- because across society in churches, schools, family, politicians ( like Sir Cyril Smith) and entertainers ( Jimmy Savile and Rolf Harris) there are now real examples of hidden child sex abuse going back 30 to 40 years.

The police investigation to my mind has been proportionate and fair. They have not said every one of the 42 ( actually 40 because three cases were the same person under different names) people who came forward totally proved Edward Heath abused them. And of the seven cases , including an 11 year old boy, where they believe Edward Heath should have been questioned under caution, that this meant Edward Heath was automatically guilty. It was just that other facts  suggested their allegations  sounded serious enough to warrant the ex PM being questioned. about them.

And where they think the accusers have been wrong or misled  they have said so. In three cases they decided it was mistaken identity.

And in two worse. -one is a live investigation into misleading the police and the other has been cautioned for wasting police time.

They seem to have gone about their job in a meticulous way – just as in these circumstances  any serious journalist would do – by looking for corroboration of the allegations from people who were not abusers or the abused. The fact that one case merited attention, for example, came because in questioning government chauffeurs ( which as any lobby journalist knows are some of the best sources for revealing  occasional indiscretions), one of them mentioned Heath visiting an area where separately a person alleged he was abused there.

They have also revealed what looks like one of Edward Health’s best kept secrets that he could drive and owned two cars.

They also appear to have uncovered another possible case of child sexual abuse – unconnected to Edward Heath – by contacting male sex workers in Salisbury which is still under investigation.

In their inquiries they seem to have scotched a specific rumour that he abused people on Morning Cloud and other racing yachts,  By chasing up the crew it looks extremely unlikely that he would have both the space and the privacy to do so.

The report says:”There is no indication from former crew members that children were ever taken aboard the different Morning Cloud yachts. There was no information or evidence that any of the identified crew members were complicit in child sexual abuse or witnessed Sir Edward Heath engaging in abuse.”

And it debunks suggestions that Heath was ” asexual”.

“During the investigation the issue became relevant as it was publicly implied that it was implausible for Sir Edward Heath to be an alleged suspect in child abuse related offences as he was considered to be ‘completely asexual’.
“Witnesses who were interviewed by investigators from Operation Conifer offered different opinions about Sir Edward Heath’s sexuality. However two witnesses, who have not disclosed abuse, provided evidence that he was sexually active with consenting adults during parts of his life.”

On the security services the report baldly says; “Enquiries were undertaken with UK Security and Intelligence Agencies and there was no information that progressed the investigation any further.”

I note a much fuller report is to go to the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse and the intention is to attach the findings to more general inquiries about paedophiles in Westminster which will be a controversial part of the investigation – given what happened to the Operation Midland inquiry.

What this report doesn’t do is lift the lid on the alleged Westminster paedophile scandal and change the direction of the inquiry. Rather it adds to the whole problem of not proven allegations and how to balance how much and what should be investigated.  It rather leaves some matters in limbo. I notice with great interest that Wiltshire Police did appoint an independent scrutiny panel to oversee their investigation – which should stop people accusing the police of time wasting – and they fully support they way Wiltshire went about it.

But I entirely reject the idea that we need another judicial review after such a meticulous investigation. That would be a waste of public money.

Full report HERE.





4 thoughts on “Sir Edward Heath: Paedophile or No Paedophile?

  1. before you read this ima know what is the link between all the victims and Heath , Ima have told a MSM jorno so they know….at some point you will know what links all the victims,thats why the cops know Heath is a nonc


    Now that Chief Constable Mike Veale has published his report on Operation Conifer, with his customary display of dignity, professionalism and clarity, it may be an appropriate time for me to disclose some details of my limited involvement in the investigation.

    As readers may be aware, the Chief Constable and I were recently subjected to a nasty, poorly-researched and inaccurate attack by the Heath-supporting Sunday Times. It included a cowardly and baseless smear against the evidence of Hollie Greig, undeniably a brave victim of multiple sexual abuse.

    Despite being furnished with all the independent expert and police evidence fully supporting Hollie.the SIt was thus gutter journalism of the lowest kind.

    I suspected that I was included in the attack, which was primarily aimed at undermining the gallant Chief Constable, because of the quality of the evidence that I had been able to relay to him, during the course of our correspondence.

    This is how it all came about.

    Over seven years ago, following the publicity surrounding the unlawful arrest and imprisonment I suffered in Aberdeen over Hollie`s case, I was invited to meet Dr Joan Coleman, a specialist in the field of child and ritual sexual abuse of impeccable reputation. Amongst other details, including some relating to Jimmy Savile and Cyril Smith, she offered some evidence about Sir Edward Heath. Although I was naturally not party to any depth of information, I did learn that evidence against Sir Edward had been provided by no fewer than five witnesses, all of them totally independent of each other.

    I can say that due to the consistency of aspects of the content of the various statements, it would be impossible to deny that such evidence must be wholly credible.

    Now, here in October 2017, it is interesting to recall that had I not been snatched from an Aberdeen street in February 2010, it is possible to imagine that such valuable evidence would never have seen the light of day.

    In the meantime, I do ask readers to continue their support for Chief Constable Mike Veale and his team, who will have done much to restore public confidence in the police`s determination to investigate serious allegations of sexual crimes against children, without fear or favour.

    Robert Green



  2. Mainstream media, with the Times to the forefront, have behaved shockingly over the course of this investigation and today have been guilty of fake reporting in the way they have deliberately conflated different events. It is deeply disturbing. We have seen journalists showing not one ounce of restraint in declaring the whole thing a nonsense and Heath totally innocent. In comparison Inspector Veale has been a model of restraint. The establishment are queing up to express their outrage and ignoring the facts. It is stunning. God knows what their motivation is because I certainly dont. It’s like something from a police state.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. “Just seven out of 42 attacks allegedly carried out by Sir Edward deemed credible”

    This was a bullet point under a headline in the Mail today. It is a blatant lie and clearly misrepresents the contents of Inspector Veale’s report. Worse they clearly imply that all but the seven were not taken forward because they were literally incredible I.e. involved eating children and satanic abuse.
    They then group together spurious defences from different individuals that are non- specific. This is false/fake journalism and is frankly shocking though not surprising. How do these journalists sleep at night? What is their motivation?

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.