Jonathan King: time to review his case?
When the world is crawling with badhats, the main difficulty involved in writing about them is maintaining a focus. A continuing one for me since the arrest of Stuart Hall has been the mass distraction involved in Plod arresting the famous of yesteryear in a blaze of publicity sufficient to make the Met look like addictive pyromaniacs.
Spookily, the accused all have the letters ‘BBC’ tattooed onto their cvs. Well – almost all of them: the Met arrested Max Clifford in order get at his files….but not necessarily for the reasons you might imagine.
A clearer shot of what’s really going on here is gradually developing – or at least, it is for me. Until a week ago, my view was merely that the Met has been supplying Newscorp with an endless supply of mud with which to splatter those it has plucked from the BBC ranks as examples of the broadcaster’s appalling depravity. Now I’m less sure that it’s quite that simple.
I am picking up evidence that this is a two-way traffic flow. You may think the only commonality here is the BBC, but there is another: with the exception of Max Clifford, all the defendants have at one time or another been threatened with career-ending revelations by Newscorp titles – primarily The unlamented News of the World, but also The Sun. In almost all the cases, as far as I can tell, the victims rebuffed the tabloid involved.
When people don’t want to play Murdoch’s game, they go fairly swiftly onto the naughty step….and are entered into the vindictive Digger’s little black book. Some of the allegations I’ve been listening to of late suggest that the correlation between that LBB and the BBC arrests is beyond coincidental.
Many of you will remember that Elton John played things very cleverly when The Sun’s lowlife went after him with a story about ‘rent boy orgies’. He sort of said fine, OK, print it. Then he sued the backside off them and won. “Hahaha, only kidding Elt,” headlined the Tabloid Tiger following the trial, “We love you really”. Hmm.
Allegedly, Rebekah Brooks or (and) her acolytes tried the same threats of revelation when some MPs were getting close to NotW criminality some years ago. And I know for a fact that on at least two occasions, legislators who rebuffed the tabloidistas received an unwelcome visit from Plod. Don’t forget that during this period, the Met and Newscorp were dining regularly and ‘cooperating’ with each other to mutual advantage…including the alleged whitewash by Andy Coulson over the wrongly-shot “terrorist suspect”. (In throwing his hacks’ sources to the wolves in blue clothing now, Rupert Murdoch is simply continuing the back-scratch routine).
Recently I’ve had confirmation by a second source of an allegation I first heard about in February 2013: that one very high-profile convicted celebrity had seen a list casually pinned to a board while undergoing a police interview. Most of the names on it have since been arrested under the aegis of Operation Yewtree.
The celebrity involved was Jonathan King. He was freed in 2005 for good behaviour having been found guilty of under age homosexual intercourse: but digging up the history of King’s case raises some disturbing points in the context of contemporary witch-hunting:
* King was imprisoned on the basis of witness evidence produced at just one of his three scheduled trials. At the other two, he was acquitted at the second, and then the CPS dropped the third.
* Jonathan King has consistently said that he isn’t and never has been a paedophile. He has described the idea of legalising such sex in these terms: “To legitimise intimacy with a five-year-old would be insane”.
* After his release on parole, King installed 24/7 CCTV pc-controlled cameras in his flat. Asked why, he says he wants guaranteed evidence about who has or hasn’t been in his flat.
* Unlike hard-core paedophiles whose line is always “they love it really you know” in relation to sex with pre-pubescent kids, King offers an entirely different defence: he’s sure he did have sex with under-age teenagers whose age he simply didn’t check. However, to quote his response in a 2012 Independent interview, “I am innocent of the convictions against me. They only referred to five people. I never had sex with any of those five. I never even met one of them.” That assertion exactly reflects the feedback I have had either directly or indirectly in relation to most of the BBC accused.
* Very significantly, in the case of King’s convictions for those five alleged rapes, the former pop-promoter was arrested in 2000 after a man approached the publicist Max Clifford, then contacted the police. The police tipped off the red-tops. Immediately, twenty-seven other “victims” came forward. These are the folks I have referred to in the past as the bounty hunters. They also feature regularly in Anna Raccoon’s devastatingly forensic blogging about the appalling victimisation of Jimmy Savile’s family.
There is very likely another reason why the Met wanted Clifford’s files: not just to use what’s in there to leak stuff to Newscorp first (that’s bad enough) but also for their own use in continuing (a) to interrogate suspects and face them with “evidence” from the Max files; and (b) to blacken the reputation of those they have accused. Whipping up the public via the media into a hate-fest is, after all, standard Plod/Politico practice these days – ask Lord McIavelli of Venice: he’d be happy to tell you about it.
Or ask Andrew Mitchell of Plebgate infamy. Having invented both a crowd at the gates and some obscenities in Mitchell’s mouth, Plod made the usual phone-call…..to The Sun. Just fancy that.
Jonathan King, given the chance to try and nail Newscorp for his convictions, says he doesn’t think they fingered him: he says that Clifford told the cops and the cops told the tabloids. But that was 2001. Things are different today. Very different.
None of the above represents binding evidence one could produce in a Court of Law. But it does add weight to the , dual argument that runs through The Slog’s dedicated page, The Paedofile:
1. The public is muddled on the difference between under-age teenage sex and paedophilia. The police and the media (especially in the BBC cases) have deliberately exploited this confusion, and probably made it worse in so doing.
2. The existence of real hard-core paedophilia and child trafficking in parts of the UK’s Care Home system continue to be covered up. This too suffers from opportunistic bounty hunting, but it exists nevertheless. The BBC Trials are a convenient distraction away from political guilt, and have also been incredibly useful to Rupert Murdoch in his unceasing efforts to replace the BBC and continue corrupting those in charge of policing, the law and legislation in Britain.
What we do have here, however, is a building case of collusion between media, police, and government. We have first Boris Johnson leading the charge as London Mayor to rescue Newscorp from investigation – and now Grant Shapps firing volleys from Downing Street to blacken the BBC.
We have six “suspects”, none of whose psychographic profiles fit in any shape or form with that of the predatory, convinced paedophile. Both the above senior politicians seem to be immune from prosecution….along with Rupert Murdoch and his friends in the senior ranks of the Metropolitan Police.
And while Yewtree sexes-up the case against the BBC accused, Operation Fernbridge continues to go nowhere on the subject of the politically accused.
This case is moving from circumstantially coincidental evidence to being one substantial enough to warrant serious investigation.
But the police won’t do that. The intelligence services have no interest in it…and anyway, they’ve just been volunteered by Cameron to sniff out online pervs. The Labour Party isn’t going to be our Friend in Tough Times about this, because at local level they collude with everyone from cops to cab drivers. I doubt very much if Channels 4, 5 and ITV1 will feel obliged to help a competitor. The Murdoch and Barclay titles will keep piling on the agony. Even the right wing of the blogosphere loathes the BBC’s “communism” to such an extent, they will stay out of the fight. And most of those left on the side of the Angels have been scared off by the premeditated tactics of McScalpine.
I’ve said this endlessly before, but it bears repeating: the Left is unwilling to form some kind of united Front, busy as it is sending fraternal greetings to oppressed Lesbian cross-dressers in Uganda. The blogosphereists with foresight and decency are the only Resistance left, apart from isolated groups like Exaro. Either we find a way to starve the Beast – and soon – or the gargoyle dragon will burn all of us to a crisp.