THE PAEDOFILE: Two interesting cases where the money motive seems to be absent

haversmtitleKincora murders, Sir Michael Havers, Leon Brittan, Elm House, Ashdown House, Boris Johnson & the Rule of Law

As one delves into reports of child sex abuse – and “history” in care homes and schools where abuse is alleged to have taken place – it has been my experience that, after the initial complaint, wave upon wave of ‘victims’ suddenly appear through several doors with claims about having been the subject of disgusting rituals and anal rape. The allegations don’t always stand up, but there remains a part of the blogosphere convinced that any suggestion of witness falsehood represents prima facie evidence of being “a supporter of paedophilia”.

Such is the wisdom of crowds, but it isn’t real: it’s just more media-whipped lynch think. The fact is that those at or near the Underclass of society are not beneath making a bob or two if there is a guilty and/or naive local council around….or a police force intent on fitting up a disc jockey. As I’ve written before, the key is to interview the “early call” victims and discern motive. Happily, in a good proportion of cases, you can tell if someone is genuinely after justice, or twelve grand from the Sun.

Two cases where it seems the complainant motive has nothing to do with money are out there in the media at the moment. The first involves the release of papers under the 30-year rule relating to the infamous Kincora Boys Home in northern Ireland. The papers are interesting because they once again point the finger of guilt at Sir Michael Havers QC, then (1982) the Attorney General. The main odd bits concern a meeting Havers had with Secretary of State Jim Prior, the Lord Chancellor Quintin Hogg, and Sir William Bourne, a barrister and senior civil servant at the time.

As you’d imagine, several of the files have been redacted with key papers removed – while one file “couldn’t be found” – but there’s enough in what’s left to satisfy the objective mind that Havers was a law officer who believed in defending the ruling class come what may. It seems Sir Michael had learned from the Ulster cops that one very senior chap had been acquitted at a Kincora trial on the basis of perjured evidence….and had then in turn protected his circle by giving a false alibi at a sensational child-murder trial. 10-year-old Brian McDermott was discovered in a sack in the River Lagan in September, 1973. And although nobody was convicted of the offence, Havers makes it clear in the 1982 meeting that the RUC’s recommendation for accusation had been spiked. The murderer walked free.

Now this isn’t wild Madeleine McCann stuff. Here, the motive isn’t money, but the protection of the State…a dimension I have believed from Day One drives at least some major cover-ups of political or governmental sex perversion. Havers appears to have been deeply involved during the same year in an operation to cripple the police enquiry into what we know today as the Elm House scandal.

In a bid to stop that happening (I was told two years ago) the police involved in the very first 1982 enquiry leaked the news out into the media the second they’d raided the premises. Several titles gleefully ran the story, quoting ‘a raid on a guest house in Rocks Lane, Barnes’ by 60 officers who’d found hard child-porn mags, whips, chains, ropes…and ‘two little boys being used as child prostitutes’. 

Crucially, the papers also said detectives were investigating the disappearance/murder of eight-year old Vishal Mehrotra and fifteen-year old Martin Allen in connection with activities at Elm house.

At this point, one has to apply common sense as well as logic – as follows:

1. The police wouldn’t have turned up mob-handed if they thought this was a fairy-tale.

2. To leak details that early to the media in those days was something of a rarity, and suggests the evidence they had was highly radioactive to the Establishment. It also gives some suggestion that the Met knew from what they’d found at Elm House that those among “the very highest in the Land” had been at the House during the parties there.

3. They had two witnesses – well under age of course, but apparently in something of a state. There was little doubt in the minds of the key officers involved that they were in the presence of the most appallingly depraved sexual sadism enacted upon defenceless children whose lives had already been pretty ghastly.

4. Crucially, this was being presented as a murder case.

I have (again) said from the start that real paedophilia outside the family home – the sexual bullying psychopathic form practised on pre-pubescent children – is incredibly rare when set against the crime as a whole. But – as the 1962 Moors Murders showed – it is vital to nip it in the bud, as it often ends up in serial child-killing.

I also have a theory that those who crave power and control will tend to have a similar psychography to those who need control over the sexual victim. So it isn’t at all surprising that there is a correlation between the child sex abuse and senior office…or indeed, that it is usually covered up.

It would seem sensible to at least speculate that the original Elm House police raid feared a cover-up because they had a senior Cabinet Minister on film. It is reasonable because we now know that this man has only very recently accepted that he is the man in the video. He claims (I understand) that he was there but didn’t inhale, which of course he would say.

The raid took place on 7th August 1982. In June 1983, Leon Brittan was promoted to the post of Home Secretary. Soon afterwards, Geoffrey Dickinson MP gave Brittan a dossier on the case. It disappeared.

Over the last year or so, I have been asked by quite well-meaning individuals “when you’re going to stop this kiddy-fiddling obsession and get back to writing about the big issues”.

The thing such critics don’t get, I’m afraid, is that to me this kind of sex-crime is nothing more than a cultural symptom – especially the regularity with which it is covered up. The low incidence of it (while important to grasp if one is to stop Williams-Thomas paedo-hysteria getting out of control) is irrelevant: if the Establishment beyond the security services will allow life-scarring abuse and serial killing of children to go undetected, then that Establishment is depraved, and its Caligulistas must be hunted down and put behind bars forever. Not out of revenge, but because people that insanely corrupt represent a danger to society.

I will furnish two further factors in relation to that view. The cover-up enabled one of the politicians involved to turn a blind eye to child trafficking and “trips abroad” which, in one case, resulted in tragedy. Equally, in an instance of truly foul irony, a senior Minister then tried to use information he had covered up to falsely smear another Cabinet Member. That resulted in a resignation and a political crisis….and a compromise of our defence capabilities.

Sociopathy in high places is my main concern here: while horrified by some of the evidence I’ve been shown over time of the damage this tiny minority of sick people do, my obsession isn’t with paedophilia: it’s with the perversion and suppression of the Rule of Law. Because in the end, it only makes the day of reckoning worse. If observers cannot grasp the parallel between this and rigged investment markets allowed to go unpunished for a decade, then I sympathise with their lack of insight….but they’re clearly at the wrong site.


The second case concerns a feeder prep-school to Eton, where in a bizarre coincidence London Mayor Boris Johnson was once a prisoner, sorry, pupil. The boarding school where Boris Johnson was taught – Ashdown House preparatory – is being sued by former students over claims of widespread sexual abuse by two teachers who allegedly subjected small boys to ‘horrific’ attacks in the 1970s.

The Mail reported earlier this week that the school ‘is now facing a wave of compensation claims from its former pupils’, but for once there isn’t a search for munneee involved: the litigants claim in a note circulated by email that, ‘The reason why we have decided to do this so late on is that it has come to light that sexual and physical abuse was rife between 1970 and 1980, and from more than one teacher at the school. To make matters worse it is now apparent the school was aware of these events, albeit not fully, but chose not to do anything about it. The effects of this abuse has (sic) damaged a number of pupils long into adulthood and it is felt among us that, as part of the healing process, it is important for us to take our power back and take action against such damaging and horrendous actions.’

Now if they’re as good as their word – and want justice not dosh – then this too is the sort of case that should be taken up with enthusiasm by the authorities: boarding schools are a classic hiding-place for paedophiles, long-term mental damage has been done, and the school allegedly swept it under the carpet for purely commercial reasons…ie, the obvious danger of losing fee income from anxious parents. It’s another form of corruption, but it’s pretty much the same thing.

One wonders how BoJo will respond if asked about this case. It would be hilariously funny (but highly unlikely) to hear the Mayor calling the accusations “just a lot of Old Etonian Right-Wing poppycock”. And while the school is in Sussex and thus beyond his remit, Mr Johnson is of course ultimately in control of what happens about the latest attempt, three decades on, to reopen, close, reveal or cover up what really went on at Elm House when there were indeed at least two criminal perverts dangerously close to Margaret Thatcher.

Doris continues to claim that things are going “most satisfactorily” on the Elm House enquiry. But with a year gone by now and nothing to show for it, that line is wearing as thin as the Mayor himself would doubtless like to be.


I will close with another reference to yesterday’s unmasking of an alleged paedophile who is also – allegedly – a senior Tory Councillor. I’ve been given a name from someone who should know about such things, but cannot trace him anywhere as a Tory officer. I won’t release the name until it’s clear there is no prejudicial issue, but of course first of all I’d like some confirmation that he is or was a senior Councillor.

So, once again, DO YOU KNOW THIS MAN?


Yesterday at The Slog: Dan Hannan is a four-letter name.