Ted Heath: Allegations and Conspiracy Theories

***
Sections:

Introduction
The “1961” allegation
The 1990s “brothel” allegation

Further allegations:
Abuse and murder on the yacht
Sex parties in London
Jimmy Savile’s nephew
Supposed association with the Paedophile Information Exchange

Discussion
****

Introduction

From Simon Jenkins in the Guardian:

That’s it then. Sir Edward Heath was a paedophile. It has been on the news for four days, so it must be true. They might just be allegations, but we know there is “no smoke without fire”. The chap was a “confirmed bachelor”, nudge, nudge. They are always a bit fishy, these lonely sorts.

Let us look at the claims in more detail.

The “1961” allegation

Jenkins continues:

…As far as Heath is concerned, there appear to be only two firm allegations. One comes from a man who says he was raped by Heath in 1961 in a flat in Park Lane full of sailing paraphernalia. (Heath had no such flat and was not a sailor then, according to his biographer, John Campbell.) 

The accusation was a sensational front-page Sunday Mirror splash at the weekend. The accuser claims he was picked up by Heath while hitch-hiking to London aged twelve. The man recalls “a very posh place” where there were “photos of yachts on the walls” and “an orchestra’s conductor’s baton”, which (perhaps too handily) are evidence of Heath’s famous hobbies and thus mean that we can discount the possibility of mistaken identity. The man says he realised with whom he had spent the night several years later, when he saw a photograph in a newspaper (an old photo from 1951). The Mirror report refers to “Mayfair” rather than Jenkins’s “Park Lane”; the two designations, when used in a general way, are virtually synonymous.

When I first consulted Campbell’s biography (via Google Books), I thought that Jenkins had been mistaken: page 72 states that Heath had indeed moved to Albany, known as “Mayfair’s most exclusive mansion”, in 1961. However, pages 136 to 137 show that this is an error or typo, and the correct date was 1963. Up until this point he had been living in a “cupboard” flat in Petty France, which is south of St James’s Park. Campbell explains that Heath acquired a seven-year lease for his Albany apartment, lasting up to 1970.

Heath

The 1963 date is also confirmed by Heath’s own autobiography (referring to the resignation of Macmillan: “It was at this time that I moved out of the small flat in Petty France that I had inhabited since the early 1950s”) and Margaret Laing’s 1973 biography.

Yet this incorrect 1961 date just happens to be pivotal to the new allegation. It is possible that the journalist, rather than the alleged victim, has extrapolated from “a very posh place” to Mayfair, based on the error/typo, but the Petty France address – described as “tiny” by Campbell and as “little more than digs” – doesn’t seem to fit the bill.

Campbell’s biography also confirms, as Jenkins notes, that Heath took up sailing only in 1966, although he had had an interest in the sea since boyhood.

The 1990s “brothel” allegation

Jenkins also refers to the second allegation:

The other is from an anonymous former policeman in Wiltshire who alleged that a Myra Forde had, in the mid-1990s, threatened to expose Heath as a paedophile if she was prosecuted for running a brothel. She denied the whole story on Wednesday, which perhaps explains why Wiltshire’s police and prosecutor say they were never told of the threat, although they nevertheless held a press conference outside Heath’s former home in Salisbury last weekend.

The story was that plans for a trial were dropped in 1992 because Forde had threatened to “expose” Heath. However, it now transpires that the real reason was because two witnesses failed to give evidence, although Wiltshire police are now looking into whether there was “witness tampering” (a belated change of emphasis which is unimpressive given that the first version of the story came from one its own officers, and even if true does not mean that the case had anything to do with Heath). Forde did apparently claim to know something about Heath and rent boys, although she was convicted three years later without mentioning the matter. A report of her trial from 1995 refers to underage girls, but not boys.

[UPDATE (May 2016): According to a new report:

An investigation has found no evidence a case against a brothel madam was dropped because she threatened to make allegations against Sir Edward Heath.

…The IPCC [Independent Police Complaints Commission] found the case was halted when witnesses refused to give evidence.

It was also deemed unclear whether the comment about Sir Edward had even been made.]

Further allegations

There are also some other allegations about Heath in the media.

(a) Abuse and murder on the yacht

The claim here is that Heath abused children from the Haut de la Garenne children’s care home in Jersey, in particular while taking them on trips aboard his yacht, the Morning Cloud. There were cases of child abuse at the home, and a lawyer representing victims told the Independent:

“There seems to have been this currency that somehow he was implicated, but it was always like pinning down a jellyfish – it was very elusive.”

This seems to be saying that the lack of any evidence is itself a sign of something sinister going on.

A more outlandish variation of the Jersey story is that Heath would sometimes murder the children and dump their bodies over the side of his yacht. One woman on Jersey, named Linda Corby, claims that in “the early 1970s” (which would have been while Heath was Prime Minister) she on one occasion counted eleven children go onto Heath’s yacht but only ten return. She says that she went to police, who told her that they had been told “not to investigate”. One wonders how the ten survivors were persuaded not to say anything, or even to warn their peers not to go on the boat on later occasions. It seems not unreasonable to suppose that Corby simply miscounted. Corby is herself a mother, which allowed the Daily Mail to produce a misleading headline implying that a mother had reported that her own child was missing.

More generally, it is unexplained how Heath was able to dispose of children in this way without anyone filing missing person reports, or dead children washing up ashore, or members of Heath’s crew or security entourage blabbing. According to The Times, based on information from Heath’s navigator David Arnold: “Morning Cloud was a racing vessel, needed at least three people to crew her and had no private space.”

[UPDATE (2017): The Independent Jersey Care Inquiry found nothing to implicate Heath in abuse. According to a witness statement by former deputy police chief Leonard Harper (var. Lenny Harper):

I would also like to confirm, for the record, that during my investigations into child abuse on the island of Jersey, I received no allegations against Jimmy Savile or Sir Edward Heath. I understand that both of these have subsequently been linked to the island of Jersey. I do however know that Sir Edward Heath was a frequent visitor to the island and a member of the boating community.

Harper led police investigation in 2006 into historic child abuse in Jersey. From his various media statements, we can be very sure that if he had something implicating Heath he would have made a big deal of it.]

(b) Sex parties in London

The source here is “Nick”, Exaro‘s star witness in its stories about “VIP abuse”. Nick (a pseudonym) claims to have been raped by VIPs including Leon Brittan at Dolphin Square, and even to have witnessed three child-murders. He also claims to have been abused by Jimmy Savile and Lord Greville Janner. “Nick” says he was raped by Heath “at several venues”, although it’s not clear if these supposedly include Dolphin Square. Again, it is difficult to imagine a group of paedophiles, who depend on tight secrecy for their activities, welcoming an ex-Prime Minister into their midst.

[UPDATE: Later in August it emerged that Nick’s allegations included the claim that Harvey Proctor had been persuaded not to castrate him at a sex party due to Heath’s intervention. More detail here.]

(c) Jimmy Savile’s nephew

Two days after the 1961 allegations were published, the Evening Standard had a  follow-up:

Jimmy Savile’s nephew today claimed that a male friend was abused by Sir Edward Heath.

Guy Marsden said the friend was just 14 at the time and the alleged sex attack on him happened at a party in London during the Seventies.

…Mr Marsden, 61, said he and three friends aged 13 to 16 were ferried across London from flat to flat, where sexual abuse took place.

…The roofer, from Leeds, added: “The four of us would arrive at these parties together, then my friend would disappear. I didn’t think much of it at the time, though I knew it was weird.

“He later told us that Ted Heath was an abuser but that he didn’t know who he was at the time. He said it was a year after the abuse took place that he was watching TV and recognised him.”

It’s odd that Marsden failed to mention this amazing relevation in 2014, when he gave a strange account of encountering his uncle among paedophiles in 1968. According to the story as published in the Daily Mail, Marsden and some friends had decided to run away to London, where they were picked up to two men and taken to their flat. By chance, Savile appeared several days later, “with a group of young children and a vicar in tow”:

Guy, thinking his uncle had been asked to find him by his family, was horrified. ‘I thought that me Uncle Jimmy had caught me there,’ he says.

…’These people would pick people up from train stations, as in younger people,’ he explains. ‘We’d then go to their houses.

‘And then the ones higher up the chain would come to these houses to see who they’d picked up to take them elsewhere to do whatever they were going to do with them.’

Because his uncle was Jimmy Savile, Guy thinks word quickly spread that this was one child not to be touched.

Marsden claims that he didn’t understand what was going on at the time, although surely he would have twigged at some point and the new article makes it clear he was told explicitly by a friend that he had suffered abuse.

But what is even odder is that Marsden had only praise for his uncle following his death in 2011. The Daily Mirror ran a piece on how Savile’s money would be going to charity, which included the following:

Nephew Guy Marsden, 57, from Leeds, said: “We don’t think there will be anything in Uncle Jimmy’s will for us. It would be very nice if there was but our family rule was you get what you’ve worked for.

“When we were growing up it was made very clear you didn’t ask Uncle Jimmy for anything, especially not money.

“The main thing he gave us was his time. If anyone was poorly in hospital or in bother then Uncle Jimmy would be there for them.”

(d) Supposed association with the Paedophile Information Exchange

The Sunday People (which publishes online under the banner of the Mirror) has further reported that Heath

…was present at more than half a dozen Westminster meetings of the notorious Paedophile Information Exchange.

…A dossier of files compiled by former Labour minister Baroness Castle showed Heath was present at Westminster meetings ­with paedophile rights campaigners from the PIE group.

Heath is said to have attended at least a quarter of the 30 or so monthly or bi-weekly meetings. 

His name is said to have appeared on minutes of the private gatherings, also apparently attended by other MPs, along with scoutmasters and headteachers.

But the Castle files have been ­missing since the mid 1980s.

That “Heath is said” qualification comes very late in an article that begins by trumpeting Heath’s involvement with PIE as being an established fact that the paper has “revealed”.

The co-author of the Sunday People article is Don Hale, a journalist who claims that Castle gave him the dossier in the 1980s but that it had been seized by police before he could make use of it. For some reason, Hale never referred to this incident until July 2014, when his supposed memory of it formed the basis for a Daily Mail article on “the paedophile lobby’s influence in Westminster” during the 1980s. Hale claimed that “16 MPs” appeared in Castle’s dossier, and that “Tory minister Sir Rhodes Boyson, a well-known enthusiast for corporal punishment, and Education Secretary Sir Keith Joseph” were mentioned “multiple times”.

A few days after Leon Brittan’s death in January 2015, Hale further alleged that Brittan had been a significant figure in the dossier. This was “revealed” in an article written by Hale for the Mirror, which also included new direct quotes attributed to Castle (who died in 2002) about how Brittan was “a powerful man with many secrets”. The article failed to make clear that the whole thing was based on Hale’s unsubstantiated memories (discussed by me further here).

Why didn’t Hale mention Ted Heath in July 2014? As a former prime minister, Heath’s name would have been a bigger scoop than Boyson or Joseph or Brittan. Yet Hale only remembered Heath in August 2015, around the same time as other stories about Heath were appearing in the media. How can anyone have confidence in such a manner of disclosure?

Discussion

It seems quite firmly established that some individuals in the past got away with child abuse due to their status; and recent convictions for historical offences seem to me to be sound (although I regard as repellent Mark Williams-Thomas’ demagogic posture that to raise reasonable doubts is to be a “child abuse supporter”). However, many historical allegations against VIPs and celebrities will forever be impossible to prove or disprove: there are few references to specific dates for which a suspect may have an alibi, and extensive media coverage now makes it very difficult to confirm that allegations from multiple sources are not cross-contaminated. Further, with so many accusers unnamed, it is impossible to make any assessment as to their character.

As such, conspiracy theories flourish – including, of course, the unfalsifiable suggestion that the conspiracy is so vast that any evidence that exonerates a suspect must have been concocted. Rumours about Heath and others have been promoted by conspiracy theorists for years, and the new stories are a boon to David Icke – a man who claims that Heath was actually a giant reptile. Also being cited with enthusiasm on Twitter is the disgraced Michael Shrimpton, who I previously discussed here.

In June, a rally of abuse “victims and survivors” was held opposite Downing Street. It was organised by “campaigners Chris Wittwear and Chris Tuck”, the latter of whom has met Theresa May and is a member of the Victims and Survivors’ Consultative Panel of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. She appears to be a hard-working campaigner for those whose lives have been blighted by abuse; yet she gave a platform to a conspiracy theorist named Bill Maloney.

A video of the event shows Maloney claiming that recent work to remove asbestos from Parliament is cover for scrubbing DNA evidence of abuse, and he suggested that the invasion of Iraq was to do with Saddam Hussain’s knowledge of UK VIP child abuse. He also accused several public figures (which is why I’m not linking to the video), and he claimed that Jimmy Savile was a Satanist. Tuck described this alarming rant as “brilliant” – perhaps she was just being polite, but such an endorsement, it seems to me, is highly troubling given her position.

(Some details have been amended and expanded)

21 Responses

  1. It is unexplained how this was achieved without anyone filing missing person reports, or dead children washing up ashore,

    Mr Bartholomew: firstly, the practices in the local children’s home in Jersey in the early 1970s were a long way behind British good practice, and children did disappear. Secondly, you are no sailor, because you have no understanding of how strong local currents are: bodies have washed up at Le Havre having gone overboard off Guernsey before now.

    • Exactly – bodies wash up ashore. A murdered child’s body, even if unidentified, would generate press interest and a flurry of cross-channel police liaison. Several such corpses would be a huge story. Or are the French authorities also suppressing the information on behalf of the UK conspirators?

  2. I gave up laughing at Bill Baloney’s output quite a while ago, at the time that he & Chris Fay – Elm “guest-list” fantabulist – started babbling on-air about, coincidentally, yachts and ‘boys overboard’. But I was tempted to once again have a look by the above article!

    What had I been missing? Well, the extraordinary recording shows Baloney taking the mic (mick?) and engaging the audience of pitchforkers, who care so deeply about something-or-other.
    Leading up to his ‘C.S.I. East London’ DNA-routine, he asks what I and, I think, the audience thought was a rhetorical question:

    ‘What is a billion? When does a million become a billion?’

    Interest piqued, I listened intently… but the question, alas, was not rhetorical at all: Baloney genuinely didn’t understand the concept of that numbery-thing, the ‘billion’. None of that paedo book-learning for him!

    Not immediately receiving a reply, he persists before seemingly settling on the definitive answer: a billion is “a hundred-thousand million”! The DNA-scrubdown of parliament to which he refers will, therefore, cost the UK £900,000,000,000. No wonder he’s in a perpetually bad-mood!

    At this point I gave up to protect my poor ribs, but what really stood out from his performance was the naming-without naming of two people as paedophiles-without-explicitly-saying-so: an ex-LibDem MP who is alleged to have ‘done deeds’ AND, more relevantly, the most vocal of the Jersey conspiracy-minded foghorns! A new one for me, this, but how strange to now see the Heath/Jersey nuttiness resurrected in the press. My mind’s in knots!

    P.S. I don’t see a way of subscribing to posts without commenting – just a thought.

    • So what should we make of Chris Tuck describing all this as “brilliant”? We can all see what Maloney is, but what about these other characters, who ought to know better? There was very nearly an MP at that event, although she dropped out.

  3. Don Hale produced a damning interview with a victim making all sorts of claims about the rich & famous but unfortunately for Don who hailed it as new break through evidence he had neglected to notice that his ‘victim’ had passed away over a year before he interviewed him.
    Asking him on twitter how this was possible he responded “you don’t understand these things” which was true.

    • Don Hale has also yet to produce any evidence of his claim that an advertisement was placed in the paedophile magazine ‘MAGPIE’ advertising sailing trips around Jersey with Ted Heath.

      Cynics might suggest that that’s because there never was such an advertisement.

  4. Excellent entry and even better comments. Love this blog. Is that allowed Dickie?

    Forget everything you’ve read about me for one minute… if that’s possible. Just concentrate on what I evidenced about Channel4’s piece about Sir Peter Morrison back in 2012. Channel4 then claimed to have documents supporting “James’s” claims that he was at Bryn Estyn, where he witnessed Morrison picking up boys at least five times. Messham appeared on the 2nd November and “James” on the 6th. Channel4 therefore obtained the supporting documents in 3 days. Bullshit. It takes years to get care records. I wiped the floor with “James” s” story. He was later convicted of mal comms against me. And we all know why I became his target. His team nearly got a return conviction recently. This era started with Messham and McAlpine. And we all know what happened there. This case is so similar it could be conjoined at the waist. I’ve experienced the lengths that have been reached to get folk like me silenced, so it’s no surprise to see those same lengths at work attempted to shut you up. Kudos to the lot of you for not allowing this bullshit to pass on by without the actual truth being exposed.

    • ^ To be clear for the benefit of those not following events, the ‘James’ that Darren Laverty refers to in his post above is, I think, not the James Reeves referenced on both this blog and Darren Laverty’s blog recently (the latter of whom, i.e., James Reeves, has made allegations and insinuations regarding Ted Heath, and numerous other public figures, some still alive, some deceased).

    • It’s difficult to see what any of the above has to do with Ted Heath, but…

      1) “He was later convicted of mal comms against me.”

      Laverty seems to have neglected to mention his own legal woes that predated the above:

      “A blogger and tweeter accused of asking another blogger “do you want to fight?” after they met in a Llandudno street has been conditionally discharged for a year. The town’s magistrates declined to impose a restraining order on Darren Laverty, 46, of Maes Hyfryd, Llanfair PG, but he must pay £100 costs.
      He admitted disorderly behaviour.”

      http://www.northwaleschronicle.co.uk/news/2014/07/25/gallery/internet-bloggers-feud-ended-in-llandudno-street-fight-threat-32019/

      Bumped into him & his family by accident, eh? Amusingly – and despite making much of a ‘malicious communication’ conviction – Laverty fails to mention the following:

      “The victim [Laverty in this case] of an internet troll who was convicted of writing malicious blogs found himself up in front of a judge for sending malicious tweets moments after his abuser was sentenced.
      The judge presiding over the case of Royden Jones threatened to have Darren Richard Laverty arrested for contempt of court during Jones’ sentencing at Wrexham Magistrates Court on Wednesday.”

      Maliciousness all round, eh?

      2) “This era started with Messham and McAlpine. And we all know what happened there.”

      No, it started with the ludicrous retro-lynching of Jimmy Savile & it won’t be over until society faces up to the fact. If Savile raped a boy whilst dressed as Uncle Bulgaria at the BBC (while another victim waited her turn) then Heath really did toss kiddies overboard. In fact, Heath was probably hiding behind the dressing-room’s plush velvet curtain pleasuring himself and/or Gary Glitter, later returning the favour by allowing Savile to droolingly observe from the crow’s nest as he had a plank readied.

      3) “Kudos to the lot of you for not allowing this bullshit to pass on by without the actual truth being exposed.”

      Thanks, but you can keep ’em!
      https://annaraccoon.blog/2017/06/16/truth-and-consequences/#comment-371

  5. Another blogger believes that the photo of Heath and the boy in the boat (which in any case doesn’t show anything inappropriate) leaked to Mark Watts was none other than a youthful Lincoln Seligman – who has emerged as one of Heath’s most prominent defenders in the media over the last few months.

  6. On Sunday 26th November 2016, The Mail on Sunday -“Sir Edward Heath accuser is a ‘satanic sex abuser’. Police warned by OWN expert that ritual abuse claims are false – including how the former PM ‘went to candlelit forest for paedophile parties’. ” – included the fact that some (but not all) of “Nick’s” witness statements to the MPS’s Operation Midland were given to their expert Dr R. Hoskins. These included wild allegations against me of murder and the sexual abuse and torture of children. I was concerned. Operation Midland had been closed on 21st March 2016.

    2 So on 26th November, 2016, I sent the Chief Constable of Wiltshire Police, Mr Mike Veale, an email seeking assurances I was not involved in Operation Conifer. On the 27th November 2016, I received an acknowledgement of its receipt.

    3. On 2nd December, Mr Veale issued his ‘Open Letter’ and Internet Video which answered some of my concerns but an answer to my email was only received by me on 5th December although dated 29th November and having chased Wiltshire Police several times for a reply. Clearly a tardy reply to me was a Piblic Relations trick by Veale.

    4. In his reply letter, Mr Veale misled me by saying Wiltshire Police had not spoken to “Nick” as part of the Operation Conifer investigation and that no allegations had been made against me. I went away satisfied.

    5. Now I understand a retired Supt Taylor, acting for Wiltshire Police, and taken on by them to help with Operation Conifer, had delivered statements made by “Nick” about me to the MPS under Operation Midland to t Dr R Hoskins. Dr Hoskins was at that time a National Crime Agency-registered expert on ritual crime, commissioned by Wiltshire Police. Hoskins was told by Taylor they were “central” to Operation Conifer’s inquiry. These statements were being considered by Wiltshire detectives. They included lurid statements by “Nick” that Sir Edward Heath and I and others had been involved in three child murders and the sexual abuse and torture of children and that Sir Edward had persuaded me not to castrate “Nick” in a London town house.

    6. The truth is “Nick’s” statements about Heath and I WERE being examined by Wiltshire Police, they were distributed to other parties. Had I known I would have requested to be interviewed by Wiltshire Police. A process which might have provided better balance to Conifer’s skewed investigation.

    7. Chief Constable Veale deliberately misinformed and misled me. By his subterfuge he demonstrated he had no wish to be “proportionate, justified and expedient”.
    I reveal this now as I think there are more questions to ask about the techniques and procedures of this police operation than the actual content and target of Operation Conifer – the issue of the sexuality or a sexuality of a former Prime Minister, used as a cover for certain elements of National Policing to continue to promote their social campaign to always believe the “victim” in allegations of child sexual abuse.

    • Having had the briefest of scans through the more-than-a-hundred pages of madness I note the word ‘victim’ occurs 200 times and that they justify its use thusly:

      “Throughout the investigation both CC Mike Veale and ACC Paul Mills have been aware of ongoing national debates concerning the use of the term ‘victim’ rather
      than ‘complainant’ and ‘belief’ in criminal investigations. Throughout Operation Conifer and this report, the approach adopted has been that the investigation will comply with the current national guidance on these issues.”

      The topic of the ‘believe the victim’ mantra came up a while back and efforts were made to discover its precise evolution & the names of those behind the infamous ‘Special Notice’, though not with much success to be honest.

      A redacted-version can be found here (but doesn’t really tell us much):
      https://annaraccoon.com/2016/02/14/the-presumption-of-innocence/#comment-18205726434429628

      Idiocy seems to prevail, and the thought of a fool like Veale holding sway over people’s lives and reputations is genuinely chilling. The only positive I can see is that they inadvertently keep us amused at times:

      “The fact that Sir Edward Heath was deceased when Operation Conifer was launched is significant with respect to the investigative decision to interview
      under caution.”

      • An interesting bit of verbal arm-wrestling between The Times’ Sean O’Neill & the BBC’s Danny Shaw (and momentary tag-team relief from the editor of some policing rag):
        https://mobile.twitter.com/PolicePEditor/status/915940947770343424
        O’Neill bottles it when pressed on Savile, the allegations against whom he claims are on a “hugely different level”.
        Yet the Heath bullshit fantasy claims – no doubt fed to the ever-hungry Tom Watson by Exaro and which the political blubberweight said the police were investigating and taking seriously in 2012 – almost certainly involved the hastily re-written recollections of Savile’s nephew (and which placed Heath and Savile paedoing together at ‘parties’). A different level, or the exact same one? The ball was rolling…

      • Bandini, by the way, the O.C.E.A.N. coinage.

        Doffs cap. Brilliant. :)

      • In their defense, Conifer did pick up that one person had made allegations using three different names, and that person then subsequently, after Conifer copped onto the subterfuge, accepted a caution for wasting police time.

        I can think of at least three possibilities as to who that person might be.

        It seems that another person is still under investigation on the grounds that they might have deliberately mislead the police by making false allegations.

    • I have downloaded the report but can’t face ploughing through it without some liquid refreshment.

      In the meantime, and in the honour of “Nick’s” poetic efforts, may I offer a slice of Vogon poetry (hitherto believed to be the worst in the known universe, though I have the distinct impression that “Nick’s” efforts have offered strong competition to that singular honour):

      “Groop, I implore thee, my foonting turlingdromes,
      And hooptiously drangle me,
      With crinkly bindlewurdles,mashurbitries.
      Or else I shall rend thee in the gobberwarts with my blurglecruncheon,
      See if I don’t!
      (I probably won’t!) “

      • Not to spam the thread with anecdotal observations, but while it’s fresh in my memory, and for the benefit primarily of the falsely accused Mr Proctor.

        The twitter account “Irreverent Buddhist”
        @Irreverent_B (himself a child abuse survivor, and one with some expertise in sound technology), having watched Exaro’s interview with “Nick”, commented on Twitter that the voice disguising technology they had utilised to disguise “Nick’s” voice was, in his view, not up to scratch. His reward for this observation was to be bullied by Mark Watts on Twitter.

        Unfortunately I did not save screenshots of the interaction, but I just wanted to give an idea of the, frankly, rather cult-like manner in which Exaro tended to operate on Twitter, and the manner in which Watts dealt with questions/challenges he deemed to be impertinent, even when the questions/challenges came from sources that might have otherwise been supportive of Exaro’s boasts that they were in the process of unravelling a massive ‘VIP’ child abuse network at the heart of the British establishment.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *