Police Drop Perverting the Course of Justice Complaint Against John Hemming Accuser

From the Daily Mail:

A former MP has launched a scathing attack on ‘politically correct’ police after they ruled a woman who made false child sex allegations against him should not be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice.

John Hemming said their refusal to seek charges against his accuser Esther Baker undermined the criminal justice system and would encourage ‘other fantasists’ to make bogus paedophile claims.

He hit out after Staffordshire Police informed him via email that following a ‘review’ of his allegations, it had decided there was ‘insufficient evidence’ to proceed with the case and no further action would be taken.

Hemming spent more than a year under police investigation; his name was not reported in the media until he chose to speak out afterwards, although it was bandied about in the meantime – including by a speaker who made extravagant claims about “VIP abuse” to an angry crowd at an anti-abuse rally opposite Downing Street in 2015.

Baker alleges that she was subjected to ritualistic abuse in a woodland setting when she was a child: she claims that police officers stood guard, and that her abusers included someone who addressed as a “lord”. Some adults present were unknown to her, but she says that she remembered Hemming as having been one of them after she encountered him an event in Parliament in late 2014.

In due course, Staffordshire Police passed a file to the Crown Prosecution Service, which declined to proceed to prosecution on the grounds that Baker’s identification of Hemming could be a case of mistaken identity. For Baker and her supporters on social media, this implies that Hemming escaped prosecution on a technicality; in contrast, the very fact that Staffordshire Police interviewed Hemming under caution and made a submission to the CPS supposedly indicates a strong case to answer, if not outright guilt.

However, while Baker is vocal on social media about her own allegations and those of others (in particular, she remains a strong supporter of Operation Midland’s “Nick”), she has also said that there are details that she is currently unable to go into, for legal reasons. Thus she declines to explain how her claims might be substantiated, while citing the police referral to the CPS as evidence that such substantiation exists. The outcome of Hemming’s complaint is now taken to be a new confirmation of this.

A further complication is that Baker has also made other allegations that relate to other situations (such as underage sex with a former employer), so that when she writes of ongoing police investigations or her status in police eyes as a “victim” it is difficult to tell how these might relate to her sensational ritual abuse claims. There seems to be little desire for clarity: she recently suggested a previous post of mine amounted to “talking bollocks”, but no corrective has been forthcoming.

Hemming’s complaint was always a long-shot. In general, a police force will be resistant to re-assessing a complainant in whom it has already invested, because it is difficult to do so without admitting to having made mistakes. And in this case, Baker is protected by the same possibility of mistaken identity that led to her own complaint failing.

Presumably, Hemming would have presented police with a possible motive for Baker to have falsely, rather than just mistakenly, accused him: in particular, it seems that the allegation came shortly after Hemming had argued with an associate of hers. However, Baker says that police were provided with “full permission from me to access to any of my online communications in any form they wished to investigate”, and that “they have found exactly zero evidence and not even a suggestion that I or others have been involved in an attempt to pervert the course of justice”.

23 Responses

  1. […] I must, for once, however, take issue with a post on Barthnotes site today on a point of order. […]

  2. This outcome reminds me of the met’s initial reluctance to investigate “Nick”, and look where “he” is now.

  3. Meanwhile, on Twitter, Ms Baker has today declined to name the Labour politician she claims abused her as a small child. I cannot understand her reticense to do so. Surely if this now deceased grandee did the things that Baker vividly described in her TV interviews, then she would no doubt want to expose him for the vile monster he really was.

    Did Staffs police even investigate this strand of her allegation? Their silence on the matter is in stark contrast to the approach taken by Wilts police when they investigated Heath.

    There still doesn’t appear to have been any new information regarding the “at least fifteen” girls, who Baker claims experienced the Cannock Chase pedophile orgies alongside her, coming forward to verify her account. Not one.

    Still, to quote Baker “much, much more to come”. She’s probably right about that, but only if she can continue to control the narrative ad infinitum. I understand she declined for health reasons to answer questions at a recent civil court case. Pure speculation of course, but perhaps the reaction of someone unwilling to have their narrative challenged?

    • Indeed, Achelous. Cynics (realists?) might suggest that the reason she has declined to name the now deceased Labour grandee is that she is allied to the Labour party these days and is apparently quite buddy-buddy with several female Labour MPs. Quite a turn around from the (not so distant) days when she had no interest no politics and had never met an MP.

    • Health reasons? But then claimed (boasted) that she had been in court to acquire Harassment injunction(s) of her own?

      Couldn’t defend herself but can prosecute? This is precisely the sort of thing that demonstrates she’s seriously taking the piss imo. Couple that with the bullshit her lawyer Peter Garsden tells the IICSA on her behalf – which got him a bollocking from Alexis Jay.

      No-one seems to know who these alleged injunction(s) are against btw that she claims she’s been granted.

      No-one seems to be able to find any High Court case listed for her applying for such.

      Couldn’t be more bullshit could it?

      She also claimed that the court issued the injunction without the respondent (defendant) answering the case and stated that there was only a 7 day delay. She was thus reinventing how the system actually works, any harassment injunction has to be preceded by a pre-action protocol letter (in fact the Court would demand it happened as part of any possible way of settling a dispute out of court) and 28 days allowed from the time of serving such requests for injunctions to the time when the court can hear the application in full. So even on the basics she was getting herself in a muddle, maybe she’s confused, maybe it’s all just more bullshit to try and harass others into silence. And if she’s prepared to invent such then what else would she be prepared to invent for effect?

      She also admitted elsewhere that her interviews with police stretched to around 90 hours. That’s 2 full weeks at full time with marginal overtime too. The man hours that Staffordshire wasted chasing this and diverted resources away from genuine victims of crimes is astronomical. Can probably safely at least double maybe even quadruple that 90 hours figure to the final number of hours spent on the case, add in the number of VRR’s she’s requested too.

      As for the Labour connection, there’s a lot more than just Baker connecting to Labour. A lot more.

      Rumour has it this is by no means over, the allegations of PCJ may yet lead to a re-opening of the investigation or indeed a new one led by another force and Staffordshire’s email to Hemming certainly left the door open for him on that matter.

      So yes, there may be “much, much more to come” but not necessarily what Ms Baker wants or demands.

      She plays the “victim” role very well – too well in fact as a close examination by police of her Twitter timeline would reveal. She’s far from being a vulnerable individual and is really a control freak who cries “victim” when she doesn’t get her own way – see the bragging about being in a hospital bed awaiting a possible “sectioning”. Wasting NHS resources too, that bed could possibly have blocked someone legitimately in much more distress. It’s like she needs the constant attention from the “authorities”. Very childlike in a way but also quite dangerous if she accuses innocent individuals and the police believe her at face value as I KNOW they have in the past.

  4. Nick has been outed and thoroughly discreditted.

    • Hemming loses points for sinking to the level of the nutters who’ll deliberately ‘interpret’ humdrum remarks & the inevitable revisiting of allegations/complaints caused by prior procedural hiccups in the most favourable light:

      “At that meeting the evidence relating to the [allegation of] perversion of the course of justice and the [allegation of a] harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the [allegation of] perversion of the course of justice and also the [allegation of a] harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology [verbal? written?] for the way in which they did that. [Eh? For the way in which they did WHAT, exactly?]

      I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me [which absolutely anyone making any allegation whatsoever could squeeze out of the coppers, what with it being their duty to, er, ‘investigate allegations’]. I hope that the authorities will take action to protect those witnesses committed to truth in the near future.”

      I’d be very surprised if this leads anywhere as there doesn’t seem to exist the same determined course of behaviour as is alleged in the case of another from the Exaro stable (and who HAS now been charged). And lest we forget the serial liar and chronic attention seeker in the story below was found ‘not guilty’ which no doubt is now used by the crazies as ‘proof’ of the truth of what he claimed:


      • His statement is a bit confusing, but I’m inclined to give him a break given what he has been through. Being falsely accused of child abuse is probably about the worst thing you can falsely accuse someone of, particularly in this day and age.

      • I suggest that this…

        “The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign.”

        … creates a misleading impression, TDF. I doubt it is accidental. When Hencke criticised the Big Inquiry for releasing information relating to Esther Baker I criticised HIM for the desperate harping on about what he claimed was a “carefully crafted statement” from the police (a little ‘wink’ to appease the nutters). ‘Tis only fair to hold all sides to the same standards.

      • Oh, this is great! Our favourite fake Duncroftian, crim-on-the-run and sex ‘n’ nukes superspy (with supernatural powers) is going head to head with Esther Baker in a virtual hair-pulling and name-calling contest!

        Watch out, Esther, she may use ‘the Sight’ on you, passed down through her Celtic bloodline – and virtual blood may flow!



      • Meanwhile an interesting comment from Stuart Syvret which references Exaro and is critical of them:


      • Incidentally, Bandini, judging by a recent blog post, a certain Welsh blogger still believes that Ms Davison was at some point a genuine spy.

      • Put a comment on David Henckes’ blog which doesn’t seem to have gone through. IIRC, Bandini, you also have experience of Hencke filtering out comments/questions that he doesn’t lile.

      • TDF, the last couple of times I’ve resorted to commenting on his “cross-posted on Byline” articles though that doesn’t seem to be an option with the piece I imagine you were interested in: “Exaro News back from the dead”.

        I’m not sure why this article hasn’t been cross-posted; let’s see what the great man has to say:

        “At the same time my blogs which are normally cross posted on https://www.byline.com/ are now -using new machine technology – automatically appearing on the exaronews site. Those wanting to read the full blog rather than excepts from exaro are redirected back to byline.com or to my site.”

        Er, okay… not sure I understand the intricacies of his “new machine technology” but it certainly sounds impressive!

        “This arrangement with the new Exaro News is the only the beginning.”

        Wish the award-winning journalist would use some machine technology to correct his literary abominations!

      • Well, fwiw, and just in case this comment on another blog post from David Hencke doesn’t go through:


      • I was almost tempted to try and comment by this, TDF:

        “True the freedom of the press to do this has led to innocent people like DJ Paul Gambaccini and Sir Cliff suffering enormous traumatic stress and having their reputations trashed over unproven child sex abuse allegations.”

        Never one to rein in the nutters, Hencke has his cake with ‘innocent’ then proceeds to eat it with ‘unproven’. Your comment goes far too easy on the real culprit: Hencke.

        No one has done more to foster the festering rubbish of a ‘boy brothel’ than Hencke. If he gave even the slightest of shits about the misery Cliff Richard has endured he would have done the decent thing and said once and for all to his deranged readers that the notion that Cliff Richard ever even visited the damned place is vicious, evil rubbish. There is as much chance of this happening as his getting down on his knees to beg forgiveness for the ‘minister in a sauna’ photograph tale he crookedly had Zac Goldsmith raise in parliament. He is a total fraud.

  5. The fact that Hencke was party to, actively promoting the resurrection of the site (in a glorious new format with no proper contact details on it) and part and parcel of the Keybase encrypted chat methods, for the almost full resurrection of original Exaro articles on that new Exaro site speaks volumes for his complete lack of self awareness.

    He’s clearly not understood the potential for and the likely level of crap he’s landing himself in, he even claimed the site resurrection was done for his personal benefit and was done knowing full well that their star witness had already been charged with CSA image offences months previously and the active promotion (even though the site already existed for well over 2 months previous) of it only began after that same star witness was charged with PCJ/Fraud.

    Hopefully Hencke’s therefore in a lot of trouble given much of the content of the resurrected material contains material potentially prejudicing multiple specific court cases and as Mark Watts (correctly, for once, pointed out) significantly resets the libel timeframe by the very act of republication/reformatting and deliberate removal of the original comments etc just compound the problems for Hencke and whoever the new owner is … Hencke himself maybe? or someone with enough tech smarts living in the USA or maybe Prague(!) and dumb enough to be led up the garden path. Whoever it is, they are moronic in the extreme. The fact that “new owner” wants to remain anonymous suggests that it’s a deliberate act to muddy the waters.

    The disgraceful act of deliberately removing the old Exaro material from the Wayback Machine is potentially another act which may see certain individuals having an unwelcome knock on the door. As that specific material may have been absolutely key to police cases given it was unaltered, fixed copy and also contained material NOT resurrected such as user comments, although I’d have hoped they’d have used contraceptives and taken precautions to safeguard such an event anyway.

    The simple fact the new Exaro appeared before the old one was finally liquidated on 21st June 2018 is damning in itself.

    Thus it also gives the liquidators of the old Exaro a problem because the intellectual property was not “bought” as has been falsely claimed. In fact the liquidators categorically stated that couldn’t find a buyer and as a result of the wilful resurrection of intellectual property not owned by the new owner nor Hencke (apart from his own articles) there are multiple problems regarding company law breaches too together with potential copyright offences on top of the broader issue of doing so when one of the key sets of articles relates to someone already charged with criminal offences prior to resurrection of the articles.

    Those missing hard drives referred to by the liquidators being potentially a clue as to where from and how the material was resurrected.

    Hencke’s own reference to a “subtext” to the resurrection was stupid in the extreme.

    From rumours circulating about other matters re EGH etc there is likely an explicit reason why Hencke’s on a “charm offensive” at the moment (whilst misusing the word “rape” in one of his most recent headlines) trying to make out he’s some kind of messiah regarding women’s pension rights. Except he’s not and never will be a messiah, in fact he’s a very naughty boy!

    That explicit reason is likely to try and get himself looking whiter than white as allegedly there’s been more than one person recently charged with perverting the course of justice re fake CSA claims and associated material.

    Whether that rumour is true remains to be seen, it would not surprise me if it was true given the level of scheming there was quite apparently happening. There’s certainly more under investigation for such (allegedly). ;-)

    Unfortunately, for Hencke, people anticipated this move of his some time ago and took steps to ensure that material was saved in a format that can be resurrected to the authorities if necessary and I’m assured in the instance of the new Exaro material and it’s associated methods has been.

    Together with proof of Hencke’s continued and frankly ludicrous involvement in such across multiple different platforms.

    His supposedly automatic cross publication of his articles onto Byline and now the new Exaro also being problematic for him going forwards as it widens the ambit and audience for his bile. Peter Jukes was warned some months back that Hencke and Watts between them could end up wrecking Byline if he wasn’t careful. He ignored the warnings.

    What it all does bring into question though is why would Hencke want to act like this given the stakes are likely now so high? A certain CSA images trial being imminent for example, same defendant on PCJ and Fraud charges related to his time with the old Exaro articles and the alleged CSA offending allegedly whilst he was assisting Exaro. Quite why someone would WANT to resurrect those articles and then Hencke draw attention to them existing together with the specific method of finding them is beyond sensible comprehension.

    HIs behaviour doesn’t really make any sense unless he’s being coerced to do so (but what’s ultimately in it for him? ticket to Russia?) or maybe he’s finally gotten to the point where if he’s gonna get nicked and possibly sent down it might as well be for something “worth while” (in his eyes). Because sooner or later, David is going to have to face up to his actions in all of this. That time can’t come soon enough.

    • Jukesy is an anti-Murdoch obsessive. He might have legitimate reasons for hating the Murdoch press (many do – and indeed ‘our own’ Bandini, who comments here, has adroitly filleted the hypocrisy of the Murdoch media on at least one occasion – I refer to the case of the unfortunate Claire McAlpine) but it gets boring after a while.

      • Yeah there’s a difference between being anti-Murdoch though and turning a blind eye to your own project potentially getting wrecked. Those blinkers only work for so long.

      • Exaro had, what, 7 accusers of VIP’s – all of whom were bullshit merchants – ’tis not a great record. If they were controlled (knowingly or otherwise) by foreign intelligence, they’re not very credible.

        Could there be a more clever gambit at play, or am I overthinking this?

  6. I think there could be multiple things at play, whatever they are the end result is that there has been confidence lost in the justice system, millions of pounds wasted, charges for various (and not against any of the original suspects Exaro named etc) and a lot of misinformation.

    Couple that with the gross behaviour by some on social media shouting down (or worse as I personally know) any dissenting voices or critics of Exaro etc and it would certainly appear very, very organised. By whom? Remains to be seen, but there are some common denominators involved that should be explored by the authorities.

    Labour Party connections to most of it all being one such denominator. Bear in mind the only 2 that Labour threw to the wolves were Janner (whose family contest the allegations still) and Vaz (who whilst stupid seemed to be the subject of a deliberate sting). The rest were either Tories or the odd Lib Dem like Hemming.

    Obviously can’t really discuss the latter properly now that the police are allegedly reinvestigating his complaints of PCJ by his CSA accuser.

    But Watson’s involvement from the beginning and Hencke specifically going to him with the allegations of EGH and McKelvie’s stories has always seem odd to me. Why not take the allegations to the Met or another force?

    Then there’s the small matter who would gain from creating the instability in both the “establishment” and the justice system and for it to happen when Labour were somewhat on the rocks after being ousted from govt in 2010 and why didn’t Hencke/McKelvie take their concerns to Watson whilst he was in a position within the Labour govt? It’s all a little suspect.

    Hopefully if some decent coppers and not those simply seeking publicity stunts are investigating all of this it’ll become apparent who was doing what. It’s certainly a lot more complex than just the current person known to be charged with PCJ.

    What is certain however is that whatever the truth it’s long overdue rearing it’s head.

Leave a Reply

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