Edward Heath Accuser Has IICSA Application Tossed Over Impossible Claims

The website of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse has posted online – and then removed without explanation – a “Notice of Determination” in which the Chair of the inquiry, Alexis Jay, explains her reasons for denying core participant status to an individual given the reference number “WM-A5”.

The applicant alleged that she had been abused in the 1970s by ten individuals described by Jay as persons who “are or were well known, some very well known, in the fields of politics and entertainment.” Two names are disclosed in the document:  Jimmy Savile (misspelt as “Jimmy Saville”) and former Prime Minister Edward Heath. WM-A5 also alleged Satanic Ritual Abuse.

Jay found WM-A5’s claims impossible to credit. WM-A5 claimed to have been abused by Conservative politicians at Chequers, the Prime Minister’s official country residence, at a time when the Labour Party was in power, and to have been abused by Heath at his home in Salisbury several years before he lived there. Further, she claimed to have first made these allegations some years ago, supposedly thus proving that she was not just bandwagoning on current news reports, but her evidence for this was found to be false. She provided a range of locations, but “no explanation as to how she came to be in such disparate places”.

Presumably the document has been withdrawn by the IICSA because it contains other material that might indicate the applicant’s likely identity when compared with media reports. We thus have a situation in which someone can present themselves as being at the centre of a sensational narrative in the media, yet avoid scrutiny by resorting to anonymity when further claims are presented in another context.

This impedes putting the record straight – and holding to account journalists and others who have been involved in concocting and promoting false allegations and conspiracy theories.

28 Responses

  1. I don’t really understand why someone “who has waived her right to anonymity” to appear in yet more bad rubbish […] should be shielded from scrutiny.

    [Neither do I, but without legal advice I’m going along with it – RB]

    • Wow Bandini we agree on something!

      But I’m not sure it’s completely wise to post the direct links.

      I suspect this sudden removal is because Jay put enough information in the determination detail to identify by jigsaw method who it was as WM-A5, however there are other issues in this that have been somewhat overlooked.

      Notably why did her allegations significantly change from the versions she had already made public including in her book and why did those allegations only change after Nick’s charges of CSA offences were revealed to the world in February 2018. Could it be they were connected? After all Nick also accused Heath etc.

      The timing of the change would therefore appear to be very key. Add in the association with the other people in that “campaigning group” and it would make for an interesting investigation into precisely who may have influenced the change in allegations.

      The fact Thames Valley confirmed that she’d not made allegations of the sort she claimed, and there is a connection between her and Peter Garsden’s law firm too also suggests a little plot.

      The “other fanciful accuser” of course also being represented by Garsden at the IICSA.

      Dots and all that.

      Whatever the reasons for the now redaction from the IICSA, there are transparency, accountability and other issues surrounding a public inquiry which now require some closer examination and also the small matter of directly attempting to mislead such. Especially where there are common denominators of alleged legal representation involved.

      • I saw people discussing this on Twitter but the link had already been taken down.

        Incidentally while the mis-spelling of Savile’s name is a minor issue in the grand scheme of things it’s rather disappointing that these highly paid lawyers can’t manage to issue a document without shpelling mishtakes.

      • Actually, RTE, I suspect that Bandini would agree with you on more than you might think. The reason he won’t admit it as that he views you as a supporter/associate of a man that he despises. He’s also a rather argumentative person, as I admittedly am myself too.

      • To add in passing, RTE has done good work in relation to reporting on various dubious claims, including those of a spurious female complainant against a former MP.

        It may be worthy of note that a high profile Twitter supporter of the person I refer to in my first paragraph, who was briefly a Labour Party Senator in the Republic of Ireland, is now apparently with the SDLP party in Northern Ireland.

        Bandini, at a time when I myself, rather stupidly and naively in hindsight, was very much a believer in all CSA claimants (including the EGH scam), was on the ball in his research on various issues around that.

        That’s what I mean when I think that RTE and Bandini would probably agree with more than they might suspect.

      • Stick to interpreting the lyrics of The Human Coal Bellows, TDF:

        “The reason he won’t admit it as that he views you as a supporter/associate of a man that he despises.”

        The person you presume I despise has nothing to do with this subject and has, as is ALWAYS the case, been raised by others (yourself in this case) not I. After the censoring this might not be obvious.

        Just to clarify: I have no interest in the opinions of nor respect for those who would claim to care about false allegations whilst simultaneously revelling in the ludicrous smearing of Anul Alun as a child snatcher/killer.
        Anul Alun is a man of many defects – principally that he is a total shit – but he obviously has nothing to do with a long ago case that is being ACTIVELY re-investigated. That there are those who’d get kicks out of this suggests they are either devoid of a moral compass or are stood too close to a malignant magnet.

        I imagine the family is kept informed of developments… ‘despicable’ behaviour indeed.

      • Bandini, I’m pretty sure that the people who noticed the apparent similarity between AA’s visage and the photofit of the alleged perp re that case don’t truly believe he is the perp in that case.

        They are essentially giving him a dose of his own medicine in the hope that he will reform his behaviour, they are trying to demonstrate to him how it feels when unproven allegations are treated as gospel truth.

        Given that it is an active case, I agree that their behaviour is unwise.

        Annoyingly, there is actually a lyric from The Singing Builder that fits this precise situation “you don’t have to become a monster in order to defeat a monster”.

      • Call yourself a fan, TDF?!?

        Leaving aside the Master’s possible rhyming of ‘monster’ with, er, ‘monster’ it would seem that it isn’t a lyric at all but rather summat he nicked off of Nietzsche and which he uses in what no doubt are interminable pre-song speechs about whichever latest tragedy/event/situation the tax-dodging millionaire wants to wail about (probably whilst waving a big flag). Another ‘Candle In The Wind’…

        His lyric:

        And you become a monster
        So the monster will not break you

        Wonder where he got the inspiration?!?
        If the fanclub find out they’re gonna kick you out!

      • Well this has escalated rapidly…

        Was it something I said?

        Perhaps we should ALL stick to the topic of the post that Richard makes in future and leave personal opinions to one side regarding other commentators? Or is that too adult a suggestion?

        Maybe then as tdf suggests there may be more visible agreement and thus less confrontation.

        I’ll refrain from commenting about the validity (or not) of Alun’s facial features to the photofit until the police have concluded their investigations. As should others tbh otherwise it would be pot, kettle, black eh?

      • Bandini,

        Must admit I wasn’t aware that the Bard from Ballymun stole that particular lyric from Nietzsche but I suspect most members of the fanclub would be aware of his thieving proclivities.

        He pretty much owns up to it in the lyrics to their 1995 track Hold Me Thrill Me:

        “you’ve been stealing
        from the thieves and you got caught”

        Fittingly, the key riff in that very track is a blatant copy of T-Rex’s “Children of the Revolution”. If you can bear it, toddle over to Youtube and you’ll see what I mean.

        The “hope and history won’t rhyme” lyric, also from Peace on Earth was stolen from the poet Seamas Heaney and unlike Nietzsche or Marc Bolan, Heaney was still alive and in fine fettle as of 2000. He didn’t sue, far from it, he befriended the Singing Builder. I guess poets, even relatively successful ones such as Heaney, are grateful for any publicity they can get in our celebrity and pop star obsessed era.

        I think he ripped off Heaney another occasion, but can’t off the top of my head recall it, and my almost stalkerish encyclopedic knowledge of matters concerning the Mount Temple quartet is mildly embarrassing, even to me, so I’d best stop now.

      • @RTE,

        I wouldn’t worry about it. I enjoying Bantering with Bandini (that might be an ok title for a book actually , Banter with Bandini, like Cider with Rosie, lol) and have enough going on in my real life not to be easily offended by internet debates.

      • RTE: “I’ll refrain from commenting about the validity (or not) of Alun’s facial features to the photofit until the police have concluded their investigations.”

        There is no ‘validity’; anyone seriously concerned about a possible link would have contacted the police & would NEVER have alerted the supposed suspect. Of course if we were to follow the crooked path of your ‘logic’ we would see a determined effort (by yourself & others) to alert a ‘suspect in a child disappearance’ to the police’s interest in them. Ergo you’ve been aiding a ‘possible suspect’ in a serious criminal matter!

        The ‘possible suspect’ would have had time to dispose of any evidence thanks to these ‘tip offs’ of yours. Hmmm,..

        The family in question have already had to endure, over and above the misery of a missing child, the sheer hell of relentless attacks from cranks, nutcases & malicious morons including the prosecution & imprisonment of one such bastard. So why not a bit more, eh?

        (Looking forward to reading/ignoring a ‘signed affidavit’ in > 20 years time that will ‘prove’ that none of the above really took place!)

      • A matter you may both be interested in is today’s Daily Mail report regarding a certain former police detective turned media celebrity (and Paedo-finder General, a role which, unusually, is entirely self-appointed!)

      • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxngIpxYLdM

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaeG5Www8Ow

        See what I mean, Bandini?

        What I had forgotten is that he also manages to rip off the Holy Saint and Prophet Bob Dylan in the lyrics (‘it takes a crowd to cry’ in place of ‘it takes a train to cry’), plus a few nods in the general direction of a Mr David Jones are made, if you look carefully.

        Popular culture has ALWAYS been like that.

        ‘Tis true what the Bible says, there is no new thing under the sun.

      • @Bandini.

        Pot. Kettle. Black. Can’t have it both ways Bandini.

        If you’re going to lecture me about something at least get your facts straight.

        It wasn’t ME who reported the photofit resemblance to BMP, nor was it ME who made reference to it on here or elsewhere. In fact, on this thread it was YOU who raised the issue discussing the merits of the photofit when you KNOW there are still ongoing investigations into such. Why do that?

        That aside, you’re still missing the point anyway, if the photofit is or isn’t Alan, isn’t the point. Nor is Laverty’s affidavit.

        I wonder if you can work out what the point is yet? And if you can, leave Laverty and Alan out of it. Perhaps ask your alleged journalist mate for help if you’re stuck.

        When you’ve worked out what the point is then we’ll have a reasonable discussion, until then I’m not going to respond to you again.

      • @tdf yes the MWT matters are very interesting especially considering what he was saying in 2013/4 which may come back to bite him as he was freely admitting to allegedly sharing complainant details at that point – but it wasn’t clear from the Guardian article referencing that sharing – who he was sharing the details with.

        “sharing new leads and contact details for victims as he proceeds”.

        https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/feb/24/mark-williams-thomas-jimmy-savile

        One implication could be from the way in which the article is worded is that it’s Operation Yewtree he was sharing with but given what is now known about Cliff Richard (MWT named as primary “victim” contact by the judge in full ruling) and the sharing of info there, it’s potentially much wider than just Yewtree cases and includes other journalists like Dan Johnson potentially.

        All manner of issues with that spring to mind, data protection being only one.

        It’s also clear from that Guardian article that MWT has a problem with the bureaucracy side of the police and seemingly quite a major disregard for due process. If that’s true and couple it with the latest King case issues then he’s likely in a lot of trouble.

        There are also indicators that he was acting as a lone wolf on behalf of police anyway and then feeding info back as a private citizen. If that’s also true then if he was acting on police instruction and entrapping suspects into admissions then he’s also likely in much deeper trouble. As any conviction on that basis could prove to be unsound which would also mean the “victims” in those cases being let down.

        Again that’s IF those are true.

        Maverick cops are bad enough to deal with, Maverick ex-cops even worse imo because they are not constrained by the rules/policies of the police as much. Which of course then raises the distinct possibility that was the intention all along: i.e. to circumvent procedures.

      • RTE: “Pot. Kettle. Black. Can’t have it both ways Bandini. If you’re going to lecture me about something at least get your facts straight. It wasn’t ME who reported the photofit resemblance to BMP, nor was it ME who made reference to it on here or elsewhere.”

        Facts straight? I did not accuse you of reporting the “photofit resemblance” but of “simultaneously [whilst claiming to care so very, very deeply about false allegations] revelling in the ludicrous smearing of Anul Alun as a child snatcher/killer”.

        RTE: “Perhaps ask your alleged journalist mate for help if you’re stuck.”

        Er, I’m in no way ‘stuck’ so won’t be needing to make a call to the imaginary “alleged journalist” you’ve just pulled out of thin air – another of those false allegations you heroically fight against when not busy making them yourself.

        “…until then [12th of Never] I’m not going to respond to you again.”

        Well thank God for that!
        Someone who is either (a) maliciously revelling in false allegations or (b) actively seeking to warn an ‘alleged suspect’ in a child abduction that the police might come a knocking is no one I’m eager to communicate with to be honest! There is no (c). Logically.

    • Awww…. diddums.

    • “Lincoln Seligman, an artist whose father, Madron, was one of Heath’s good friends, said that the allegations had not been properly investigated and Heath’s name would remain tarnished unless there were a separate inquiry.”

      https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/edward-heath-inquiry-police-would-have-interviewed-him-about-sex-abuse-allegations-tshbp6rn9

      I think Aaronovitch is being a bit silly here:

      “No. In context “tarnished” is your word for Heath. Look at your own tweet again, So once more, in what was is Edward Heath “tarnished” or do you withdraw the description?”

      tarnish (verb) – to make people think that someone or something is less good

      Heath’s reputation has clearly been tarnished – that’s the problem! He’d have been better focusing on anything else that the wretched ignoble Watts said. Or asking him when we might expect that Savile’s nephew bullshit story about Jimmy & Ted hanging about at ‘sex parties’ together, promised – never delivered – by Exaro. (David Hencke certainly isn’t keen on updating us on developments on this fantastical tale!)

      • Would agree. David A was possibly having a senior moment there. Mad Mark was most likely referring to the remark from Lincoln Seligman.

        Interesting indeed that the award winning journalist David Hencke hasn’t exactly rushed into print with his take on the latest developments in this tale of woe! How bad does it make him feel? :)

      • Speaking of Exaro, did they open a South African office before they went belly up?
        https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-45195756

        “… paedophile ring… not just any name, but the name of a very powerful cabinet minister… … then he names two more cabinet ministers. He threatens to open the whole can of worms… … boys were flown to the island in military helicopters, made drunk during barbecues… …a gun was inserted into the anus of a boy. A shot was fired by Malan [cabinet minister], and the critically injured boy was flown to a hospital in Port Elizabeth for treatment… …Men, dressed in suits [ye Gods! Suits!!!], stood guard while the mixed-race boy was treated in the whites-only section of the hospital, even though this was illegal under South Africa’s then-racial segregation laws…”

        Etcetera. I won’t be following this one!

      • Bandini, yes I saw that on the BBC website, and, well, we’ve seen this movie before, as it were.

        A case of “lather, rinse, repeat”, I suspect. I wonder what legal firms are involved and what international connections they have.

      • For my friends on Twitter that I fell out with due to my alcoholism and (subverting the lyrics),

        “You get to feel so angry/
        got so little for so little for so much /
        then you find that feeling just won’t go away”

      • Barbara ‘Babs’ Hewson wades into the melee:

        “Dear MrWatts, this is a formal “cease and desist” warning: you must forthwith stop using the defamatory and offensive hashtag “barbietroll” to refer to me. Delete all tweets using this hashtag. Failure to comply will result in High Court proceedings.”

        Will #HerrFlick comply?

        Does the High Court – “deals at first instance with all high value and high importance cases” – regularly settle petty pot kettle black name-calling disputes?

        Would a visit from the local vicar organised by concerned fairweather friends be in order?

      • Hewson’s threats to sue pretty everyone who disagrees with her are tiresome. Also hypocritical as she has written for the pro-free speech magazine Spiked.

      • Mark Watts:

        “Bar Standards Board finds Barbara Hewson “in breach of the BSB conduct rules”. She denies it all.
        BSB is to take her to five-person independent disciplinary tribunal, charged with professional misconduct. Tribunal has power to disbar her.”

        There is nothing listed for Hewson in the ‘Forthcoming hearings calendar’ so Watts may be using his favoured journalistic technique of plucking stories out of thin air, but were it to be true “[m]embers of the public, press and the profession are welcome to attend hearings.”

        Saints alive!
        (The only other ‘5 Person Disciplinary Tribunal’ currently listed is for that well known nutjob, Michael Shrimpton and it started Friday 16 September 2016 & will reconvene shortly and is due to end a mere two years later on Friday 21 September 2018. Buying popcorn? Buy a big bag!)

        https://mobile.twitter.com/MarkWatts_1/status/1031480870429970432

      • Not seeing anything for Barbara Hewson either when I run a search on their forthcoming hearings page.

        Incidentally I see on their website they have a section ‘pretending to be a barrister’. Shrimpton is apparently a real barrister (though observers might be forgiven for thinking otherwise.)

Leave a Reply

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