Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse Reveals New Esther Baker “Westminster” Allegation

Baker says document “misrepresents” her, and was published “against the requests of both myself & a police force”

The website of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse has published a “Note of Determination” regarding the scope of its investigations into allegations relating to Westminster. The note confirms the approach announced at the preliminary hearing at the end of January, that it will be considering issues of public concern “relating to the way in which Westminster institutions have historically addressed or responded to issues of child sexual abuse.”

As such, the inquiry will not be investigating allegations of sex abuse made by Esther Baker, who has “core participant” status; this is because

…they are the subject of both contested civil proceedings and an ongoing police investigation… such an investigation would be extremely resource intensive… the Inquiry’s function, which, as Counsel to the Inquiry submitted, is to investigate institutional failings, and not to determine disputed facts on individual cases.

The Note summarises Baker’s allegations, and for the first time it is explicitly recognised that her allegation of abuse in woodland amounts to a “ritualistic” abuse claim. We are also now told that that Baker says that the abuse was filmed, which is (I think) a new element, and the Note further reveals a completely new claim:

In summary, Ms Baker says that as a child she visited a foreign country and stayed at the house of a relative of a person of public prominence associated with Westminster where she was shown a room full of young girls and was sexually assaulted by her host. She alleges that her parents worked with orphanages in the country concerned, in conjunction with her host, and she assumes that visits by politicians and others in a position of power both in the past and to the present day have involved the abuse of young children. On behalf of Ms Baker it is submitted that investigation of the links between Westminster and the foreign country can be conducted if her allegations are considered as part of the scope of the investigation.

Unsurprisingly, this is also rejected as being outside the scope of the IICSA’s inquiry, but the disclosure is a sensational expansion on her earlier claims, which have developed since January 2015. At that time, as “Becky”, she gave an interview to  Channel 4 News in which she said that she had been abused “in a church setting”, and that some of the abusers had been police officers who attended the church. These police officers were later described as guards at woodland orgies involving “VIPs”. At the end of the month she privately accused the then-MP John Hemming as having been an abuser (the date of her allegation apparently confirmed by a screenshot); this was three months after Hemming had criticised the decision to make Fiona Woolf the head of the IICSA, whereas Woolf was supported by an activist with close links to Baker.

Hemming’s name was bandied about by self-styled “anti-CSA activists” for several months until he went public himself – and he is now pursuing legal action. Baker also at one time claimed have been taken by night to be abused by VIPs at Dolphin Square in London, although this is not mentioned in the Note and it did not come up at the preliminary hearing.

In response to the new publication, Baker has posted a statement on Twitter:

I am aware that tonight the @InquiryCSA have published a decision (V2) on scope in the Westminster Strand against the requests of both myself & a police force. The document is both a misrepresentation of what I submitted to the inquiry & of current ongoing events [here]. This document releases details that were not in the public domain and that were not intended to become so, certainly not before the CPS decision. Yet it omits details that were crucial to give context – only those that were private to me, not others. There is much more to be said [here] But I will leave that for the appropriate time and arena. It is safe to say that interference by “persons of public prominence associated with Westminster” has played a part which shall be detailed soon. [here] It needs to be made VERY clear that I have NEVER asked the @InquiryCSA to investigate my allegations. That is outside of scope & they are certainly not qualified to do so. I will be publishing my actual scope submission as soon as circumstances allow. [here]

Baker has previously chided those who have expressed incredulity or doubt about her allegations with the explanation that there is confirmatory material that is outside of the public domain, but that will be revealed in due course. Baker has in the past been vocally supported by the MPs Jess Phillips (who defeated Hemming in the 2015 General Election), Sarah Champion and John Mann.

UPDATE: As noted in the comments, “V2” in Baker’s response refers to a variation in the IICSA statement in relation to John Hemming’s complaint against her.

V1 had:

Ms Baker’s allegations are highly contentious and are the subject of both a police investigation (I understand that the police enquiries are now focused on whether Ms Baker should be charged with perverting the course of justice) and also contested civil proceedings.

This gives the impression that police primarily now regard Baker as a suspect rather than a complainant – a bold and apparently careless claim that is backed away from in V2:

Ms Baker’s allegations are highly contentious. They are the subject of both contested civil proceedings and an ongoing police investigation. I am also aware that Mr Hemming is reported to have made a complaint to the CPS that the allegations that Ms Baker has made about him amount to perverting the course of justice.


The IICSA’s statement that does not intend “to determine disputed facts on individual cases” is a retreat from its position in 2015, when it announced that it would undertake an “objective fact-finding inquiry into allegations of abuse by people of public prominence associated w. Westminster”.

There has previously been some public confusion on this point arising from Wiltshire Police’s  farcical £2 million investigation into the former Prime Minister Edward Heath, more than a decade after his death. The force attempted to save face by announcing that it would be passing its “findings” to the IICSA, which generated a compliant Mail on Sunday headline that the inquiry intended to “probe” Heath. However, the new Note confirms that Wiltshire Police accepts that the IICSA will not be making findings of fact, in that the force “do[es] not wish to make submissions on the scope of the investigation”.

It is difficult to imagine how the distinction between “institutional responses to allegations” and the veracity of the allegations themselves will be applied in relation to the IICSA strand devoted to Greville Janner (previously discussed here – scroll down).

44 Responses

  1. “We are also now told that that Baker says that the abuse was filmed…”

    From 2015: “She and other victims were plied with alcohol by the adults, she claimed, and some of the abuse was recorded on film.”

    No doubt using ISO 32,000 film stock to capture all the candlelit action…

  2. Excellent article as usual, Richard.

    Some observations on what Baker said and what the “note” actually says:

    1. The note explicitly refers to submissions (plural) made on behalf of Baker (presumably by Peter Garsden as her nominated representative).

    2. She obviously fails to understand that she gave the IICSA the details of her allegations (clearly in some form) and must have discussed these with the police allegedly investigating her claims. Her remarks about the police not wanting material in the public domain make sense (for once) – and of course if true – but fail to take into account the number of times she’s previously put material that should’ve been confidential into the public domain.

    3. The explicit mention of a version 2 of the document implies that there is a version 1 which was worded somewhat differently (in what way remains to be seen – if seen at all). Perhaps she would’ve been more wise not revealing that alleged earlier version’s existence.

    4. Her statement regarding not supposedly asking the IICSA to investigate her claims flies directly in the face of Garsden’s representations on her behalf on 31st January 2018 in the Westminster strand preliminary hearing.

    5. Baker and Garsden were clearly trying to use the IICSA as a backdoor fallback for the police and CPS not progressing her claims to charges. I find that exceptionally vindictive tbh.

    6. The revelation of the foreign visit has opened up so many more questions about how much her parents actually knew about her allegations. The very idea that a room full of “young girls” in a house would not attract some outside attention is, in my view, utterly ludicrous. How would they get fed, watered and have toilet facilities for instance? Anyone who’s ever been in a room full of many females at the same time will know that the noise levels are quite high.

    7. Where does all of this leave her core participation status in the Westminster strand? Surely if she’s no longer going to have her claims investigated that status is now null and void? Where does that also leave the alleged public funding for her legal representation too?

    The irony of Jay’s statements is that Baker was campaigning to keep Jay as chairwoman in spite of many individuals wanting the inquiry to be judge led with the ability to set legal precedents. It would appear to me that what little there was left of Baker’s credibility is now gone.

    Hopefully, the police and CPS are also now going to assess (as per their ongoing assessment of “Nick”) whether Baker should be facing criminal charges of at least attempting to pervert the course of justice.

  3. The overseas revelation isn’t entirely new.
    Baker has previously tweeted about the Philippines and having spent time there, particularly in Manila, and other places, and implied it was connected to a church. I think she did stop short of stating she was abused however.
    She relentlessly attacked a lady who did missionary work over there, with the result that she got herself a PIP for it.

  4. Version 1 of the IICSA document was even more blunt and available for a few days on their site. It clearly stated that the main focus of police investigations was now whether Esther Baker should be charged with perverting the course of justice. I’d be very surprised indeed if no interested party has retained a copy of the first version of this document…

    I agree that Baker’s credibility is now shot to pieces. Once the identity of the second politician she has accused becomes public – and it will – then I think the game will be up for her.

    Alexis Jay has clearly seen Baker for what she is and decided to steer well clear. A very wise choice.

  5. This time 12months ago I was fighting for my freedom, partly because of the false allegations made against me by the Bin Goblin. I have her lies on paper, and the court would have seen them too had the CPS not seen them first and pulled the plug. She’s a devils cleaner.

    • Just what the world needs: one compulsive liar and chronic attention seeker complaining about another compulsive liar and chronic attention seeker…

      We’ve been through this before and nothing has changed. If you wish to be taken seriously you’d do well to hold up your hands, apologise for the knowingly fraudulent claims you’ve made (put it down to ‘stress’ or summat) and move on with your life. Until then you and the rest of ’em are truly deserving of one another.

      • You’re slowing Bandi, you normally follow up in seconds not minutes. Haha an anonymous blog addict telling me to get a life! You’ve been writing on a myriad of blogs for at least five years, you live online and have the front to lecture me. Shall we compare suntans?

      • Great banter guys, and infinitely more entertaining than the three and a half hour borefest that is Eurovision! :)

  6. I take the question back as it’ll only open the door you so sadly seek. The same door that enables you to feed your habit and entertain yourself all day. You’re known for your waffling and scrawlings as I’m known for what I am.

    So unless you’re offering the (your) readers anything of any weight, rather than the usual tripe, maybe step outside the bedroom and wander off to the shops or similar.

    • Here’s some tripe for you:

      “Unsure as to the rationale. Possibly due to me [ho ho ho!] articulation abilities. My memory blew their minds. Mine too. It was statement No 1”

      That was your absurd ‘blown-mind’ explanation for the (also absurd) notion that The Observer and journo David Rose might have set out to “target” you (for God knows what reason). It’s a shame your amazing memory didn’t stretch as far back as, er, that previous posting of yours in which you detailed at length the meeting with ANOTHER journo involved in the tale – a meeting that you’d then go on to “forget” ever happened before dreaming up a bucketload of hogwash to justify your dishonest panhandling for £10,000.

      Aye, it’s a bit odd trying to maintain that an interview never took place when your contemporaneous interview with the police (which took place days after the publication of article) notes your claim of having been “badly misquoted” in the article which arose from the interview.

      Maybe that memory of yours isn’t quite so infallible, eh? Decades later, and after frantically but pointlessly hitting ‘DELETE’:

      “I am unable to remember any meeting or discussions with him [that journalist who you claimed to the police had “badly misquoted” you after the interview that never took place or summat!]. That said I have spoken to hundreds of journalists over the years.”

      Aye, haven’t you just! Is it all coming back to you now?!?
      Anyway, I’ve got better things to do than pin you to the canvas in a half-Nelson (ho ho ho!) – it’s bleedin’ Eurovision time! Why don’t you blow some of that money you bilked off of nutters on a decent bottle of summat and enjoy it?

      P.S. You also lose at the suntan showdown.

      • Esther Baker and her constantly increasing abuse claims are appalling and should be open to question of course, but the obsessive pursuit of her all over the internet of her by Darren Laverty and his friend Mr Just, as can be witnessed here yet again; is just as abhorrent. Referring to her as ‘Bin Goblin’ every opportunity he gets for instance is one of the many reasons Laverty was arrested and charged with stalking her recently. He was lucky that her own stupidity on Twitter gave the CPS good reason to drop the charges. And very well done to Bandini for hilighting Lavertys continual lies and bullying behavior; and for giving him the slapping down he deserves every time he rocks up claiming that he is the victim yet again. Give it up man its getting very tired now this relentless chasing of Esther is looking like an addiction who are watching this

      • Mr Taylor on this thread seems to have an awful lot of knowledge about matters that he clearly really knows nothing about. His allegations about the reasons for Mr Laverty’s arrest for example are well wide of the mark.

        How many more names Mr “Taylor”… or should I say Lee.

  7. When Jess Phillips MP supported Esther Baker did she know that EB had made allegations against her opponent in the Election? Pretty bad if she did

    • ^ Yes, yes it would be pretty bad if she did.

      Incidentally, Phillips is very much approved of by the type of ‘centrist’ media commentators (Aaronovitch and the rest of them) who identify themselves with the Blairite faction in the Labour party, and hate Corbyn and all his workers (what?? socialists in the Labour party?? Such impudence!! )

      All I want is a little bit of moral consistency from media talking heads and politicians. Shouldn’t be too much to ask for.

      • ^ minor typo in third line of my second para above, Corbyn and all his works is what I meant – though they probably hate anyone that works for Corbyn too, now that I think of it.

      • very observant of you.

  8. A quick glance down my archived material and the Philippines theory is confirmed by Tweets by Baker on 22nd June 2015.

    The following are tweetID, date and time of tweet and text separate by | between each field.

    613039907997663232|Mon Jun 22 17:44:38 +0000 2015|@TheTapBlog @reeves3915 @ExaroNews if you are not the barrister what is the Filipino interest in Exaro?

    613039660567277568|Mon Jun 22 17:43:39 +0000 2015|@TheTapBlog @reeves3915 makes a change to troll in Tagalog. How’s the American cafe in Makati? Is that where you all still meet?

    613037140440674304|Mon Jun 22 17:33:38 +0000 2015|@TheTapBlog @reeves3915 @ExaroNews hindi ko makalimutan

    613036583307059200|Mon Jun 22 17:31:25 +0000 2015|@TheTapBlog @reeves3915 @ExaroNews @davidhencke sabihin hello sa ama

    613036366876815360|Mon Jun 22 17:30:34 +0000 2015|@TheTapBlog @reeves3915 @ExaroNews @davidhencke pagkakataon? Hindi kailanman.

    613035287418159104|Mon Jun 22 17:26:16 +0000 2015|@TheTapBlog @reeves3915 @ExaroNews – a very strange time for a barrister in the Philippines to be trying to insult Exaro don’t we think??

    The power of Google Translate allows us to do this:

    pagkakataon? Hindi kailanman. = Chance? Never.

    sabihin hello sa ama = say hello to dad

    hindi ko makalimutan = I will not forget

    Basically what this means is that by reading her twitter timeline at the time of late June 2015 ahead of her father’s alleged subsequent arrest she had already identified him, implied the Philippines involved and also released potentially vital evidence information into the public domain regarding that specific allegation.

    Furthermore, around the same time (June 2015) she was attacking (with the assistance of her abusive friends) on Twitter a campaigner who actually does missionary work in the Philippines.

    It’s therefore highly likely that the material that person had put out had been manipulated to suit an agenda. Similar allegations have been put forward about Nick’s allegations being lifted from other people’s experiences and enhanced for effect.

    Curiously her mentor Graham Wilmer does similar with fictional works in his books i.e. lifts other people’s material and presents it again in book form. One notable incident of that was the lifting of a poem from the Fire in Ice website (Fire in Ice being the precursor organisation to Lantern Project and run by (later) convicted violent sex offender (and counsellor to Wilmer) Matthew Byrne). That poem was republished by Wilmer in one of his Lantern books without any accreditation to the original author. Strange “coincidence” in methodology or conspiracy to pervert the course of justice?

    Now cast your minds back to the time of June 2015 again… Exaro were “all the rage” and the deliberate tagging in of David Hencke into the tweet texts exhibited above raises some more questions about how much was being told to Exaro staff about Baker’s allegations and also how much instruction was she receiving (given that she admitted elsewhere to Exaro contacting her on a regular basis). I know already that the Met think it was Baker who released confidential information (despite being told not to) about my impending arrest back in January 2017. Mark Watts then tweeted about it the DAY BEFORE my arrest happened. Again potentially attempting to pervert the course of justice in the process.

    Not for the first time either are there such inconsistencies in her stories, she’d claimed that she went public on the back of fears that she would be “found” by her abusers. Which contradicts what Peter Garsden told the IICSA on 31st January 2018 when he claimed that she had been advised to go public by “ably assisting individuals” – whom? Unsurprisingly, it also contradicts one of Baker’s posts as “Brooke Lafayette” on Facebook in April 2015 when she was campaigning to be on the panel of the VSCP at the IICSA and revealed that Brooke was her pseudonym (not forgetting her previous pseudonym “Becky” used by Exaro themselves). Why would someone allegedly fearful for their life be campaigning for such a public profile role?

    On the basis of the above tweets and the inconsistencies highlighted above and elsewhere in her stories alone, it’s therefore correct for the authorities (if true from the version 1 lICSA document ink above in one of Bandini’s posts) to be examining allegations against Baker regarding attempting to pervert the course of justice as her father, for instance, was not arrested until late July 2015. So what was she doing effectively naming her father’s alleged involvement etc over a month prior into the public domain and during the middle of the investigations into her allegations?

  9. It seems that a lot of people have been led up the garden path by fake or dubious allegations of child abuse in VIP circles.

    However, those would prefer to believe that because SOME such allegations are nonsense , that this implies that ALL such allegations cannot be believed, might want to consider this:

    It now seems that Twiss is the son of a former senior parliamentary official who once shared a flat with the notorious Lennie Smith. The connection was mentioned by Nick Davies in an article he wrote decades ago (though he didn’t name Twiss).

    • Exactly the problem that the police have been facing tdf i.e. what is and what isn’t real.

      The problem is then compounded when they are expected to believe every single allegation at face value (seeming “credible and true” doesn’t mean it is true). I do have some sympathy for them in sorting the wheat from the chaff (although I’ve personally had some problems with some of them not doing their jobs properly) but there’s a big difference between one or two bad ‘uns like Twiss abusing their positions or access rights and a complete conspiracy within Parliament which is what the likes of Tom Watson would’ve had us all believe.

      That’s where the ones who wanted to deflect attention onto the more fantastical claims should be held to account.

      Interesting to note in that article that the two ex-coppers wanted to remain anonymous – one wonders whether the previous interference by ex-coppers in matters like the Damien Green farce has now given them a little bit more caution. Have to also bear in mind that what the article contains are still only (mostly) unproven allegations.

      I’ll keep an open mind until there are arrests and/or charges and even then neither equate automatically to guilt. The media would also be wise to adopt a similar approach in light of more recent events like the High Court cases playing out.

      • Watson seemed to have been referring to now jailed paedo Charles Napier being a relative of long term Tory MP and former aide to Margaret Thatcher John Whittingdale.

        That’s the ‘link to number 10’! But it’s a tenuous one, and there is no evidence that Whittingdale ever approved of his half-brother’s activities.

        Watson’s Parly Q was badly worded at best, at worst an opportunistic attempt to stir up a witch-hunt against political opponents (and my personal politics are left of centre).

      • Look at who the author of that article is.
        Then consider his connections to Wiltshire Police, namely the nauseatingly sycophantc interview with one Mike Veale not too long ago.
        Then ask yourself why claims by two ex Met officers concerning suspects living in and committing crimes in London were passed, not to the Met by the paper – as would be proper – but to Wilts Police. Why would Wilts Police, with a remit of investigating Ted Heath and only Ted Heath, then interview Twiss about presumably unrelated (to Ted Heath) London events?
        Which came first- the chicken or the egg? Did the two former officers suddenly decide together or separately to contact the Mail on Sunday, or were they directed to do so by Wilts Police? Could the tip off have actually come direct from someone within Wilts Police and the two former officers do not actually exist? Who knows, but the official narrative as to the two sources just doesn’t ring true.

    • Twiss is a rogue whose career has been well documented in the press over the years. However, his account of minor sexual goings on around Westminster and Dolphin Square sounds credibly mundane and it’s noteworthy that even the avid Conifer detectives found nothing new to charge him with.
      Somehow this has all got caught up with an old copper’s yarn about Cyril Smith, who may have committed offences at Cambridge House but posthumously has become a magnet for all sorts of allegations. Smith was never charged, partly because the accusations were six years old (historic abuse wasn’t then a concept), but the idea that investigations into politicians were routinely suppressed is untenable – I can think of at least three MPs who were convicted of sex offences and of course many have been exposed in the tabloids for lesser misbehaviour.

      • All fair points, Marina. As far as I am concerned, even leaving aside any allegations of CSA, Smith was a scumbag due simply to his defences of the asbestos industry long after it became clear that asbestos was leading to all kinds of health problems. But some of the allegations about him – as touted by former MP Simon Danczuk in his book – seem of dubious tenability.

        Also, Charles Hornby, never an MP but certainly well-connected, was convicted in relation to the ‘Playland’ scandal.

    • You keep “Archives” of Twitter accounts? Wow!!!! What a sad and strange little man you are. is that why spoof accounts called “Six Hard Drives” were set up to mock the fact that a number of computer storage devices filled with screenshots and tweets were seized from you by the police during some of your arrests for this kind of obsessional behavior?

      • Aww bless, still spouting the same old bullshit?

        Shame the facts don’t actually match the allegations you make “Mr Simon Taylor”… old a couple of people believed that whole load of crap anyway… the hard drives concerned were NOT full of screenshots and tweets at all… ever heard of mirroring or RAID? Nah didn’t think so.

        For the record, I keep archives because of for evidential purposes and the need for those archives has now been proven to be exceptionally useful in other matters as you will see in due course.

        Again don’t let facts get in the way of your bullshit.

  10. The material re Wilts Police is most interesting, especially as there were two specific known ex-police officers allegedly interfering in (“assisting in” – police speak) their investigation into Heath etc including allegedly supplying information which (again allegedly) led Wilts down dead end leads.

    IF they are the same two officers then no wonder they don’t want their names linked again. Smacks more of a money making opportunity (to me) with the MoS falling for it again tbh. Recycling old news for effect – wonder who else did that?

    Re tdf and Watson: the problem for Watson is his 2 years after his Parliamentary privilege announcements when he was working with “a cross party group investigating allegations of Child Abuse in Westminster” as he clearly stated on a petition he started on For many reasons that working group is problematic. Like it’s never had any public minutes of it’s operation, it’s structure has never been formally revealed, it’s intentions only broadcast on that petition and why was a “investigation” group undertaking matters that should on the surface have been matters for the police. Or was it all a front to groom specific individuals into making the claims of abuse to the media via a backdoor recruitment exercise? Stranger things have happened. Especially when take into account how Baker suddenly changed her tune after meeting Wilmer and Sharon Evans. Then she was also allegedly introduced to Watson.

    Watson is key to all of this in my opinion. The longer the work of that working group remains in the shadows the longer the questions will persist.

    Most of his own claims have their origins in the Scallywag magazines of the 1990s, which suddenly disappeared off the radar when Labour got into power and then nothing happened… if Labour as a party wanted to do something to really tackle what was being accused in Scallywag why didn’t they do it between 1997 and 2010 and not wait until they were ousted?

    Doesn’t make any sense other than a political agenda.

    • ^ Some of the tall tales do seem to be warmed-up versions of Scallywag’s tittle tattle from the early 90s. There was more than a hint of homophobia in Regan’s scribblings – not a good look for Labour.

      • According to his now deleted Twitter account under the name @RyanTanner, Mr Laverty who has commented above also had a hand in fabricating the Scallywag stories in the 90s. Anything for a free lunch

  11. Simon Taylor, thanks for the reminder

    • Hey Daz why dont you put up the video of your son reading extracts from the Jillings report you claimed to have? You must remember the one which you then tried to sell on EBay before Wrexham council got it pulled

      • Ha, that shut you up didn’t it?

        If you require anything from me please feel free to donate monies to the tune of £10,000 to my Go-Fund Me page. You know the one your fat arse bird reported as illegal. How did that go for her? PMSL

      • The GoFundMe page now appears to have vanished into thin air. Has the £445 raised similarly ‘vanished’, or been rightfully returned to its dopey donators?

    • Hi Simon, thanks for the confirmation above that you did have HDDs full of data you had collected on people. was it for personal use to share with your troll mates or were you gathering intel for the police? why dont you enlighten the readers here about how many false names you have used online to harrass people? Like Jimmy Thrasher, or TeeAitch or Troll Exposure or any of the others you used when trolling Hillsborough survivors and their families. Go on Simon I dare you

  12. Meanwhile Mad Mary (Bandini will know who I mean) reports on Twitter that her 19 boxes of documents have been returned by Op Fairbank.

  13. The ‘Honorables’ reported someone to Humberside Police for following Old Holborn on Twitter. Simon Just was in the Honorables so did he waste valuable police resources on such a pathetic complaint? Read this and decide

  14. Posted for the simple reason that it made me genuinely laugh out loud – the Nutterbus City Limits have now been breached:

    Next stop: Lizard Central. Onward Christian Soldiers!

  15. So with the announcement that her victims right to review has been binned Baker is now left with………….er………nothing. Not a single person named by her has been prosecuted. Ah well there’s always twitter…….pmsl

  16. Isn’t Operation Ruffle still open though? Mark Watts previously tweeted other police force(s?) were investigating complaints made by Baker against individuals other than Hemming.

    • I think we can all take it that there are no further inquiries into any of her allegations. As for Watts-he’ll be seeking legal advice soon enough. I wonder if he’s in any sort of union. Same applies to all those that knelt before him-the staffers at Exaggero. Hencke has been reinforcing his efforts to distance himself from the recent past. It won’t work.

    • That would be the same Mark Watts who couldn’t find an image of a boy in a boat from 1965 (even though a really quick google of “Ted Heath Holiday” would’ve revealed said image (on a Pathe News video article from 1965) so he labelled it as from 1972 and made up a story? That Watts? If so then take what he says with a pinch of salt, like his trolling buddies who’ve resorted to childish insults on here he loves to lie his ass off. Allegedly of course

      Strangely enough, the same Pathe News video contained a section of Harold Wilson in a boat with a lad. Both instances (Heath and Wilson) were perfectly innocent holiday films… but that wouldn’t have suited Watts’ agenda.

      Strange how it’s almost never a Labour Party member being accused of such falsehoods eh?

      They only threw Janner to the wolves imo (and the timing of that was exceptionally interesting with the benefit of hindsight) because of him not being able to defend himself and also Vaz being stung in the way he was – was a clear setup. Engineered to remove him from the HASC chair in my view – who else was on the HASC at the time? Tom Watson.

      Asking too many difficult questions was Keith. Again the timing was key and so was the clear campaigning to remove him from office on social media.

      Slowly, slowly, catchy …

      • Don’t disagree about Watts, a truly dreadful hypocrite if ever I saw one and a disgrace to journalism – the “no further action doesn’t mean innocent” tweets spoke volumes for his malicious and bone headed character IMO.

        What I’m getting at though is that Esther Baker has also apparently made allegations against -ahem -Some Dead Politician If I read between the lines correctly, a previous post about a Skwawkbox article on this blog also suggests she may have made an allegation about a serving Chief Constable? Do these allegations fall under the remit of Op Ruffle and, if so, are these strands of the investigation still ongoing, or have they now concluded? I’m interested in this as Baker has repeatedly stated on Twitter she is restricted in what she can say because of live police investigations, yet now everything seems to have been NFA’d she still appears to be rather silent on some subjects, which is rather telling in itself – unless of course Op Ruffle continues.

        I don’t know for certain the identity of the deceased peer Baker accuses of raping her in the woods, although I note a name was offered in the comments section under a previous post on this blog and I would concur with this opinion. Nor do I know if these acts are alleged to have been carried out in concert with Hemming, or on different nights when he wasn’t there. However IF he is who I think he is – and I fully concede I’m just speculating – with reference to the transcripts of her interviews, a particular sentence pertaining to the unnamed Lord, might be directly contradicted by information in his VERY complete collection of personal papers which are held at the Bodleian Library. Rightly, specific medical paperwork is likely to be restricted from public view, but almost certainly not from Staffordshire CID’s, or for that matter any police officer looking into an allegation of PCJ (although I’m not sure if making a false allegation against a dead person actually constitutes PCJ, unless it is an offence against the Crown?) I have little faith in the police, but surely even they wouldn’t have overlooked this avenue of enquiry? Really, they just couldn’t have.

        Keep joining those dots…

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.