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” [UPDATE 2019: aka Carl Beech]), 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”.

70 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.

      • P.S. I fell asleep watching this last night – the Hammer House of Mystery & Suspense sticking it to poor ol’ Cliff more than three decades ago:


      • I’ve exceeded my free article limit, but judging from the headline even Dominic Lawson, who harshly criticised many of the police investigations into celebs, is not a fan of the Cliff judgement:


      • Yes the Times and the media in general seem to have missed the vital point that “public interest” needs to be assessed on a case by case basis and not on a blanket rule by parliament as the circumstances of each case will plainly be different.

        Having spent considerable time reading the full judgement it was a difficult balancing act for Justice Mann in his ruling. He was very conscious of the Article 10 rights but on balance, I think correctly, Cliff’s Article 8 rights were violated in such a way that the public interest and freedom of expression were gazumped.

        Contrary to popular media belief, the ruling doesn’t actually say that every case will have to be treated the same way but correctly says that each case where privacy versus freedom of expression is evaluated has to be done on the specific circumstances of that case and not a blanket catch all.

        I think that’s a very reasoned and sensible way of approaching this. The knee jerk reactions that it was going to stop naming all suspects was exactly that: knee jerk. Nor was it going to stop the media from holding the police to account, nor was it going to stop the media from conducting their own investigations. All of that was simply bullshit.

        What it does mean though is that better consideration will have to be given to how impatient news outlets are in future as to whether to broadcast/publish something which is such a gross invasion of privacy merely on the back of unproven allegations. Ultimately I believe that’s what the case swung on – that impatience by the BBC to broadcast at 1pm on the day in question when they could’ve waited for the right to reply first. They not only broke their own editorial code but also forgot one major factor – the police didn’t want Cliff named at that point in time because the allegations were allegedly so flimsy.

        More fool BBC and power to the Human Rights Act. If it makes the media in general more responsible and having to think much more carefully that is only a good thing in my eyes.

      • I have downloaded the judgement but haven’t gotten around to reading it. You are quite right to imply that people should always go back to the original source documents – court judgement in this case – and make their own minds up, rather than rely on the media presentation. Unfortunately many people – the majority of the public – either don’t have the time or the inclination to do that.

      • I am not going to claim that I am a fan of Cliff Richard and I’ve always found his public persona a bit, well, odd.

        Some of the twitter conspiraloon brigade, circa 2014, were announcing that there is no extradition treaty between Britain and its former colony Barbados (implying that he had moved to Barbados as a plan to circumvent a UK court case). It’s nonsense – there is indeed an extradition treaty between Britain and Bermuda, as a two second Google search shows – https://www.gov.uk/guidance/extradition-processes-and-review#extradition-to-the-uk ). And in any case, Richard voluntarily submitted himself for British police questioning, rather than put it up to them and force them to go to court and apply to the Secretary of State to have him extradited – this does not seem like the action of a guilty man.

        So on balance, my sympathies are with Richard.

      • Wholeheartedly agree “tdf”. The issue with this isn’t really whether people like Cliff Richard or don’t, that doesn’t come into it at all. This is really all about someone’s basic rights whether famous or not.

        Obviously famous people have a double edge problem in that their lives are open to much more publicity than perhaps the average person, but with that also comes another problem which Sir Richard Henriques highlighted (and referred to in the judgement of Justice Mann) and that is that public figures tend to be more likely to receive the attention of cranks and vicious rumours attempting to slur their reputations.

        The detailed judgement isn’t easy to read (most probably won’t bother) and the media misrepresenting it is just another act of ignorance and disrespect for those basic rights of individuals. No media outlet should be above an individual’s right to a private life, there was really no need to have a helicopter flying over Cliff’s house filming inside the property, a simple report outside the gates of the shared property would’ve sufficed.

        I got the sense from the detailed judgement that it was the nature and method of the reporting coupled with the rather dodgy methods in acquiring the information in the first place that put the privacy aspects firmly on the table. The BBC were in possession of material that should’ve remained confidential unless the police thought otherwise, they didn’t and the Beeb should’ve taken that lead. Someone saw headlines and potentially swift promotion prospects and in the process could’ve completely compromised the investigation into Richard and also any chance of a fair trial if he had been subsequently charged.

        The media ignorance on the need to show some restraint on such matters, especially where child abuse allegations are involved (because the stakes are so high) is further evidence of the need for a form of Leveson II as it’s clear they’ve still not learnt properly from the hacking scandal. What’s really quite shocking is that the BBC only had to wait another 15 minutes or so and they would’ve had their right to reply and could’ve still broadcast during the half hour 1 O’Clock News bulletin.

        Their need for it to be sensationalist headlines ahead of getting that (bearing in mind both Cliff and his reps were out of the country at the time and the BBC had not even told them that the police didn’t want to name Cliff) being likely the last nail in a privacy ruling that was always likely to happen under those specific circumstances.

        Instead of appealing it the BBC (wasting more public funds in the process) and media would be wiser to look a little closer at how they operate, report and coerce information out of the police and to do that review voluntarily rather than risk a Leveson II which may force them to do so and potentially expose further “dodgy” practices within journalism.

        Ironically by appealing and failing the BBC may increase the risk of such a new inquiry happening which may then impact on press freedoms more than they are claiming this ruling does. Better to suck it up, apologise, make sure it doesn’t happen again and move on. Despite all the press bluster nothing fundamental has changed, there’s no new law or precedent introduced really, just a re-iteration that in certain circumstances (complicated in this instance) privacy rights will gazump freedom of expression.

      • “Obviously famous people have a double edge problem in that their lives are open to much more publicity than perhaps the average person, but with that also comes another problem which Sir Richard Henriques highlighted (and referred to in the judgement of Justice Mann) and that is that public figures tend to be more likely to receive the attention of cranks and vicious rumours attempting to slur their reputations.”

        I think that this is very true. I suspect that it is also the case that many in the music business will, frankly, have taken advantage of the consensual opportunities that were offered to them – ‘groupies’ and the like.

        Recently, Simon Le Bon of Duran Duran has been accused of groping a female fan many years ago. Incidentally (sad bastard that I am) I have read the book “U2 by U2” and in the book, Bono recollects that when he went to London with his bandmate Adam Clayton to record the Live Aid single, most of the London-based ‘New Romantic’ singers and musicians who formed the majority of the Live Aid collective that Geldof and Midge Ure had assembled were being very snobby and standoffish – Le Bon, by contrast, apparently, was friendly. The late Cranberries singer Dolores O’Riordan, also, I think, recorded positive experiences of working with Le Bon. But who knows.

      • ^ Le Bon being one of the few top flight pop singers who uses his birthname, as contrasted with the likes of Sting, Prince, Elton John, and the aforementioned Bono. Granted, if he was born Simon Smith, it might have been different. If your christened name is Simon Le Bon, you’re going to have to do something artistic with your life. Ok, I’ll stop rambling now, lol.

      • Spot on “tdf”.

        However, as with the Richard privacy case etc, each case needs to be judged on it’s own merits and on the evidence rather than simply the word of the accuser.

        This is also why some allegations have to be treated with extreme caution by the media because the stakes are so high for those accused of such.

        Add into the equation, in the Cliff case, the rumour that the allegations against Cliff came from a convicted and still imprisoned serial rapist (I don’t know for definite if that’s true but the rumours persist) and it adds another problem for the police i.e. can they actually take those allegations merely at face value and is their “source” really that credible. Then couple that with the compensation culture and the trawling for “victims” in prisons by lawyers that has blighted such for too long and it’s certainly a scenario where opportunism and potential maliciousness can come into play. Again making the police job of determining what is really true and what is not (especially in the face of no corroborative evidence) much harder.

        If that rumour is true then no wonder police had major doubts about putting Cliff’s name out there. Also if it’s true then the BBC were clearly in possession of that information too from the detail in the judgement.

        Whether musicians are particular more at risk I’m not sure, could also argue entertainers of any sort who mix with fans or entertain back stage parties etc may have left themselves open to potential allegations even though they may have not done anything illegal.

        Which cuts straight to the “believe the victim” problem. Unless there was CCTV or film footage of such or other witnesses to confirm such actions then how do you prove a specific act took place or didn’t if it wasn’t reported at the time or very soon afterwards.

        Thus in the spate of historical abuse allegations that have followed the Savile furore there will be some that are true, some that are false and some that are just pure fantasy with an element of truth to make them appear more “credible and true”. For instance, gay parties at say Dolphin Square might not have been illegal but add in the stereotyping that existed that such were also paedophilia related then it’s a poisonous mix.

        FWIW if EGH was a gay brothel it’s not the same as saying that children were abused there. Having a list of supposed attendees at the place doesn’t prove they were actually there let alone prove that they committed acts of child abuse if indeed they were ever there at all. That’s ultimately the problem that the likes of Hencke created for everyone else. Floodgates were opened and the mop up operation is taking years.

      • ^ Hmm. Yeah. A journalist whose name it would not be fair to reveal thinks that some of the North Wales ex-care home alleged victim suicides were largely caused by guilt over being induced or persuaded to make false allegations. That said, and just in relation to the North Wales care home abuse scandals, the fire that killed a number of alleged victims looks really odd. It’s hard to know what to make of it all at times.

      • Yes, so much smoke and mirrors on many sides. Have to keep an open mind though, again it’s why belief in allegations can be so dangerous not only to those being directly accused but those who make false allegations through either maliciousness or alleged inducement.

        There are many rumours around about other factors in play about the care homes in North Wales, not least the fabrication of certain official looking documents which then created 26 years of shit for someone who had to put up with a reputation being built partially on those fabricated documents. Almost Hillsborough like in a way, reputations tarnished but taking decades to recover (if ever).

        The ironical story of the day so far has been the Met’s anti-corruption unit being investigated for… corruption.


        No wonder us plebs find it difficult to weed the wheat from the chaff.

      • Yeah I saw that report today regarding senior coppers apparently under investigation for corruption. Tis interesting. Not sure what to make of it at present.

      • “There are many rumours around about other factors in play about the care homes in North Wales, not least the fabrication of certain official looking documents which then created 26 years of shit for someone who had to put up with a reputation being built partially on those fabricated documents.”

        For the love of God, not again!

        Your hero: “Angus Stickler has asked me to lie too. About Sir Ronalds report. I embroidered slightly to appease him”

        Hey, here’s a thought: maybe he “embroidered” when giving other interviews too! As it stands your insane conspiracy theory of fabricated documents is as convincing as an early draft of a Bill Baloney production that even Bill realises needs some work before feeding it to the crazies. (Did this fabrication extend to the photograph of the interviewee with his little dog? An early photoshop job?!? Wo wo wo!)

        The article and interview are – and this seems to have been lost along the way – sympathetic to the interviewee. They are in no way condemnatory of the interviewee. The villain of the piece is ‘the system’ that ought to have cared for its charges but instead would often brutalise them, eventually turfing them out in a worse state than that in which they had entered.

        Unfortunately there are those who now use the article to justify calling someone a ‘paedophile’, a ‘child rapist’, a ‘child gang rapist’, etc. – all based on an event that took place when the participant was eleven years old. Eleven, for Christ’s sake! They are morons.

        But being the victim of morons’ name-calling doesn’t automatically convert one into a bleeding hero or fighter against false allegations or any of the rest of it.

        If memory serves – and you’ll have to forgive me if mine isn’t quite as ‘photographic’ as the bullshitting boob’s (I even heard a rumour that he’d had his neurals networked by IBM or Amstrad boffins working on the next generation of superduper computers or summat) – your Hero bragged about reporting a school photographer who’d no doubt inadvertently snapped a tot’s knickers in a group shot… he’d never work again! Yeah, what a hero…

        P.S. The statement made about a professional journalist asking people to lie is libellous. Ironic, eh?

      • Bandini, no disrespect to you but if a false affidavit had been done in your name and had been used as a weapon to create an article in a national newspaper that was misleading (even if you think otherwise the article’s subject didn’t agree with it) and then used time and time and time again to beat you over the head with, I would think and hope that you would want to try and set the record straight.

        Whatever the truth about that particular article and the source of it is, the specific affidavit on which it was based, whether you or I like or dislike it: is false.

        Proven false at a legally acceptable level.

        Repeating that it’s not false now risks the wrath of that person’s legal representatives or have you not seen the letters? If not then I’d urge you to seek them out in your own interests not his.

        In any case, the reference to the affidavit here was made because the planting of such a document was clearly designed to muddy the waters in that particular person’s case, not to discuss the merits either way of the article that ensued, nor to attempt to justify that person in anyway shape or form.

        As such in the bigger picture of things unless such matters are tackled it’s harder to get to the ultimate truth about what really did happen and what didn’t happen isn’t it?

        That particular affidavit aside, if people in authority were planting such to avoid their own criminality then that is where some of the focus should be, not on those who have been fighting to have that slur removed.

        Regardless of what you or I or anyone else thinks about the individual concerned he now has proof of the fabrication and that it’s use by certain people was intended to intimidate him.

        Perhaps take the blinkers off and maybe you’ll understand that fighting such matters doesn’t just affect him but could affect anyone who dared to speak out in order to potentially silence them or indeed as “tdf” indicated possibly used as an inducement to get them to make false allegations. Cut through the blinkered views and what appears to have happened is a series of events designed to discredit someone who MAY know a lot more than certain individuals want known.

        Whether his own behaviour then and now is particularly acceptable to you or others is a different matter and the article shouldn’t be used as a weapon to “beat him up” is the point. Especially as it has been withdrawn from the Observer archive and damages paid for it’s misuse and the data breach which followed. Once you understand how difficult it is to get to that removal point maybe you’ll have a better understanding of all of this.

        I wish you no harm, but I really do think having a fixed or very blinkered view on all of this isn’t really helpful in the wider sense of justice for genuine survivors/victims of abuse and is that sort of view that has caused so much friction in the past.

      • “P.S. The statement made about a professional journalist asking people to lie is libellous. Ironic, eh?”

        Bandini, Angus Stickler was a prime mover behind the 2012 “Lord McAlpine is a paedo” libel, so I’m not sure that he has much of reputation to defend.

        I can’t disagree with the rest of your post.

      • TDF, I think he has rather more reputation to defend than the person making the accusation, particularly bearing in mind his occupation of Global Head of News & Media at Amnesty International!

        RTE, the only person droning on about an “affidavit” is yourself! Your ridiculous pseudo-quasi-legalese is truly laughable: an affidavit is a bit of paper with a signature on, nothing more.

        “Proven false at a legally acceptable level.”

        Ho ho ho! You mean the dog wasn’t real?!?

        And you have my permission to wish me as much harm as you wish:

      • Bandini, no an affidavit isn’t just that until it’s examined very closely, like is the signature the person who is meant to be signing it, it is dated, is it witnessed etc. All these are requirements to make an affidavit a legally binding document, except in the instance that has been referred to those weren’t in place. Thus it’s not a legally binding document to the person who it was claimed to have been written by.

        If you want to believe something different, that’s up to you. But please don’t foist your beliefs above the facts it’s really not helpful.

        No-one mentioned a dog or are you attempting to now falsely allege some other criminal behaviour too? That would be very stupid in my opinion to do so.

        As for the Anna Racoon comment, you’ve seemingly failed to acknowledge that the whole business surrounding the implications towards the person being talked about in that comment were based on the falseness of certain documents. Thus his credibility as a witness was being totally undermined and people were using such fake documents to do so. What people on Anna Raccoon’s blog were saying therefore was only based on what was known at that time and not what is now known. Your point therefore is moot.

        Like I said, I wish you no personal harm in attempting to reason this with you, I’m merely saying that you’ve likely based your opinions on falsehoods and have been so blinkered in doing so that you’re failed to even consider that you MAY be wrong. All the best.

      • *is it dated

      • I was referring to his dog which appears in the article (“Did this fabrication extend to the photograph of the interviewee with his little dog? An early photoshop job?!?”) in a photograph provided by the person who has variously claimed that:

        – he wasn’t interviewed
        – he was misquoted in the interview he did/didn’t give
        – the Massive Conspiracy time-travelled into the future to steal police notes from an interview he wouldn’t give them until after the article was published and then zip back to slip them into the oh I really can’t be bothered…

        “Like I said, I wish you no personal harm in attempting to reason this with you…”

        You are not reasoning but brazenly lying. I hope it’s clear that I have absolutely no respect for you or your ilk of Winston Smith wannabes – total and utter frauds. Whatever next? Claiming that the desperate dolt didn’t really say that Ted Heath was a child rapist? In Jersey no less!! What a pathetic bunch of absolute hypocrites!!!


        For anyone tired of reading this psych-ward nonsense I’d recommend this: “From ‘alternative facts’ to rewriting history in Trump’s White House”

        It finishes thusly:

        “And so to the final thing. Donald Trump was speaking at a rally in Kansas City. And he came out with a memorable phrase that sounded as though it had been lifted straight from George Orwell’s dystopian novel, 1984. He said: “Just remember, what you are seeing and what you are reading is not what’s happening.”

        Or it is. There is just a concerted – and sometimes it would seem – systematic effort to make you think otherwise.

        Forget alternative facts. This is rewriting history.”

        Indeed. And it will be resisted.

      • Strange isn’t it Bandini that when anyone questions your version of events you call them liars immediately.

        You seem to be claiming you know more about someone’s life then they do. That’s simply egotistical and quite frankly utterly diminishes any point you’re trying to make.

        We’re done attempting to discuss things properly as you’ve clearly turned this into something personal now.

        Quite pathetically so too. Your obsession with DL is very revealing tbh I now hope he sues your ass too. It would imho be deserved.

      • Let the affidavits flow!

      • “particularly bearing in mind his occupation of Global Head of News & Media at Amnesty International!”

        which doesn’t put him, or Amnesty, above criticism, notwithstanding the excellent work they do defending human rights globally. The Irish branch of Amnesty was recently upbraided by the Standards in Public Office Commission:


        Its head Colm O’Gorman, has had a high public profile for quite a few years’ now. Incidentally, he originally came to public prominence as founder of an organisation called ‘One-in-Four’. Remind you of anything? Yes, you guessed right. One-in-Four is a campaigning organisation for survivors of child sexual abuse. It is so named due to its (in my view, dubious) belief that one in four adults are survivors of child sexual abuse. (You will recall a certain Mr Wilmer whose belief is that a mere one in eight are thus victimised).


      • Also off-topic but as it was in the Irish media recently:


        Read the full article to see probable cause of this lady’s. I have turned sceptical on allegations of a large scale VIP abuse network, after admittedly having been taking the koolaid during 2012-2015, but that does not mean I am unsympathetic to genuine victims – far from it.

  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?

    • The Cliff Richard vs BBC court judgment refers to a certain Miss Carrie Goodwin, as of 2014 media officer with South Yorkshire Police. Could be a coincidence but thought I’d mention it.

      • Yes that was noted elsewhere. also if you read carefully around point 194 there’s the mention of a certain “investigator” by name.

        “Goodwin’s, Goodwin’s everywhere!”

        It’s like a Buzz Lightyear nightmare

      • ^ guess I’m slow on the uptake tonight, not quite sure what investigator you refer to? From reading the document, I just get the sense that the police, or at least SYP, are far too media and PR-driven.

      • MWT

      • ^ ah sorry yes. was a bit slow on the uptake there.

      • There seems to have been a real actual establishment conspiracy to protect Bishop Ball, according to Sean O’Neill at the Times (hardly a Marxist establishment-hating newspaper. ) If you do not have a sub you can sign up for a free account allowing you to read two free articles per week:


      • The Ball case is one of those instances where, imo, someone has taken their position of trust, abused it, conned a lot of gullible people who trusted him too.

        Those individuals (some very famous) obviously were blinded by his stories and the fact that he was in such a position of trust.

        Whilst not excusing Ball’s abusive behaviour, those individuals he conned or lulled into a false sense of belief were also his victims in a way. They were also used by him to cover his tracks. Their correspondence therefore also reveals that he was being highly manipulative. Exactly like a typical offender. I actually feel sorry for some of them, others I would question whether their judgement needs a head wobble.

        In another way, believing his version of events is no different in principle to the police blindly believing false allegations of abuse, they too were conned by liars and fakes.

        The sad part about the Ball case and many other genuine cases of abuse is that they were overlooked for too long because of that element of trust and belief, however once the floodgates opened after Savile some of that was lost for a while whilst the media and public were obsessed with “VIP abuse”.

        It’s precisely why belief and trust should never gazump investigations and evidence, each reported case has to be taken seriously and investigated thoroughly and impartially.

        The major questions lie imo with the CofE and why it was so willing to turn a blind eye, everything else was just a form of window dressing and sadly that window dressing perhaps going to be more of the focus for some in the media than the actual crimes committed.

      • @RTE

        Yes I think that is a fair assessment. The Church of England seems to have had people in powerful positions prepared to turn a blind eye to its failings, similar to the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland.

      • Yeah tdf, it seems that as part and parcel of this offending and his need to cover-up as O’Neill notes in the article, he was positioning himself so that he had “powerful” individuals who didn’t see his dark side because he didn’t want them to. So whether the cover-up was organised by them or organised by him quite cleverly is an open question.

        Let’s face it if some people back in the 80s and 90s had accused a well-known Bishop (and one seemingly well respected in his non-offending activities) of offences how many would have actually have believed it was really true? It’s therefore little wonder that so many were taken in by him.

        The odd bit of that article was the reference to Ball’s 1960s form of religion and sounded like something straight out of the Da Vinci Code’s Opus Dei.

        I think the lesson from this is that power corrupts but that it can also be used to corrupt power and cover-up offences.

      • “Let’s face it if some people back in the 80s and 90s had accused a well-known Bishop (and one seemingly well respected in his non-offending activities) of offences how many would have actually have believed it was really true? It’s therefore little wonder that so many were taken in by him. ”

        I think this is very true, and also your reference to the well-known quote about “all power corrupting, absolute power corrupting absolutely” is spot on.
        Similarly, in Ireland, in the early 90s, the Bishop Casey ‘scandal’ was at the time, viewed as a massive scandal. Casey was basically a philanderer who enjoyed high living, but he certainly was never accused of child abuse, or for that matter anything abusive against adults.


      • I would guess Ball was probably on the traditionalist wing of the Church of England – anti-gay marriage, and not all that keen on women vicars, so particularly hypocritical, given what he was up to.

        As for Opus Dei, they were most definitely active in Irish universities as recently as the 1990s. I can testify to this, because two Opus Dei members were in my college class (to put it in perspective, it was a class of 300, so they weren’t a huge %) and they tried to recruit me. I didn’t exactly bite – at the time, I was still a practising Catholic, but I was always resistant to that particular brand of what I would view as Catholic traditionalist extremism.

      • Yes, again the anti-gay matter was also likely to see him avoid detection because “officially” he was endorsing such a viewpoint but clearly acting differently privately. So that would also cause his “friends” to give weight to the rumours and allegations being untrue.

        Re Opus Dei, I realize the depiction in Dan Brown’s novel(s) is perhaps a little extreme but the specific reference to naked prayer and flagellation was the one that struck me in O’Neill’s report. It was also straight out of the pages of Da Vinci Code. However if both extreme ends of the churches CofE and Catholics are expressing their views in such extreme and similar ways then perhaps there is also a wider potential for further issues surrounding such.

        The self flagellation would appear to be penance for crimes or sins, if so then it may be indicative of others who practice such having some potential offences to hide.

      • I’ve never actually read Dan Brown’s books,
        but based on what I’ve read and heard about them your assessment that they are exaggerated versions of real truths strikes me as reasonable.

        The Opus Dei people I encountered at university were….strange in a way that’s difficult to describe. If you met them by chance, you’d think they were average, normal people.

        Of the two, one seemed to be more extreme than the other and when I mentioned in conversation an article from the Catholic Herald that I’d read (simply because my late father used to buy the Catholic Herald on-and-off), he immediately reacted with a comment along the lines of “Oh, everyone knows the Catholic Herald are just a bunch of fake Catholics”.

        Another thing that was odd is that both were living in an Opus Dei residence while at college, even though their parents’ homes were literally only a few miles up the road. (I should mention that in Dublin, most young people don’t leave home until after graduating from college, simply for economic reasons, unless they get on so badly with their parents that they simply have to.)

  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.

    • Current edition of Private Eye gives new Exaro and Baker a little bit of a roasting.

      • Any chance of a secret preview?

      • Incidentally although it includes a brief ‘Criticisms’ paragraph, the current Wikipedia page on Exaro is mostly extremely friendly to it. I have an account there, and when I get around to it will do some edits to make it more objective.

      • Don’t forget to include the new owner’s info. :-)

    • It’s not a secret, it’s already online. Seek and ye shall find, it’s the CURRENT copy on the shelves.

    • @RTE.

      I must compliment you on your recent blogpost re the Peter Ball scandal which I think is, well, on-the-ball.

      And again a parallel with the Irish situation springs to mind – an early accuser/whistleblower in relation to Catholic Church abusers facilitated by the Irish state burned himself to death in London. He had become depressed because he believed that few believed his allegations.

  7. Barbados? Bermuda? Can you point out the relevant extradition treaty on this list?


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.