• First published in 2004 as Bartholomew’s Notes on Religion (BNOR).

    Previously at:
    blogs.salon.com/0003494
    barthsnotes.wordpress.com

    Email me
    (Non-commercial only)

  • Archives

  • Twitter

  • Supporting

  • Recent comments

“VIP Sex Abuse” Conspiracy Theorists Assimilate Carl Beech Conviction

From the Irish “political and cultural magazine” Village:

Over the last three years Village has been warning that Nick [= Carl Beech] was probably a cog in a devious plot by the remnants of a VIP abuse network to distract the public from their repulsive  crimes by getting puppets like him to make  absurd claims that were so utterly irrational no one would believe them and thereby taint genuine VIP sex abuse survivors with the same brush… Already there is a renewed attempt to salvage the reputation of the former Tory PM, Ted Heath. This despite the careful, considered and credible report by the Wiltshire Police concerning the abuse of boys perpetrated by Heath.

This is one typical example of how the conspiracy milieu is attempting to assimilate the news of Carl Beech’s convictions for perverting the course of justice, fraud, possessing child abuse images and covertly filming a teenage boy urinating. In this version, Beech was either wittingly or unwittingly a “false flag”, although some voices on social media prefer to suggest that he was in fact telling the truth and has now been brought down by sinister forces. The Village contrasts Beech with Richard Kerr, who is supported by the site despite the fact that he was in prison in Northern Ireland at a time when he says he had been trafficked to London (I previously wrote about Kerr and the Village here).

A similar view has been endorsed by Richie Allen, a podcast host associated with David Icke who has a constant stream of conspiracy theorists and accusers on his show; thus on Twitter, Allen has praised and RTed Vicky Haigh’s (previously blogged here) assessment that

I can’t believe intelligent English people can believe this case wasn’t rigged to cover the deep dark paedophile ring that rules GB!!

One of Haigh’s online interlocutors is of the view that an “agent of the political Zionist elites” was involved. Allen also used Twitter to goad Daniel Janner, son of Greville Janner, over Janner’s view that the case was a vindication of his late father (1).

Meanwhile, media trainer Anna Brees says that she has accepted an invitation to talk about the case on (the Kremlin-backed) TV station RT, writing:

I’ll be happy to talk about the Westminster paedophile ring and the way the BBC have reported the #nicktrial #CarlBeech wondering why they haven’t spoken to victims and witnesses of Ted Heath like @MikeTarraga and @reeves3915.

The answer to this question of course is that the Edward Heath allegations have been flogged to death – the “careful, considered and credible report” as praised by the Village was unable to substantiate anything, and the allegations that received most attention have collapsed under scrutiny. The two men Brees cites similarly have given problematic accounts (more on Tarraga here and Reeves here). (2)

Meanwhile, there is also interest in a statement that Mark Watts uploaded at the end of Beech’s trial, which refers to details that he claims the media are “studiously trying to ignore”. He discusses these further on his FOIA Centre website, in particular complaining that the jury was not told about objects discovered during the raid on Proctor’s property. These details were excluded from the trial after the judge ruled that (as quoted on Watts’s website – edits in his version)

The issues in the case are those identified… [by the prosecution] above. The evidence of an interest in consensual sexual activity with young men, including the acting out of a fantasy of schoolboy punishment by a headmaster by beating is an interest and behaviour that is very far removed from the issues in this trial and has no substantial probative value in relation to any of them.

It is distasteful and intrusive to have to refer private items that have been seized by the police but then returned to their owner – and it would be foolish to take Watts’s descriptions at face value, given his remarkable ability to distort and insinuate. I therefore decline to go into much detail. In summary, though, Watts is unhappy that Beech’s trial did not become some sort of proxy trial of Proctor instead. This is grasping at straws – clearly, the police who investigated the matter did not regard these objects as evidence of a crime, or else they would have arrested him, and there is no reason to suppose that they undermine the case against Beech.

Proctor’s trial and conviction in 1987 on indecency charges were heavily publicised at the time, and his distinctive name has meant that those events have remained in the public consciousness as a bit of bawdy trivia ever since. That is sufficient explanation for why Beech chose to accuse him, although his knowledge was so limited that he ludicrously placed Proctor – a Powellite who was part of a radical political fringe – within an “Establishment” that supposedly also included Edward Heath. (3)

Footnotes

(1) There are of course other Janner accusers, which I discussed here (scroll down to footnote).

(2) It should be noted that Brees’s public profile has grown in the recent months: a couple of weeks ago, her view that the BBC faked footage of a chemical attack in Syria featured in the left-wing Canary website, and a “Brees Media” video on sexual harassment was recently RTed by the anti-grooming activist Sammy Woodhouse. Also, on 3 July a Tweet by Brees promoting her Heath conspiracy (to which she added a “QAnon2019” hashtag) prompted UKIP leader Gerard Batten to ask: “This aside, why is it that no journalist or MSM organ has ever (to my knowledge) investigated the source of Heath’s enormous wealth?” Presumably Batten wants to promote the idea that Britain’s entry into the European Economic Community was due to Heath being bribed.

(3) Also among those accused by Beech was Lord Bramall, the retired head of the British army – it seems likely that Beech targeted him as an extension of his grudge against his violent one-time step-father Ray Beech, who was a military man. One of the “VIP abuse” conspiracy mongers close to Watts (a man I previously discussed here) has recently made a great deal of a 2006 quote from Bramall, in which he stated that he was “very old friends” with Greville Janner and that they had “corresponded” since having an argument about Israel’s actions in Lebanon – Bramall had been asked to comment because of claims that he had assaulted Janner as part of their row.

However, Bramall more recently told the media that he only had “dealings” with Janner (I quote from memory), suggesting that they were not close, and it has now been reported that he told police he did not know him (as indirectly summarised by the prosecutor as summarised in turn by Watts). The most economical explanation for this apparent anomaly is that Bramall was acquainted with Janner as a colleague at the House of Lords, and that the “old friends” comment was an attempt to dampen the “assault” story and emphasise that civility between them had been restored.

22 Responses

  1. Credit where it’s due, the Villager’s writer is on-the-ball with this bit:

    “An array of gullible hacks in the British media initially lapped up the claims and splashed them all over the pages of their newspapers. They have now flipped and are in a frenzy of condemnation after his conviction on 22 July 2019 for deceit.”

    • Richard Hoskins article in the Mail today, while generally good, is simply incorrect here:

      “Carl Beech (pictured in March 2018) is the principle reason we have the vast – and I suspect ill-fated – Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse”

      The IICSA had been mooted/proposed by campaigners and politicians and approved by Teresa May months before Beech’s allegations were in the media. If he said if it wasn’t for the Elm Guest House hoax, there wouldn’t be an IICSA, he might have a point.

      https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7293507/Expert-told-police-Carl-Beechs-evidence-ludicrous-blames-psychotherapists.html

      • What are we looking at here? Yet another whitewash and example for anyone foolish enough to take on the system!

        An 18 year sentence for this is quite some deterrent for any potential David out there wishing for a scrap with Goliath.

      • ^ the above comment was not from me.

      • I raised that point on Twitter with Hoskins, Real TDF. No response.
        An innocent mistake from the expert in his piece about the “manipulative liar”, do you think?
        https://mobile.twitter.com/BlogBandini/status/1155442445053767680

      • I don’t know, but the current media narrative seems to be “no VIP paedos except SAVILE, he was the only one” (and, yes, I personally now believe Savile was neither VIP nor paedo, I’m talking about the media narrative).

      • Savile wasn’t a VIP? Why did he spend Christmases at Chequers and have his own key to Broadmoor?

      • He didn’t spend Christmas at Chequers. Just Jimmy bullshitting & a media that loves repeating a great tale even if it’s not true.

        The key? That was to keep people who believe that he spent Christmas at Chequers safely locked up & away from the rest of us. Then he died, and now look at us…

      • I can’t prove whether it was Christmas, New Year or Ramadan but what do you say to the substance of this article?

        https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/dec/28/jimmy-savile-access-margaret-thatcher

      • The government was rather cheekily taking advantage of Jimmy Savile’s fundraising efforts to have a hospital built on the cheap. It worked. There are many more documents available; it was quite a deliberate policy. It is unsurprising that he had dealings/meetings with Thatcher/others over the matter.

        I think when TDF suggested Savile ‘not a VIP’ he probably meant ‘not a member of the Establishment’. Obviously he was very famous & moved, at times, in those circles. But he has always an outsider & the absolute capitulation of the ‘real’ establishment when faced with a really poor quality documentary in 2012 is evidence of this. It could have been dismissed at the time as the rubbish it was.

  2. Real TDF, whilst the sentence the Mail published re Beech inspiring the IICSA may not be entirely accurate it is fair to reflect that Beech’s allegations escalated the need for the IICSA to be formed. Have to remember the timing of the original reports and when Beech met with Watson, Conrad and McKelvie.

    That meeting happened on 8th July 2014 the same day as a rather leading article appeared in the Express about there being a paedophile ring in parliament involving military figures too.4 days later Beech’s claims appeared on Exaro.Conrad, Watson, Conrad and McKelvie were clearly ramping pressure up and May’s announcement of the IICSA was only the day before that meeting on the 8th, but those three clearly knew about Beech’s allegations some time before that in order to have arranged the meeting in the first place.

    It’s also known that Watson was working for 2 years prior to that point with a “cross party group” involving McKelvie and several MPs and possibly even Beech and others in the false allegations “industry”. Watson has never fessed up to the purpose of that group, it’s membership nor whether it’s meetings were minuted. Given that he has claimed it involved MPs paid out of the public purse, now is the time for that group to have some public scrutiny.

    For all the genuine victims of CSA out there, there was always going to be fakes amongst them, however the likes of Watson etc should’ve known better, more importantly so should the Met who couldn’t even do the basics of getting a medical examination of an accuser claiming to have suffered serious physical injuries over a sustained period of time prior to launching in with arrests and/or searches of properties.

    • There are no military figures – though the rest of the pieces are in place – in this from McKelvie/Express 8th July 2014: https://web.archive.org/web/20140708140125/https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/487486/Child-sexual-abuse-victims-treated-like-lumps-of-meat

      Here’s NAPAC’s Pete Saunders appearing on PressTV in a video found by Moor Larkin (and obviously speaking about Beech) the day after, 9th July 2014: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMi11IxdxMk

      And back to McKelvie/Express the following day when the military have turned up at last, 10th July 2014: https://web.archive.org/web/20190730194224/https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/487875/British-Armed-Forces-90-paedophile-Military-Freedom-of-information-Arrest/amp

    • This “may not be entirely accurate” either:

      “Mr Watson is also shirking responsibility. He raised Beech’s allegations in the House of Commons in 2012.”

      From The Times.
      https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-times-view-on-the-metropolitan-police-and-operation-midland-moral-panic-899w9wl6d

      • And where in my comment do I say that [your most recent comment] re Watson?

        Perhaps replying to the right thread would be a good start Bandini.

        McKelvie might not have spelt out military in specific terms but the hints were there and it was then made clear in the other reports around that time as you point out.

        It was a clear set of trailered reports as part of a propaganda campaign is perhaps the point I was trying, and obviously failing in one respect, to make.

        The issue with Saunders however is a worry in that he and NAPAC have been in complete denial since the verdicts on Saunders and NAPAC’s involvement with Beech and how much they knew and assisted him in appearing on “Crimes That Shook Britain”. Saunders appearing on the same programme btw, and also a plug at the end of it for anyone affected to contact… NAPAC.

        September 2013, NAPAC website is quite revealing on it’s Appeals page too. Seems NAPAC were acting as media agents for a time. Wonder who gave them that authorisation? Could it possibly be Saunders.

        I think Saunders needs to resign from his post at NAPAC for them to gain any sense of their role in all of this with Beech. They clearly enabled him in some form but want to rewrite history in the same way Mike Peirce at Southmead is claiming he was duped when he was very clearly and repeatedly warned that Carl was a wrong ‘un. Not just warned by one person either.

      • ” McKelvie might not have spelt out military in specific terms but the hints were there and it was then made clear in the other reports around that time as you point out. ”

        No, that is completely incorrect. You are conflating. The parliamentary question in October 2012 was prompted by McKelvie’s concerns around Peter Righton and Charlies Napier. The reference to Number 10 in the PQ was unwise as there is no evidence Napier’s half-brother John Whittingdale, a previous political secretary to Margaret Thatcher, was in any way involved in or approved of Napier’s activities.

      • I replied beneath the correct thread, RTE. I was drawing a parallel between the Times’ inaccurate statement & the similarly inaccurate statement by Hoskins. And I was making the point that there are those who’ll bend over backwards to distort the truth & pretend it isn’t so.

        Re the Express piece, I wasn’t criticising you over the military connection as there may have been another article that same day for all I know; the connection appeared two days later anyway.

        The 8th July 2014 McKelvie/Express piece seems to be based on something from the BBC rather than an original interview. This may be telling as although McKelvie did appear on BBC prior to this date I wasn’t able to find anything that bears much resemblance to the Express claims. This might suggest that either McKelvie DID provide material to Express or that unused BBC claims/material was used by the Express.

        (As an aside I’ve been asking Don Hale to confirm that the BBC were not involved in a piece of his; he hasn’t yet responded: https://mobile.twitter.com/BlogBandini/status/1154156764562100225 )

  3. tdf, I was referring to McKelvie media items in 2014. This isn’t about Watson in 2012 and it’s Bandini who has thrown that into the mix not me. I made NO mention of 2012 in above comment.

    • Ok, apologies. But Bandini was finding fault with a recent article in the Times which mentions Watson’s 2012 PQ. They appear to believe it was prompted by Beech, it wasn’t.

    • I’d seen the headline but hadn’t read the story & you’re absolutely correct: ‘campaigner’ with particular interest in Grafton/Elm.

      A stupid thing to have done but a bit sick of seeing it stated that it “should result in immediate custodial sentences ‘save in exceptional circumstances'” only to see others get away with it while the “rather sad and lonely individual” is banged up.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

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