Ted Heath police investigation

Following the news that a police investigation into the late Sir Edward Heath has found that some seven cases of sexual offences out of 1580 might merit taking him in for questioning, I have a few more people to add to their list of “persons of interest”.

Top of the list is Emperor Caligula. By all acounts an evil guy! Although he has been dead for 1976 years I’m sure his alleged victims will get justice if police investigations get enough believable witnesses. A very sound use of limited police resources.
Next, Atilla the Hun. Alleged to have been responsible for many heneous crimes. Well worth talking to some witnesses with a view to bringing him to justice.
Andrew Borden (Lizzie’s dad). Alleged to have sexually abused his daughter. Unfortunately he is also dead (in 1892) but perhaps he can be dug up to attend court.
Thomas Hopley. Although convicted of the manslaughter of a 15 year old boy in 1860 I’m sure that if the police dig deep enough they might find that he could have possibly had paedophile tendances. He might fail to turn up at the police station as he was
Frederic Baker, convicted of killing a 7 year old girl in 1867. If police look harder they might find that he may have done more. They can always accuse him of more or they might just find “sweet Fanny Adams”.
Or they can just pick any now dead celebrity, publish any wild accusation against them, needlessly destroy their surviving family’s reputation, all at considerable cost & detriment to the taxpayer.
What is the point??? They cannot be punished or even defend themselves. Such investigations benefit no-one (unless the alleged victims get a cash payment).
None of these dead people are going to re-offend!


The whole business strikes me as a police force inventing more nonsense to draw attention away from the colossal waste of money and police time that Operation Conifer has become. Very useful that you can’t libel the dead isn’t it?

1 Like

The media is convinced that there was a paedophile ring in Westminster in the 60’s,70’s and 80’s so the police have no choice but to investigate.

so its the “media” who are in charge ???

All forms of media have a massive influence on our day to day lives, the problem is most people don’t even realise.

Unfortunately it was the lying politicos through the media who influenced the Brexit vote

1 Like

I think we should be told the truth about the Princes in the Tower. I can say I met Ted Heath twice, both times in the bar foyer at the Grand Hotel at Brighton during the late 1970s. Willie Whitelaw was there too, along with other senior Tories and gentlemen of the press. I met Christine Keeler as well, but not in the same place. Nothing untoward took place on any of those occasions. Tom Driberg was an old boy of my school, but I never met him. James Morris was another old boy but he became a girl. I knew one of the Richardson gang. I have not been interviewed by the police. Life is very dull now.


We have had the cases against others found to be false.
The Met have paid out damages and poor Leon Brittain died before they told his widow they were not proceeding.
Paul Gambuccini was hounded out of the BBC.
Even Wiltshire Police found that there were many spurious allegations and could only find six who were clever enough to make a case for Sir Edward to be interviewed. By Madam Arcati presumably!
If I lived in Wiltshire I would be writing to my MP complaining of a waste of tax-payer’s money.
Will these attention seekers never stop their hounding of innocent people?
Accusers are allowed anonymity but not the accused. Time both were treated equally.

1 Like

The first wider issue here, and it applies to all investigations, is the reliability of the human memory. I witnessed an event. I neither benefited nor was injured by that event. Thirty years on one of the parties affected by the event had completely reversed their perception. Black was now white and white was black. Insurance companies encourage those involved in car incidents to record their perceptions within 15 minutes of the incident. Why, because “guilt” quickly steps in to “predudice” the objectivity of memory of what occurred. As the driver I witnessed an accident on a Spanish motorway. I was immediately behind a white car (at least three - four car lengths, maintaining the same speed - around 90Km/h) I was aware from my mirror that a black car behind me in the lane to my left and travelling faster than I was signalling to move to the right i.e. the lane I was in (and possibly to the right again because there was a junction coming up ) The next thing I knew was that the white car involuntary crossed into the lane to my right, hit the concrete barrier and spun round 180 degrees to face the other direction. The distance between myself and the white car enable me to avoid getting involved in a multiple pile up, only the white and black car were involved. I assumed that the black had hit the white. In the instance I was watching the black car in my mirror my wife said the white car had started to move into the lane to the left. My point being two observers, at the same time but differing viewpoints had two critically significantly different observations of the one event, and again neither of us benefited or was injured by the event. How does the human memory perform when we do benefit or are injured, particularly when the participation is second hand. How does the media portray the emotions of remaining family members when there is an event of human tragedy. How do emotions harden / soften with the passage of time. How much reliability can be placed on the recollections some twenty, thirty perhaps even fourty plus years in the case of a nazi war criminal on the recollections of witnesses / observers.
The second general point is what is the purpose of the investigation? Learn from the past and enact changes in the system to reduce the possibility of reoccurrence? Apply justice? Seek retribution. Sell media? Enable “whistle blowers” to present their evidenced report in safety? Others must have known about Jimmy Saville, Weinstein and other abusers, why did they keep silent for so long? This year a politician was rebuked for “political incorrectness” when drawing greater attention to abusers. She had evidence. Surely, she was fulfilling responsibilities as a “public servant” to make more of the vulnerable aware of the dangers. Only this morning the UK government annouced planned measures to make the internet safer. My own experience is that secrecy is imposed to save embarassement rather than provide information that if “known” to enemies (if we totally believe the media then North Korea knows what I am going to have for breakfast tomorrow) that will escalate security risks.
I have made the point before. The public must demand more accountability, and demand it now rather than decades later when the accused cannot defend themselves and memories are unreliable.

Hello John
I agree with much of what you are saying but there is something I would like to comment on, the reliability of the recollections of those involved in an ‘incident’ maybe twenty years + on. Without going into all the details my parents were involved in a terrible life changing road traffic accident 25 years ago. My mother (unhappily) can still recall every single thing about it including the vehicules, names of people involved, witnesses and other very stressful details. I think that in her case, and I suppose many others, the awful impact of that day has been ‘burned’ into her memory and time has not changed it. So the human memory of someone injured can retain reliable details. However I am not sure that a witness would retain the same memory being as it were not so personally affected. On a lighter note, as for witnesses I would not make a good one finding it difficult to even describe the features of friends and family !