via Enza Ferreri
Lord Bramall, a UK former armed forces chief dubbed a "war hero", has launched a serious attack
against London's Metropolitan Police Service (Met for short, aka
Scotland Yard) for "failing to speak to witnesses who cast doubt on the
claims made 10 months earlier by an alleged abuse victim called Nick".
Almost a year ago the 92-year-old was accused by a single witness, a man
in his 40s known as "Nick", who alleged that he had been abused as a
boy by a powerful "VIP paedophile ring" (as it came to be called), which
included Lord Bramall, former (and late) UK prime minister Ted Heath
and the late former Tory MP Harvey Proctor. Among the accusations was
that he had raped and tortured young boys in the 1970s.
Bramall was immediately subjected to a heavy-handed police investigation
which included a 10-hour raid on his home in Surrey, in the south-east
of England. Among other things, Lord Bramall aims to challenge the
legality of the search warrant on his property, questioning if the
police followed the letter of the law in obtaining the warrant.
The former army chief has always denied
the allegations, saying: "I know I have only had sex with someone other
than my own sex" and calling any suggestion he was involved in child
abuse "absolutely a load of rubbish."
The D-Day veteran criticised a senior police officer named Detective
Superintendent Kenny McDonald for having appealed for boys who might
have been abused to come forward, adding that, if people who had been
abused came forward, "we will believe you". Lord Bramall correctly
commented that it was not the police's role to accept allegations as
true, but the prosecutors' task to prove them.
"We will believe you" seems to me a remark more suitable to a counsellor
or psychotherapist than to a policeman. Empathy is required from the
former, investigation from the latter. What happened to innocent until
The claims against Lord Bramall were part of "Nick"'s allegations, under
investigation by the Met, of having been abused by prominent men in the
military, politics and law enforcement.
Despite what Det Supt McDonald said, that the police regarded the
allegations as "credible and true", Bramall has recently been told that
he faces no further action as "following a thorough investigation
officers have concluded there is insufficient evidence to charge him with any offence.
Yesterday the ex-director of public prosecutions Lord Kenneth Macdonald
(not to be confused with the officer MacDonald quoted above) criticised
the new police stance of “we believe the victim”, adding that it could
lead to miscarriages of justice and that police had got the balance
wrong. He said officers risked being “manipulated by fantasists”.
In an interview with Radio 4’s Today programme he commented: “The worst
miscarriages of justice I have seen have resulted from blinkered
investigations in which police have believed a theory at the start of
the case and gone on to try to prove that theory. We need the police to
conduct impartial, objective and professional investigations.”
This is at the end of about a year in which the peer had to live under
suspicion of one the most despised crimes. Isn't a man whose reputation
has been damaged a victim too? Quite unprecedented, even the Queen
expressed her support for the ex army-chief.
The investigating detectives failed their duty when they did not
interview key witnesses for 11 months and did not check some of the
case's most basic facts for over 5 months.
A lot can be said about this, which is unfortunately similar to many other cases.
But I want to trace it back to where it all started on a big scale: this
modern form of persecution dates back to the time when the mostly
Left-wing mainstream media had a field day with the so-called "Catholic
Church abuse scandal".
Just to see how politically self-serving in order to settle old scores
with ideological enemies the furore was, and how absolutely nothing this
fake self-righteousness had to do with concern about children, one has
to observe the total silence and absence of outrage at the allegations
of abuse by politicians and entertainment industry members (or anybody
unconnected with the Church) of those professional anti-Christians like
Richard Dawkins and Peter Tatchell
who so vociferously, venomously and unjustifiably called for the arrest
of Pope Benedict XVI when he visited Britain in 2010 (see picture
For some reason, sexual offences have such a powerful emotional impact
that, unlike criminal claims of other nature (like robbery or
embezzlement), whenever accusations of sexual misconduct are made there
is a presumption of guilt, when in fact there should always be - both
legally and morally - a presumption of innocence until proof of guilt is
The onus of the proof is on the accuser.
From the mere claim of an accuser (who may have all kinds of motivations
and personal problems) to the evidence of guilt there is a vast
distance, similar to that between saying and doing, speculating and
demonstrating, fantasy and reality.
The so-called "sex abuse scandal" of the Church has been largely a
political campaign by the mainstream media, whose journalists are mostly
on the far-Left, anti-clerical and atheists with a vengeance. There
were plenty of episodes of false and misleading headlines which were
plainly contradicted by the article below, if anyone bothered to read
The fact that the Church in many cases chose out-of-court settlements
was seen as an admission of guilt instead of, as it should have been
seen, as a sign of the Church's desire not to be dragged into a shameful
headline war by a hostile media establishment, which thrived on court
Since then, some people have realised that making allegations of sexual
abuse (no matter how well or, rather, badly founded) was a way to win
money infinitely more reliable than by buying a lottery ticket.
And so the ball of paedophilia or rape charges against men in the public sphere, preferably rich and famous, have kept rolling.
The historic abuse charges are the best because, in the absence of
physical evidence after decades, mere acquaintance with a celebrity or
politician may be enough to jump on the bandwagon, or even better the