Commenters on this blog directly caused the exposure of Clement Freud in the ITV story. I published an anodyne obituary in 2009 giving my memories of Freud. One commenter wrote:
He was a notorious old goat and his pursuit of young women could verge on the sinister. I met one of his young ‘victims’ who told me about a job interview with him turning into a very traumatic experience.
And a second wrote the startling
Writing as one of his 1000s of sexual ‘victims’,
still surviving, terrified as I write for fear he is not yet quite yet dead – the man was an evil, conniving,
ruthless user for his own bottomless ego of all he came into contact with.
Our children – boys and girls are all that much safer for his demise.
And that is just the tip of an iceberg of political and media dirty dealings that reaches into the heart of the broken Britain he has left behind him.
His family will now, unfortunately, reap the rage and revenge of those he destroyed and their much needed justice for his many heinous – still untold – actions.
Six years later I was contacted by a journalist working for ITV who had leads on Freud and looking for more evidence. He had dug up those comments on my blog. Using the magic of the internet, I was able to trace the last commenter and put them in touch, with their permission, with the ITV team.
I also told them an anecdote I myself recalled. I was a young First Year Rep on Dundee University Students Association Council while Clement Freud was Rector. One day the then President of the Students Association, Ian Morris, came out of his office in a terrible mood after a phone call from Freud, saying that Freud had asked him to line up female students for him and was trying to use him as “a pimp”. This was not paedophilia but it was unpleasant – Freud was 35 years older than the students he was targeting.
It then all went quiet for a year before ITV contacted me this morning to tell me the story was running.
It is hard to know what to make of Freud owning a holiday villa close to where Madeleine McCann disappeared. Clement was apparently not in Portugal at the time. When you add in the fact that the McCanns’ sleazy “spokesman”, Clarence Mitchell, works for Freud’s son Matthew, the coincidences do add up. I am not jumping to any conclusions at present. But I found the following fascinating.
Clement Freud assured Kate McCann she had nothing to fear from the cadaver dogs giving a positive response inside the McCann’s hire car, hired after Madeleine “disappeared”. They had no evidential value. “So what are they going to do? One bark for yes, two barks for no?” asked Freud.
“magic of the internet” surely should be “investigatory powers”
When they’re barking and wagging their tail at the same time, how do you know which end to believe?
“When they’re barking and wagging their tail at the same time, how do you know which end to believe?”
And it’s even worse with dogs.
Justice delayed is justice postponed, not altogether denied. Far better than no justice at all.
Even if the “perp” is dead, at least it will give others pause for thought – their reputation will catch up with them, and their names (like Savile) will eventually give the legacy that person deserves. Simply getting away with it for now will not be good enough, and the shame of those that covered up for them will live on too.
That deterrent effect is what makes action like this worthwhile.
Very much agree with that, Glenn.
Always subject to a rigorous examination of the accusations by qualified people (that is a general comment).
I found this comment here in the Daily Mail odd in the extreme, “He invited the McCanns round, teasing Kate about whether she was a nymphomaniac” Yet McCann praise him in their book? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3641755/Clement-Freud-child-abuser-Former-Liberal-MP-molested-girls-young-10-TV-documentary-reveals-two-victims-tell-pain.html#ixzz4Bau5DRKD This was in the aftermath of their child disappearing? What strange people surrounded this child.
I note from the linked Telegraph article that he discovered Rolf Harris as well.
Personally, I have no problem believing that the entertainment business is pretty sordid through and through. I did hospital radio for a short time when young and that was enough for me. If that was a microcosm of the grown-up world of professional entertainment then I wanted nothing to do with it.
“The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, but stranger than we can imagine.”
While remaining sceptical of the wilder claims of a Westminster paedophile ring, the circumstantial evidence is certainly gathering. Freud, Janner, Smith…which oleaginous, social-climbing, self-promoting parliamentary personality will be next? And will they be conveniently dead?
Peter Morrison.
Or will Peter Hayman’s spectacular luck continue to outlive him?
My first question would be, was Clement Freud monitored by the security services and did they know about his crimes?
Secondly, to what extend did they cover up his dirty proclivities, i.e. not inform police of his victims?
How many more prominent paedophiles today can carry on in the knowledge that they are covered by powerful players? Those who think that a long winded inquiry and petty probing of the collaborators in this evil, again, hallo BBC, inadvertently or not, will bring the whole extent of these crimes to light think again.
Up to now cover ups and slow go, with plenty of long grass thrown in, have been the hall marks of all investigations.
The law has failed for a very long time to get to grips with these cliques and groups of criminals, amongst those who felt invincible.
He worked in the same office than Cyril Smith and must have know of his exploits, what information did they exchange, what premises and occasions did they share?
I expect more victims to come forward.
do all these ‘celebs’ have to die first before they are unmasked? and does this collaborative non action amount to as much guilt as the crime itself.
where are the lawyers explanations to this conundrum.
The beginning of your comment is very curious, Nevermind.
You kick off with questions about the security services.
Surely your first questions should be
1/. what is the extent of the allegations against Freud ( ie, people should be encouraged to come forward)?
2/. is Freud guilty of these alleged matters (ie, there should be a detailed, thorough official investigation)?
I suspect that putting questions about the security services at the head of the queue merely confirms that you – and many of your peers on here – care little for the victims of such sexual predators but care very much about using these sorts of activities/predators to have yet another go at the organs of the state.
We have to ask if paedophilia is promoted among parliamentarians to gain control over them? There are just too high a proportion of them being outed after their deaths to be coincidental.
Their secrets are hidden behind an elaborate, invisible cloak until they are dead and no longer required, although in some cases the cloak is maintained for a lot longer.
Regarding the case of Madeleine McCann the same cloak seems to have been put in place immediately, if not before, she disappeared. Whatever the cause of her disappearance, it seems that it was imperative that the public would never hear the truth of it.
There is no stronger bonding than shared sin. Add in the potential for blackmail, and one could quite see why a ‘Westminster paedophile ring’ might occur.
Might the Westminster horror of Jeremy Corbyn be to do with him not having done anything he needs to keep hidden? There is certainly a feeling that he is not ‘in the loop’, not trusted in a way that has nothing to do with his opinions or competence.
The Westminster horror of JC is completely down to that. I can’t speak about secret paedophile rings but even if it weren’t sexual proclivities it would be dodgy dealing with shady business types or weapons manufacturers – there’s always something – it seems Jeremy’s worst crime is to seek peace in the world which of course has made him “terrorist sympathiser” what ever that means. The thing is it’s not sticking.
Raed Salah is not in any way a peacemaker, he’s a virulent anti-Semite jailed for his activities. Blood libel bile and hatred doesn’t come very high on my list of peacemaking overtures.
Dim Jim’s attempt at guilt by association on JC has been addressed here, (note DJ’s misrepresentation by omissions, like the fact that Salah conviction in the UK was overturned);
https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/4-reasons-anti-semitism-attacks-jeremy-corbyn-are-dishonest
New Statesman article :
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2015/09/no-jeremy-corbyn-not-antisemitic-left-should-be-wary-who-he-calls-friends
Prof Alan Johnson ! LOL ! He from Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre (BICOM). !
Only a year ago I had the delicious joy of seeing Norman Finkelstein destroyed this ignorant puff-up propaganda suit !
He got such a whipping that he all he could do when he wrote about it, was insinuate “antisemtism” at FN ! 😀
@Dim Jim, It took some time but I’m sure you will agree it was worth, my little comment on “Prof” Alan Johnson v Finkelstein;
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2015/02/amnesty-international-conference-on-torture/comment-page-81/#comment-512350
😀
That implies that the whole of Westminster is ‘in on’ the secret paedophile cabal, and that their version of ‘trust’ is simply the blackmailing power they have over their fellow paedophile conspirators. Does that sound just a teeny bit unlikely?
On the contrary, Giyane.
Perhaps where we differ is here: I deplore paedophilia per se; others on here deplore it in order to land political (or in your case, religious) kicks.
Dim Jim; “Does that sound just a teeny bit unlikely?”
Not according to both these High-Level NSA & Home Office whistleblowers;
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/07/nsa-blackmailing-world.html
MI5 generally don’t have hundreds of their agents successfully standing as MP’s in order to entrap them and induce them to blackmail each other. It helps if you think things through first, before posting.
Dim Jim; “MI5 generally don’t have hundreds of their agents successfully standing as MP’s in order to entrap them and induce them to blackmail each other. It helps if you think things through first, before posting.”
Err ! Perhaps you should follow your own advise !
I think this bit of bizarre argumentation (drivel) should stand as a testament of exactly why Dim Jim is so aptly named ! 😀
Nope, philw’s original post and my reply to it was about Westminster politicians’ trust or lack of it in each other. Nothing to do with MI5. I simply pointed out to him that his post implied that his version of Parliamentarians ‘trust’ meant their lack of ability to blackmail Corbyn as he was out of their corrupt ‘loop’.
@Dim Jim, your incoherent nonsense is still meaningless drivel despite the context, but hey, that’s why you’re Dim Jim ! 😀
Oh dear Dim Jim you are still at it !
Hasn’t the penny dropped yet ? You have made a big diversionary song & dance by deliberately or dimly assuming that philw comments about JC being not ‘in the loop’, were just about all the ordinary MPs, whereas anybody who wasn’t exceptionally dim, would know that he wasn’t talking just about all the ordinary MPs, but key individuals who are in turned “guided” by the Deep State/Spooks;; JC is not ‘in the loop’, because the Spooks have nothing on him, which is why the Parliamentary “Asset” MPs & the Deep State both fear & loath him;
Hope now I’ve taken the time to spoon-feed you, you are experiencing your long overdue epiphany ! 😀
The original House of Cards, produced by people with extensive political experience, shows members of Parliament and other political figures being blackmailed for their misdeeds, sexual and otherwise, routinely. Granted, I don’t remember pedophilia figuring in the plot, but perhaps that would have been considered too shocking at the time.
House of Cards is a fictional tv series, with human frailty and fallibility at it’s heart purely to satisfy a viewing public hungry for sensation. The sensational themes are compressed into short episodes. To suggest the tedious day to day business of Westminster bears any comparison is just daft.
Politicians get more scrutiny than almost anyone I can imagine, the chances of there being a high level paedophile ring operating there just seems absurdly unlikely. I’m sure there are some dodgy characters in Westminster, but they tend to get ‘outed’ by an unrelenting sensation seeking press. No convincing the conspiratorially minded though.
Someone else in another post mentioned Jeremy Thorpe’s name as some sort of indicator of sleaze, when as far as I can recall from my youth, he was a gay man smeared and hounded by a virulently homophobic press and legal system only just reformed from the days when homosexuality was illegal in the UK.
“Politicians get more scrutiny than almost anyone I can imagine”, Jim? Really? I tell you what-they get bushels more perks than the rest of us, that’s for sure. On one of my London sojourns a short while ago I had the dubious privilege of a tour round the H.of P. We were not even allowed to sit on the seats. Had to make do with the steps. Someone should tell these people that we live in a democracy-apparently, anyway. Or so the “Story” goes.
Their duck-pond and and moat days are thing of the past at least. Several were jailed when the expenses scandal was finally got to grips with. Get some perspective.
Dim Jim; “he was a gay man smeared and hounded by a virulently homophobic press and legal system only just reformed”
Now we have shown DJ that the opposite was the truth, ie he was protected, not hounded, by the legal system, it seems that DJ’s picture of a poor prosecuted misunderstood innocent gay man living a hellish secret life in repressed times, is again the very opposite of reality;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2864906/Did-Jeremy-Thorpe-gay-lover-thrown-death-yacht-Biographer-casts-new-light-double-life-disgraced-Liberal-leader-truly-sensational-claim.html
Have a read Dim Jim, you might learn something, even if it’s just to keep your virtue signalling presumptions in check next time ! 😀
Oh yes, the open contempt shown to Norman Scott by the unbiased judge will of course made Jeremy Thorpe feel absolutely wonderfully secure in his sexuality. God you never give up do you? Still trying to link MI5 to Westminster parliamentarians no doubt too. Keep trying Macks, it’s some relief to think of your frenzied researches. It mildly eases the irritation of your malign prescence.
According to Thorp’s Wikipedia entry, MI5 was keeping track of his sexual activities:
Of course they were, you sound surprised.
And your information in no way supports the creatures previous attempt to conflate Westminsters ‘trust’ or lack of it with MI5 activities. Nice try though.
When J. Edgar Hoover had his FBI investigate and keep a record of the sexual activities of members of Congress and of other political and governmental figures, it is well known that it was for the purpose of pressuring them to agree with his policies. All the books about him give examples of this.
Why should MI5 have been any different?
Who said they would? It’s got absolutely zero to do with the original poster’s feeble assertion or my reply to it. You seem as confused as ‘Macky’ about that. Which is worrying for your clients trust in your abilities for clear and rational thinking.
@Dim Jim, Thorpe possibly feeling uncomfortable at the Judge’s apparent attitude to a friendly witness, just may have been somewhat compensated by the Judge virtually instructing the Jury to acquit him ! What do you think ?! 😀 If you can’t be bothered the read the case reports then I suggest you watch the Peter Cook sketch again !
As to “frenzied researches”, well I’ve had several extended breaks from posting today, but your “malign prescence” (incorrect spelling preserved) has been at it nonstop all day ! 😀
Just seen your latest attempt, after more deletions. I remember the Thorpe affair vividly, it was a huge story, and he was made a laughing stock, the level of homophobia was massive, by way of the usual innuendo. You’re utterly clueless, why do you even bother? And why you’re being protected, even encouraged, by the mods on a site purporting to be about justice is frankly beyond belief. Proven homophobia. Endless personal abuse, all tolerated and now even encouraged.
@Dim Jim, Thorpe being the subjected of ridicule & homophobia, mostly by the media, is still simply irrelevant to the fact that he was protected ! Why can’t your feeble mind accept this point ?!
You should really stop complaining about abuse if you think my ribbing of the stupidity of your views is in anyway comparable to your vile attempts to smear me as an anti-Semite & a homophone, because that really is disgusting personal abuse.
(A shame also that you are relatively new here as you can’t appreciate the irony of your comments about me being protected by the Mods; when you have time have a little read-up over on the Sqounk blog, from about page 8 onwards.)
Thorpe was gay in the days when being gay could be used to blackmail people.
Ever wondered what really happened to Maddie McCann? For background information and discussion plus FACTS from the Official Police files join us here https://www.facebook.com/groups/jkjoannekilcoyne/
What’s extremely odd about this is Freud’s apparent eagerness to ridicule the cadaver dog’s responses. This was a strange and trite reaction given the young child had only recently gone missing (and, added to which, his son subsequently gave the McCanns spokesman a job). Could this complex case get anymore weird?.
The problem with this story is that we only have Kate McCanns word that this particular conversation occured. As history has proved, she’s hardly the most reliable of witnesses.
A considerable number of people that are closely associated with this missing child or her parents are either involved with, or suspected of being involved with paedophillia. Thankfully for Mr & Mrs McCann those tasked with investigating these events dont share that concern.
If Mrs McCann (or her professional advisors) fabricated this story, she’s kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place, I for have little sympathy.
Incredible, isn’t it, how the filth of the 1960s, the generation which was going to do away with the “evil” of the supposedly repressive and unjust traditions of the past, is now washing back know up unto the shoreline. Stuart Hall, Jimmy Savile, now the lugubrious Clement Freaud. Talk about feet of clay…
Nuada “incredible, isn’t it, how the filth of the 1960s”
Doesn’t that Bible you are thumping say something about “Judge not, least ye be judged”? Mathew 7:1 unless I am mistaken. And here’s you judging so hard you posted it twice.
Would have thought the double post would be seen for what it obviously is, a computer glitch. And I think the suspicion that western society went very badly, very selfishly, wrong in the 1960s goes WAY beyond bible thumpers.
Millions of broken marriages and kids brought up by predatory strangers have led to the sexual revolution being questioned. But only by some.
You have proof of the statistics you are claiming? Some official statistics instead of wild claims and accusations? Please feel free to back up your absurd claims with some proof.
Incredible, isn’t it, how the filth of the 1960s, the generation which was going to do away with the “evil” of the supposedly repressive and unjust traditions of the past, is now washing back know up unto the shoreline. Stuart Hall, Jimmy Savile, now the lugubrious Clement Freaud. Talk about feet of clay…
Clement freud – born 1924
Jimmy Savile born 1926
Stuart hall born 1929
The 60’s generation? Or the people who preyed on the 60’s generation?
Precisely. This had nothing to do with ‘the 1960s’ and the social changes which occured in what now is known as, ‘the post-War’ period (but which was not then, or indeed until the 2000s, thought of in those terms). It was going on long before then and continued long afterwards. No doubt, it still continues. If anything, it has more to do, globally, with patriarchy and also, in this country, with social class.
His nephew’s an arsehole, too –
He’d brought Eurotunnel to the stock market. “As the marketer of the issue, I had successfully sold the market a pup.” On EuroDisney he did something similar. “I had engineered an extremely hot issue which was consequently overpriced and encouraged a level of overspend by the Disney organisation that led to the subsidiary’s collapse and rescue.”
He recalled how Miko Giedroyc, a flamboyant, witty City analyst would greet him with the words, “Ah, the Fraud Squad.” Wrote Freud: “It was not just a play on my surname. It reflected the concern of the equity sales team that I would create a marketing bandwagon for my issues that led to a distortion in the level of demand and the price obtained.” Or, to put it another way, he promoted the hell out of the shares which subsequently bombed…
…as welfare reform minister, Freud was an accident waiting to happen. He’d already had three run-ins – one when he declared the benefits system let people “have a lifestyle” on the state. Asked whether his wealth meant that he could not understand life on benefits, he replied: “You don’t have to be the corpse to be at the funeral.”
Another was when he suggested more people were using food banks because there were more food banks. The other was his suggestion that the children of families affected by the “bedroom tax” could use a sofa bed when visiting a separated parent.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/lord-freud-was-a-ticking-tory-time-bomb-just-waiting-to-explode-9799824.html
And Clement’s son Matthew married Elisabeth Murdoch. Not sure which is the worst of them.
THIS IS AT ODDS WITH THIS
https://www.infotextmanuscripts.org/ncropa/ncropa-1978-16.jpg
Several posters have called Freud a paedophile or linked him to paedophilia.
Can some one clarify whether Freud is accused of being a paedophile in the legal sense of the word or whether he is being accused of being a noxious sex pest?
There is a difference between the two, it seems to me, even if the subject of bloggers’ attention is someone in the public eye whom one dislikes.
“Having read” one or two newspaper reports* and listened to R4 this morning, I came to the conclusion that the alleged activity was that of a paedophile, in the legal sense. You may care to do the same – daily newspapers are on sale everywhere, and the internet, is (as usual), there – and let us know your conclusions. But, probably, you won’t, because you are (as usual) just stirring the shit
*The Daily Telegraph’s lawyers let ‘paedophile’ into the strapline – who would I be to cavil?
That was an intemperate comment, Baal. You know as well as I do that there are people on here who are prepared to claim anything about anyone while being clever enough never to make those claims about the living. My intention was not to stir the shit, as you elegantly put it, but to establish what Craig (and others) was talking about.
As for the newspapers: I have not seen them. TV : not watched. Wireless: I heard nothing on Radio4 this morning (perhaps I missed it).
So I based my question solely on what I read on this thread.
Happy now?
Ba’al, you know as well as I do that there are people on here who are prepared to claim anything about anyone but never admit to the facts and the truth as they appears in front of their eyes.
BVut there is some improvement, they get their facts first from this website, so they say.
that should make you happy now.
Moreover, Baal, you may have noticed that while several commenters are using the word “paedophile”, Craig hasn’t.
The words Craig used are “young women” (in a quote) and in the personal example he gave he specifically said that this was not paedophilia. The nearest Craig gets to suggesting paedophilia is where he quotes another party as saying “Our children – boys and girls are all that much safer for his demise”.
How am I “stirring the shit” by asking a question about the differences between Craig’s post and some of the comments it attracts?
I have now looked at the Telegraph article. Assuming it’s the same one you referred to, I could find no mention of “paedophilia”.
Are you giving yourself a sweetie if I post a link for you? Bad for the teeth, Habb, and probably doesn’t do dentures much good either. What part of “Sir Clement Freud exposed as a paedophile as police urged to probe Madeleine McCann links” aren’t your Specsavers reading glasses not seeing? Or is it just that ol’ selective blindness playing up again?
Try Googling “Sir Clement Freud exposed as a paedophile as police urged to probe Madeleine McCann links”, eh?
/ are your Specsavers…, to save you distracting irrelevantly again.
Sylvia Woolsey said she was just 11 when Sir Clement – described as a national treasure by Gordon Brown at his funeral in 2009 – began abusing her. She was later invited into his marital bed alongside his actress wife Jill.
So in answer to your question Habbabkook, my little pet, Sylvia Woolsey has. A second unnamed woman has also done so. All you have to do, my little pet, is read the news.
Yes, Alan, so she may have said that. So now let due process occur, during which her allegations can be properly examined and tested.
I take it you wouldn’t object to that idea?
“I take it you wouldn’t object to that idea?”
Of course not, but the question you asked, and to which I responded, was “Can some one clarify whether Freud is accused of being a paedophile in the legal sense of the word or whether he is being accused of being a noxious sex pest?”
So the answer, as I already said, is Sylvia Woolsey and A N Other, as can be seen at this link:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3641755/Clement-Freud-child-abuser-Former-Liberal-MP-molested-girls-young-10-TV-documentary-reveals-two-victims-tell-pain.html
How can there be due process when Freud is dead?
Is that the same Gordon Brown who is standing on his hind legs pontificating about the benefits of staying in the E.U.
Is it the same Gordon Brown who sold of our gold at rock-bottom prices.
Is it the same Gordon Brown who called Gillian Duffy, “That Bigoted woman”
because shared dared to ask her better about immigration?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36373649
The usual suspects are once more unhappy about discussions of pedophilia in the upper classes.
Freud was first elected to Parliament in 1973. How was he chosen as candidate? At the time, the Liberal Party was led by Jeremy Thorpe.
Jeremy Thorpe was a practising homosexual, not a paedophile.
But you know that perfectly well.
The thought therefore occurs that you are deliberately conflating the two, possibly with homophobic intent?
Are you?
I’ll be just as homophobic as I like. None of your business .
God is homophobic and anti-Semitic. Get used to it.
Just seen this Habbs, I posted something similar to you just now. Jeremy Thorpe was hounded and vilified mercilessly for his sexuality as much as anything. Vicious stuff.
Turns out it was Thorpe that was responsible. Former Isle of Ely MP Sir Clement Freud accused of abusing two girls between the late 1940s and 70s:
How can anyone doubt that molestation of a 10-year-old girl is pedophilia?
Who on here is doubting that, Lysias?
“Clement was apparently not in Portugal at the time”
Clement? Sounds a bit chummy.
Just distinguishing him from Matthew, who appears in the same paragraph. His friends and family never called him Clement. They called him “Clay”. If I was being chummy, I would use that.
Bit of feedback here:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/clement-freud-paedophile-mp-could-have-sexually-abused-dozens-more-victims-a7083346.html
Craig makes a cameo appearance…
“Freud was 35 years older than the students he was targeting”.
Is this ageism rearing its ugly head? Seriously, I am puzzled that in this day and age, when diversity is the watchword and you can be crucified for being less than enthusiastic about mixed-race marriages, gay marriages, under-age sex (between children), etc., so many people are still bothered by sex between people of different ages. Sure, it’s stamped into our genes, but that’s no excuse for unfairness.
To be quite clear, misuse of authority for sexual purposes is something else entirely. If Clement Freud used his positions of power to force anyone into a sexual relationship, that was very bad. (Although one has to wonder to what extent people are “forced”, and to what extent they simply succumb to the attraction of wealth and fame).
If memory serves, I don’t often agree with you but this time you seem spot on (all of what you wrote).
I am wondering if a statute of limitations might be the way forward for these offences. Bearing in mind that when Cyril Smith beat the residents of a boy’s home, beating kids wasn’t even illegal, and that the public attitude even to paedophilia has steadily shifted from ‘something we would rather not talk about and is probably the victim’s fault’* to all-out horror, over the decades. The statute would encourage victims to come forward earlier, hopefully at a short enough remove from the crime to make investigation more straightforward. In any trial resulting, it would ensure that the social norms assumed by the court were similar to those at the time of the crime. It would probably reduce the number of claims made with a view to personal gain or malice, as supporting evidence would be easier to test with living witnesses. Ten years?
Many schools had one or two. Recogniseable by their sudden, unexplained and unprosecuted departure, sometimes mid-term. It was kept VERY quiet.
Aren’t you distracting somewhat from the allegation of grooming from the age of 11.
The younger students anecdote was simply a supporting one of Craig’s in terms of character.
It’s not the main allegation.
Listen to the testimony and you might learn why people have difficulty coming to terms with abuse at a young age, in terms of reporting it and so on:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqcK6dBehzA
“To be quite clear, misuse of authority for sexual purposes is something else entirely”
Islam allows a woman to marry at puberty. Your statement applies the same in this case.
Misuse of authority for sexual purposes is exactly what Habbabkuk wants to justify, as with Lord Janner on a previous thread.
Clement Freud was cold, manipulative, very unfunny. All psychological problems arise from ” misuse of authority”. So it is weird irony that his family name is associated with ‘cure’.
“Misuse of authority for sexual purposes is exactly what Habbabkuk wants to justify”
__________________
Guano, you are a lying cnut-ter.
Must say I find this leak from the Met’s Operation Grange just a way to revive interest in the McCann case in a wildly premature way, and just an embarrassment of Clay’s survivors for no good purpose.
Just more internet license.
Funny, isn’t it, how many famous people are accused of various horrible crimes and immoral acts as soon as they are dead. I have absolutely no knowledge of whether Clement Freud did any of those things or not, but I have a sneaking suspicion that no one else does either. Hence the “safely dead” part. As to why anyone would trouble to make such accusations about a deceased public figure, unsupported but scurrilous accusations have a long history – as long as human history, in fact.
Apart from discrediting the accused – which it does most effectively, as witness the old saying, “No smoke without fire” – such allegations, especially in today’s world, can be extremely lucrative. Newspapers and other media pay fees, lawyers can extract payments, and of course there is always the five minutes of fame (or notoriety) which Andy Warhol notoriously said we all have nowadays.
I say again: I have no knowledge one way or the other. I suspend judgment, and as I have no particular interest in establishing the truth, I shall let the matter rest.
Your post is a stinking, rancid turd of an example of why victims of abuse struggle so hard to be heard and believed. The crimes of rich, powerful and/or influential people rarely come to light while they’re alive because their victims often have good cause to fear reprisal, and a horrible resignation to the fact that they won’t be listened to, or treated with sympathy or fairness. See a certain Mr Saville, good ol’ Rolf, or half the Catholic clergy. The revelation that you suffered abuse can also take many years to deal with; the shame of your friends and family knowing what happened to you and the fear of causing them (or yourself) further upset can often mean it takes decades for these things to come out in the open. Especially if Mr Plod is unlikely to take a serious interest even if you do have the courage to speak out.
The common theme running through all these recent revelations over the last few years is how widespread the rumours were, and how there must have been a tacit understanding that some men (and women, presumably) were abusing children or young adults but that it just wouldn’t do to raise it openly or challenge it.
Rolf isn’t dead!
Oops, good point!
Also, given how Craig’s original post makes it clear that some of the victims are posters here, or are acquainted with posters here, your comment is even more repellent.
And this one is also very good (am reading down the page). Thank you.
I shall read your future posts (on any subject) with interest.
“Funny, isn’t it, how many famous people are accused of various horrible crimes and immoral acts as soon as they are dead. I have absolutely no knowledge of whether Clement Freud did any of those things or not”
Does not Freud’s widow’s apology and failure to defend her husband lead you in a certain direction? Isn’t it the funny thing that so many famous people were able to go about their business until they died without ever being brought to task for their deeds, as though they were being protected?
Once a malefactor is dead, victims don’t have to worry about facing a defamation suit in a jurisdiction (the UK) whose libel laws notoriously favor the plaintiff. Some at least of the malefactors, like Janner, were notoriously litigious.
@TomW Yes, I too am uneasy. Justice is only served if victims report the alleged crime and it is investigated and brought before a court where the evidence can be tested and the accused given their chance to rebut etc. I know this can be very difficult and the police and legal establishment are not always helpful, and have often been obstructive and have even accused the victims, but only by reporting crimes however small or large will perpetrators be brought to justice. It would help if we got rid of the adversarial legal system.
A dossier on paedophiles allegedly associated with the British government was assembled by the British Member of Parliament, Geoffrey Dickens, who handed it to the then Home Secretary, Leon Brittan, in 1984. The whereabouts of the dossier is unknown, along with other files on organised child abuse that had been held by the Home Office.
In 2013, the Home Office stated that all relevant information had been passed to the police, and that Dickens’ dossier had not been retained. It was later disclosed that 114 documents concerning child abuse allegations were missing. In July 2014, the Labour Party called for a new inquiry into the way that the allegations had been handled, and Prime Minister David Cameron ordered the permanent secretary of the Home Office, Mark Sedwill, to investigate the circumstances of the lost dossier.
On 7 July 2014, the Home Secretary, Theresa May, announced a review into the handling of historic child abuse allegations, to be led by Peter Wanless, chief executive of the NSPCC, and the establishment of a public panel inquiry into the duty of care taken in the protection of children from paedophiles by British public institutions, led by an independent panel of experts and chaired by Baroness Butler-Sloss. Butler-Sloss later stood down as chair of the inquiry. On 5 September 2014, it was announced that it would instead be chaired by Fiona Woolf but on 31 October 2014 she, too, resigned from the role. On 4 February 2015 it was announced that the inquiry would be chaired by Justice Lowell Goddard, a New Zealand High Court judge. The existing panel would be disbanded, and the inquiry would be given new powers.
Government Child Abuse (BANNED Discovery Channel Documentary) | The Franklin Cover-up
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AFrMpQxbmk
The name of former MP Geoffrey Dickens is cited yet again.
It is usually cited in relation to a “dossier” it is alleged he compiled on high ranking and influential paedophiles and which he handed to a couple of people (including Barbara Castle, it is said) but not, it appears, to the police. Of course that “dossier”, which most people might think he should also have handed to the police, has been found nowhere – not, for example, in a search of Barbara Castle’s papers in the Bodleian.
One might accordingly be forgiven for thinking that the existence of any such dossier is apocryphal.
As to Geoffrey Dickens himself, I have little recollection of him when he was an MP. Perhaps because, despite being a ardent Thatcherite, he never held Parliamentary office even of the humblest rank and did not stand out especially as a backbencher (eg Tam Dalyell).
What I have done, though, is to come across various references to him, in particular in books written by political colleagues or political writers, all contemporaries of his.
It would be fair to say that those references are not very flattering; in essence they suggest that the man was a bit of a Parliamentary lout and a nutter holding a number of views which were rather strange even for the time.
No time for more, but here are just two quotations. The first is from Brian Sedgemore MP’s “The Insider’s Guide to Parliament” (1995):
“However, some Tories really do hate homosexuals…Some of these MPs have used well-founded worries about AIDS to ignite the old association of sex, disease and death.They see HIV and AIDS as nature’s or God’s revenge on the impure. One such was Geoffrey Dickens MP, the T-dancer* who died in 1995 and who was in no position to lecture anyine on sexual morals. On 7 June 1988 he told the nation that if AIDS escalated and it could be proved that the root cause of “the disaster inflicted on the nation was homosexuality, then prison sentences for homosexuals could return””.
And the second is from Edward Pearce in “The Senate of Lilliput” (1983):
“Not all Bomb Throwers** are admirable. Some have a stupidity unlit by any other quality. One thinks of Mr Winterton with his inability to be anything except furious in a predictable and repetitive way. Even so he has won the reputation of being the thinking man’s Michael Brotherton, a stout, slow-minded soul in coloured shirts with white collars, whose contributions have all the nourishment of budgie seed. One thinks of Mr Geoffrey Dickens and turns sorrowing away.”
And as an uncovenanted bonus, here is a third one from “Westminster Man,” by Austin Mitchell MP(1982) (this book is a particularly rich source of quotes)):
“There is a proportion of Members for whom no headline is too small. A few become obsessive, approaching every question with an open mouth…….Yet even the rent-a-quote brigade are necessary to the media. Through the efforts of Michael Brotherton (the Mouth from Louth), Geoffrey Dickens, Tom Torney of Martin Flannery, some of the finest minds in the country are brought to bear on the problems of the day. Unfortunately those who figure most frequently in the press and whom the outsider might assume to be the most active and involved parliamentarians are often the least highly regarded in the House itself”.
The next time someone starts talking about the “Dickens dossier” ……… 🙂
_______________
* what is a “T-dancer”?
** one of two categories of back-bench MPs, the other being the “Aspirants”.
Cheers for the research Habbs. I remember Dickens being a complete tool, the quotes you give sound about right!
“some Tories…” was a hoot. Innit funny? David Dreier and other closeted conservatives remind me a little of the shooter. He blamed other homosexuals for his sexual preference, and wanted Ramadan redemption. He had to sacrifice 49 people to reach his reward. Denial is a conservative quality that equals most others.
How easy it is to label a person a clown if one lives in an alternate ‘as was’ universe dominated by Sir, Mr and he.
In that bygone universe child molestation was below most radars, axiomatic and rarely understood by MPs. Rape was shrugged off and child fiddlers like Mr Saville brushed out by a big personality black felt-tipped pen.
Paedophilia was in fact “Fido-philia” as if the victims were dogs. No clown was Geoffrey Dickens and words like honest, outspoken, vulnerable come to mind..
Thus words like ‘apocryphal’ and trivial unrelated quotations are repulsive to a more hopeful and discerning universe predisposed to examining the decaying filth amongst the forgotten garbage as pointers to a worthier future.
These assessments of Dickens’ character are from reputable sources, Dickens was well known at the time as a loose cannon. Are you suggesting his horrible homophobic ideas are somehow not contemptible?
Yes. I should hardly describe Brian Sedgemore and Austin Mitchell as nutters or negligable. Should have thought they were the kind of Labour MPs most of the Excellences would have a lot of time for.
(I forgive Ben Weedsmoke because he’s an American and can’t be expected to know the people we’re talking about.)
@Habba_Clown, is this your all own work or are you to embarrassed to link to, or even identify the source ! ? 😀
I was wondering the same thing. If the self-confessed snitch really has done this unprecented amount of research himself, he must be really stung by the charges against Freud.
Here’s some of her testimony:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bE0m_hQoew
One man’s anecdote is another man’s lived experience
[ Mod: Caught in spam-filter ]
—
Another day, another celebrity sex fiend is unmasked. How strange that in a country that prides itself on having a free and open media all of these exposes only seem to see the light of day when the (alleged) perpetrators are either dead or in their dotage.
Could it be that British media have expertise in deliberately looking the wrong way. On a different matter entirely I see the BBC are reporting that the wife of the Orlando shooter may be charged. They are also reporting that “comfort dogs” are being provided to the survivors. They explain why men are publicly kissing other men in response to this outrage, and they seek to explain the concept of “internalized homophobia”
What they do not seem to reference, much less explain, is an interview given by a survivor of this attack that claims that there were a total of 5 attackers involved.
https://www.intellihub.com/man-overheard-shooters-phone-conversation/
Any news organization that considers an explanation of “internalized homophobia” more relevant than identifying the number of attackers, and hence the quantum of the threat posed, may also be the kind of organization that determines the optimal time to discuss the crimes of the famous is after they are dead.
Strange that the “useless comments” section is bearing any kind of fruit? As often this section is discounted as having far too few readers, and can be left to be destroyed by h….Kukies (….Kuk and company)
Fact that if the same Sofitel were to be commenting here on this blog today, publishing the very same point. Immediately she would have found herself subject of derisions, insults, and cries of antisemi by h….Kukies and in all probability she would have walked away and her comment would have been deleted for being yet more tropes spreading hatred towards the “chosens”, and designed to sully the memories of a dearly departed ala janner, brittan et al!
Fact that these days, the comments section has been declared as the lesser entity in the blog resultant of which has been to turn the comments section to an almost singular h….Kukies chronicles filling the comments section with inane opinions, invectives, insults and racist hatred directed towards Muslims, all the while promoting the interests of the shitty strip of land and the crazed zionist lunatics.
Notwithstanding the above then suddenly it transpires that a commenter on this blog may have played an important part in unearthing the sexual crimes of a yet another powerful pervert, whom evidently (as per some comments) is still enjoying the support of those miscreants who are bent on keeping a lid on the wretched practices of the rich and powerful.
Indeed Fedup;
“Mr Murray said that he had “no inkling” of any paedophilia allegations when he wrote his obituary of Freud in 2009, and admitted he didn’t want to reveal what he had heard about Freud’s behaviour to much younger women.
“You just don’t feel like digging it up once someone has died,” he said.
He added: “I am glad the woman did make those comments on my blog. At the time she came forward the ITV researcher had only one person talking about this, and you can’t stand up a story with just one source.
“If it wasn’t for that comment appearing on my blog, I don’t think this ever would have come to light.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/clement-freud-paedophile-mp-could-have-sexually-abused-dozens-more-victims-a7083346.html
Question to any Private Eye readers on here:
was there ever anything about Freud and sexual abuse/paedophilia in Private Eye?
Find out for yourself.
of course I can’t, Macks, otherwise I wouldn’t have asked, would I. Duh…..!
Liberal club library
Now that’s funny Macky.
————————————————-
By the way, great victory by Slovakia over Russia 2-1. Should help England’s hopes. I enjoyed cycling through Slovakia on the two occasions I’ve done so.