Myra Ling-Ling Forde And Edward Heath

Two days ago I caught a piece on the BBC news channel.  In this update on the growing accusations against former PM Ted Heath it was mentioned that a brothel owner may have escaped conviction in the early 1990’s because she had threatened to reveal what she knew about him,

It was also noted that she was successfully convicted in 1995 for running a brothel in Salisbury, where Heath lived.

So I jumped straight on Google.

The only reference I could find from multiple searches such as brothel +salisbury +1995 was this piece from the Scottish Herald.  From that I got her name, one of only two search results that mention that name.

What struck me was that there was no trail of internet rumour, no innuendo, linking this woman to Heath.  In three years of using the internet to research supplementary information relating to the child abuse scandal this was a first.  That in itself sets this apart from things like the Scallywag rumours, and of course Savile rumours.

This is new information.

.

 Something Does Not Add Up About Ms Forde

Within an hour of searching, several papers (I believe the Telegraph was the first) began running stories naming Myra Ling-Ling Forde.

If the Telegraph ran the first story then it is ironic, considering the position taken by clickbait aficionado Dan Hodges yesterday.

In the article her sister was quoted as saying:

“I know what she did in Salisbury and she knew a lot of politicians and celebrities because of it.”

Yet, within hours, Ms Forde had released a statement via her solicitor that completely contradicted her sisters lurid claims:

“My firm acted for Myra Forde in relation to the case which the prosecution discontinued on the day of the trial and which has been the subject of a great deal of speculation.

“My former client wishes me to make it very clear that at no stage did she state that Ted Heath was a client and at no stage did she threaten to expose him as a client of hers if the prosecution was continued.

“For the avoidance of any doubt Myra Forde wishes me to make it clear that she had no involvement with Ted Heath of any kind and has no knowledge of any misconduct on his part.

“It is my recollection assisted by discussion with my colleague who was at Winchester Crown Court on the day the case was discontinued and by the barrister we instructed to represent Myra Forde, that the prosecution had witness problems.

“In particular it may have been the case that one of the witnesses was at court in the cells and perhaps therefore not best inclined to assist the prosecution.

“The prosecution took what at the time seemed a sensible decision that they could not prove their case and offered no evidence.

“This decision would have been announced in open court and would be a matter of record.”

Now of course Myra Forde could have told her sister a load of porky-pies over the years, but that aside, it strikes me a extremely odd that her sister confidently states Ms Forde knows politicians and celebrities through her position as a Madam, yet hours later Ms Forde releases a statement denying everything.

 .

What The Solicitor Said…

Forde’s solicitor Richard Griffiths made it clear in the statement released that the case was stopped because:

“It is my recollection assisted by discussion with my colleague who was at Winchester Crown Court on the day the case was discontinued and by the barrister we instructed to represent Myra Forde, that the prosecution had witness problems.

In particular it may have been the case that one of the witnesses was at court in the cells and perhaps therefore not best inclined to assist the prosecution.

“The prosecution took what at the time seemed a sensible decision that they could not prove their case and offered no evidence.”

This all sounds perfectly believable, and I am sure that the records surrounding the case will reveal this to be the case. But it has little value in terms of clearing up whether Ms Forde knew Ted Heath, or the possibility that the trial was stopped because she threatened to expose him.

Firstly, the witness problems could be down to them being “got at”.  Now I know that people will see that as “tinfoil hat” and dismiss it, and to be fair they are probably right.  But knowing what we do now about corruption in our system, I certainly would not rule it out.

Secondly, Ms Forde would not have threatened to expose him in court and nothing related to it would be on the record. That would have been done through conversations between defence and prosecution off the record.  Horse-trading goes on all the time behind the scenes and it would be naive to dismiss it as a possibility.

And why release such a long statement at all?

If she doesn’t know Heath, then why not just say it?  “I have never met Ted Heath.”  That would shut it down for good.

But she didn’t say she has never met Ted Heath.  She said he had never been a client.  A client of who though?

 .

Shake Your Money Maker

Ms Forde has openly admitted to having financial problems in the past.  She is also evidently free of the morals that stop most of us from grooming young kids and then making money from them as child prostitutes.

So why has she passed up the chance of her biggest ever payday by issuing a denial?

Put yourself in her shoes (thigh length boots?).

Even if she has never met Heath, the Sunday rags will pay her a big old lump of cash for any story she tells now. I’d be singing like a canary to get that cash wouldn’t you?

Yet rather than play the game and make some cash, she has leapt into instant denial through an official channel.  Not a door-stepping denial, but a denial through the solicitors firm who represented her 20 years ago in a different part of the country, a solicitor it appears who also has a photographic memory. He was not in court and yet he remembers significant details surrounding what would be one of hundreds he has dealt with in the past twenty odd years.

If she want’s to be left alone, well it’s a bit late for that.  The media frenzy is global now.  So why not cash in?  Has she suddenly developed the morals she lacked for the rest of her life?

 .

Can You Smell The Smoke?

There is definitely not a raging fire burning around Ted Heath yet.

But to dismiss the Heath accusations out of hand in the way people like Dan Hodges have done strikes me as odd after everything we have learnt in the past three years.

The Myra Forde situation is odd and anyone with an open mind can see that.

No history of rumours online, Story breaks, Sister says she knows stuff, Myra says she doesn’t through solicitor from 20 years ago that also cuts off her chance of a payout, but statement does not explicitly state she has never met Ted Heath.

Odd.  Odd.  Odd.

And what of the ex-copper who went to the IPCC months ago to tell them that the trial had been stopped because Forde was protected?

That person has not broken cover and rather than cashing in, or going public, it appears they have quietly gone to the IPCC.

Doesn’t that strike you as the action of someone with integrity who is pretty convinced they are right?

————————————-

UPDATE:

Even more curiously, a judge, who was the prosecuting counsel in the aborted 1992 Myra Forde trial has written a letter to the Times:

“He said he had been told by police that the large number of reporters at the court that day were there because Forde, who had been on bail, had said she would allege she had provided rent boys for Sir Edward, should the case proceed.”

How did all those reporters hear that a small-time Madam, in a sordid little trial taking place before the internet could spread information rapidly, was going to expose Ted Heath?

And the police seemed happy enough to share that information didn’t they?  How did they know this information yet the prosecuting counsel did not?  Once a case is in court do the police have the freedom to wander in and chat with the defendant? Or did they know prior to the court date, and if so why didn’t they bother telling the prosecution until everyone was in court?

It also raises concerns about the statement released by Ms Forde’s solicitor.  Mr Griffith’s apparently has a clear memory of how his colleague at the court told him why the trial was stopped, but he seems to have forgotten that the conversation would have included that rather bizarre fact that the court was packed with journalists because his client had threatened to expose Ted Heath, if the defence and police had only just found that out.

But I would suggest that Myra Forde must have made her claim previous to that day in order for the journalists to hear about it and get to court, so how were Mr Griffiths, the prosecution and defence, the police and the judge all completely unaware until they watched the press filing into the public gallery?

Perhaps someone should be asking some more searching questions?

A Personal Thank You To David Cameron

Most of us viewed David Cameron’s comment on the release of the Wanless Report:

“It [The Wanless Report] says there wasn’t a cover up so some of the people looking for conspiracy theories will have to look elsewhere.”

as staggering.  It was so breathtaking in the way it dismissed the growing evidence of serious misconduct in all areas of trusted public service, that the outrage in many people threatened to spill over.

Me?  I’d like to thank David Cameron.

I can only guess that secretly he wants the truth to come out.  Otherwise making such a statement as he did would be so strategically ignorant that it makes no sense in any other context, completely missing the public perception and mood as it did.

The response to his comments was scathing, and the ante from those who want to see justice done has been sent up into the stratosphere.

First, an incredibly brave survivor has finally told the public what we all knew:  CHILDREN WERE MURDERED BY OUR PUBLIC SERVANTS.

And then, two more revelations (for the public anyway, for most who have followed this, it’s just a louder voice saying what we all know).  First John Mann reinforces the view that people about to blow the whistle on the Westminster paedophile network were murdered.

For clarity, he is referring to Bulic Forsythe, and it is a claim around a later government paedophile, or gang, or the same one evolved.  It refers to trying to cover-up the Paedophilia of a Blair government minister.  I believe most of you will know already know who that minister is.

Secondly we read that the Police may finally be revisiting the death of Elm Guest House owner (and let’s face it at least paedophile-tolerant) Carole Kasir.

And finally, this fascinating piece from Don Hale. For me this is the really new piece.  Don goes over what we all know – Geoffrey Dickens was targeted for trying to expose the Westminster paedophile ring.   But the new information for me was this:

Dickens spoke to a petrol station manager who recalls:

“I said he could use my photocopier to make a copy to keep safe, but he said he’d already done it. I told him to go to Scotland Yard but he thought the Met and Special Branch had been infiltrated by them.”

This reinforces what I have suspected all along, and what I believe is the driving force behind the cover-up.

Dickens thought Special Branch was infiltrated by paedophiles.

Special Branch turned up to stop Don Hale revealing what Barbera Castle told him.

Special Branch allegedly threatened Chris Fay away from Elm Guest House investigations.

Special Branch raided Elm Guest House.  Nobody was inside because of tip-offs and the court case was a whitewash.

Tim Hulbert claims that he was told Special Branch organised the funding of PIE through the Home Office.

Can you spot the common theme here?

The first port of call for the CSA Inquiry should be who was in Special Branch in the 1980’s, what their role was in relation to Paedophilia, and look closely at every individual case they dealt with.

I would suggest that elements of  Special Branch were complicit in an ongoing coordination of, participation in, and cover-up of organised Paedophilia.

No stone unturned David.

No stone unturned Teresa.

We are not going away.  This will come out.

We are a mass movement now and we demand truth and justice.

No wonder Leon Brittan is looking so Gaunt recently.  Oddly, that’s the fake name someone used when they signed their name while at Elm Guest House.

 

Tim Hulbert Is A Liar

Tim Hulbert clearly stated in a TV interview that he was directly aware of a grant renewal for the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE).

He clearly stated that he spoke to his superior, Clifford Hindley, about that grant.

He clearly stated that Hindley told him the funding was at the request of Special Branch.

However, the Wanless review has concluded that:

“….on the balance of probabilities, the alleged funding of PIE did not take place.”

As it would be impossible for anyone to state such claims so clearly and be completely wrong, we must assume that Tim Hulbert is a pathological liar.

Well done Mr Wanless.

Cliff Richard Darling, I’m A Little Confused…..

Sir Cliff Richard released a statement today in relation to the search of his property in Berkshire by South Yorkshire Police:

 

“For many months I have been aware of allegations against me of historic impropriety which have been circulating online.  The allegations are completely false. Up until now I have chosen not to dignify the false allegations with a response, as it would just give them more oxygen…..”

 

But all the major news networks are saying that:

 

“Sky News understands the accusation against Sir Cliff comes from an event held by American evangelist preacher Billy Graham in Sheffield in 1985.”

 

So why is Sir Cliff talking about online rumours, that he has been aware of for months, when the Police are investigating a fresh and individual allegation that has not been circulating online until today?

The online rumours all relate to him allegedly visiting the Paedophile-run Elm guest house in the early 1980’s using the pseudonym “Kitty”.

So what is Sir Cliff actually denying?

 

 

 

 

 

What The Ex Customs Officer Said

I have been watching what has been unfolding on Twitter with interest over the past 48 hours.

I would say straight up that I feel the way Exaro responded online was completely unprofessional.  I hope they will regain some dignity and remember this is about victims, not point scoring and CONSTANTLY promoting their own stories.

On the other side of the fence, I am surprised that someone of the greatest integrity has taken the word of a man with what is at the very least a poor historical investigative track record, without it appears listening to the audio, and going purely on what is now evidently a very poor transcript.

I was told months ago about every detail relating to the customs seizures, issues with the MET, who was involved, by two very senior sources, but had only hear the audio for myself now.

The issues around the official secrets act and naming the guy involved are moot, as other people have already ensured his privacy has been destroyed.

So to set the record straight.

The Ex Customs officer CLEARLY names a senior Ex Tory cabinet minister in the recording.  This recording has been heard by Operation Fernbridge, it has been heard by senior MP’s and has been discussed in the highest area’s in recent weeks.

It is CLEAR witness testimony of what was on the tapes seized and who was on them.

And lets not forget, the same Ex minister was also photographed at Elm guest house by Carole Kasir.  So he wasn’t shy.  Fernbridge also have those photo’s.

So the real question here is not, why people are attacking each other – it’s confusion, NOT agenda’s.

 

The real question is why Operation Fernbridge has not arrested the Ex cabinet minister.

 

The evidence now consists of:

• Photos
• A video
• Testimony from a victim
• Testimony from a government official

Even ONE officer could have the gumption to arrest on that basis, let alone 22.

No wonder people are threatening to name him in the commons.  This is complete disgrace and clear evidence of an existing cover up that involves the Police investigating.

 

BBC Radio, 15th July 2014 :Dr Liz Davies and David Tombs.

Very important, but too short interview with Liz Davies, a lady who KNOWS the truth. Listen to the shock when she said children were murdered and mentions Jason Swift.

theneedleblog

A very interesting interview with David Tombs is followed by an extraordinary interview with Dr Liz Davies in which she reveals a great deal more than you might of been aware of before.

This is a ‘must listen’ interview.

View original post

I Never Thought I Would See This Day

I remember having a telephone conversation with a prominent anti-abuse blogger just over a year ago. I was standing in my garden on a lovely spring afternoon.

We talked for two hours.

We discussed the magnitude of the Mary Moss documents and what we had been told and given by various people in the months after their release.

Tying it all together, it was obvious it was massive and there was plenty of evidence out there.

I remember during that conversation it being said that only a full public inquiry would ever give people the confidence to come forward.

 

But I never thought it could happen.

 

Thankfully it appears that the people we elect are not entirely morally bankrupt and many have joined to pressure for the truth to come out.

And if the whole truth does all come out, it will be the biggest political and social scandal this country has ever seen.

 

That is the next challenge. 

Making sure the whole truth comes out and that all the dots are joined.

Making sure the guilty are imprisoned.

 

So the Police need more resources.  They need freedom to operate free from political pressure.

There needs to be a truly independent team overseeing it all, because Police and Judiciary are implicated in the abuse and the cover-up.

 

To help the Police, people must be controlled.

Remember that some of the most lurid stories are just that.

Remember that putting two and two together can often equal five.  Use common sense in forming your opinions.

Remember that Carole Kasir had her own agenda.  Carole was involved in organising the abuse and profiting from it. The names on her list are not entirely accurate and some of the facts deliberately embellished. Be wary of naming names and assuming guilt where there is none. Be wary of assuming that everything relates to an unseen dark force at work.

 

The truth is: A paedophile ring operated in and around Westminster in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s.  It infiltrated the Home Office, the Police and the legal system.  The Paedophile Information Exchange had powerful members and powerful support.  Children were trafficked from care homes in London and beyond through a network of abusers who took control of elements of the care home system.

Some were filmed and those films taken abroad.   Some of the children may also have been taken abroad to be sold and abused. This was the “Dutch Venture”.

When the ring was broken up and it’s main members fled abroad, it continued to operate with strong links to the people still in the UK.  The end of Elm Guest House was not the end of the paedophile ring, nor it’s links to powerful people here in the UK.

People in politics and the legal system knew some or all of this and covered it up. Careers and “the establishment” was the priority, not the children. The security services, just as with Savile and Smith, knew it was happening, but chose to cover it up for their own potential gain.

 

And finally we must keep the pressure on.  This is only the end of the beginning.

JUSTICE MUST BE DONE THIS TIME. THE SURVIVORS DESERVE IT.

Coincidences

Throughout the Westminster Paedophile Ring scandal, there have been curious coincidences.

Like why Capital Gay were always so pro-Spartacus, ran their ads, yet knew nothing of their paedophilia.

Like why the owner of Gay News and his mate, who later was given thanks in a book that supported Paedophilia, setup a limited company called Coltsfoot at the same time that Spartacus purchased Coltsfoot productions.

Then there has been the odd fact that the Fernbridge seem to have found little evidence to go on, even when people like me can produce substantial evidence to form the basis of arrests just from looking online. Not a coincidence, but worth mentioning, just in case you believe the Police do not have their hands politically tied.

 

So Would You Be Surprised At Another Funny Little Coincidence?

It turns out that Leon Brittan’s PPS in 1984, was actually a guy called Tim Smith (thanks to @BobbyFriedman on Twitter for pointing that out, and calling him).

Tim Smith was:

“Conservative MP for Beaconsfield from 1982 until this year, when he was forced to stand down amid allegations of bribe-taking. Worked for Leon Brittan at the Home Office from 1983-85 and was a Northern Ireland minister from January to October 1994, but resigned when the cash for questions affair broke.”

Tim Smith and Neil Hamilton were the people accused in the cash for questions scandal.

Neil Hamilton’s name appears on the Mary Moss documents.  He was one of the people who for some bizarre reason sunk money into the loss-making business of Harvey Proctor, who also appears on the Mary Moss documents.

So many coincidences. 

 

Could Sir Leon Brittan Clear Something Up For Us?

Today, Sir Leon Brittan has stated:

“This was the normal procedure for handling material presented to the home secretary. I do not recall being contacted further about these matters by Home Office officials or by Mr Dickens or by anyone else.”

 

Yet, according to the Guardian (funny some people claim the Gaurdian isn’t covering the CSA stories):

“The Home Office commissioned an independent review last year into what information it received about organised child sex abuse between 1979 and 1999.

The review found information had been dealt with properly.

It disclosed that material received from Dickens in November 1983 and January 1984 had not been retained.

However, a letter was sent from Brittan to Dickens on 20 March 1984 explaining what had been done in relation to the files.

According to an extract in the review report, the home secretary wrote: “You drew my attention to a number of allegations concerning paedophilia when you called here on 23 November and in subsequent letters.

“I am now able to tell you that, in general terms, the view of the director of public prosecutions is that two of the letters you forwarded could form the basis for inquiries by the police and they are now being passed to the appropriate authorities.“”

 

Does that not directly contradict Sir Leon’s statement released today? It suggests there were TWO lots of information supplied by Dickens, not just one “dossier” and two lots of contact to present that information, not one.  It also clearly shows that there was a documented follow-up from Leon Brittan.

It was also acknowledged by Leon Brittan that there had been “subsequent letters”.

Far from “not being contacted further” it appears Leon brittan actively suggested that the content warranted criminal investigation, and that he had an ongoing written and verbal conversation lasting several months with Mr Dickens.

 

Leon Brittan – Who Was His PPS in 1984?

UPDATE: Robin Harris it turns out was his advisor, not his PPS.  His PPS was  Sir Brian Cubbon who was permanent secretary to the home office.

Leon Brittan today released a statement about his knowledge of the evidence submitted to him by Geoffrey Dickens MP in 1984:

 

“As I recall, he came to my room at the Home Office with a substantial bundle of papers. As is normal practice, my Private Secretary would have been present at the meeting.

I told Mr Dickens that I would ensure that the papers were looked at carefully by the Home Office and acted on as necessary.

Following the meeting, I asked my officials to look carefully at the material contained in the papers provided and report back to me if they considered that any action needed to be taken by the Home Office.

In addition I asked my officials to consider a referral to another Government Department, such as the Attorney General’s Department, if that was appropriate.

This was the normal procedure for handling material presented to the Home Secretary. I do not recall being contacted further about these matters by Home Office officials or by Mr Dickens or by anyone else.”

In 1984 it appears his PPS was a chap called Robin Harris, who went on to write a book about his apparent heroine Margaret Thatcher.  Mr Harris was a close confidant of Thatcher for years.  He was also David Cameron’s first boss. Mr Harris was apparently unaware that Sir Peter Morrison was a paedophile and unaware of the allegations surrounding Margarets own father, which were themselves covered-up.

Harris had this to say on Morrison:

“As a contest with Heseltine was declared, another fatal mistake was made by Thatcher’s team — giving the day-to-day running of her campaign to her Parliamentary aide Peter Morrison.

Conservative MPs constitute the most elusive and mendacious electorate imaginable. To learn their opinions requires reserves of guile. To influence them requires unremitting effort. Peter Morrison had neither.

He had, anyway, been a strange choice as her parliamentary private secretary. The job typically requires someone personally loyal, in touch with parliamentary opinion, a natural gossip who can, when necessary, control his tongue: in vulgar terms, a ‘nark’.

Morrison — whom she had appointed because she felt sorry for him when he proved not to be up to a ministerial career — was indeed loyal and he also quite liked to gossip, at least over a drink. But that was the problem. He not only drank, he was an alcoholic. By lunchtime he was drunk on vodka and tonic.

Even sober he was intellectually incapable, often woozy, sometimes asleep. Perhaps to compensate, he had developed an insistently jovial manner and had convinced himself that any problem could be solved by cheering people up.

From his optimism stemmed complacency, which added to his general inadequacy. He had no judgement, though he prided himself on having it, and so he was constantly surprised by events. And it was on this man that Mrs Thatcher had to rely in her darkest hour.”

So Mr Harris knew Morrison’s character very well it appears. But obviously he didn’t know he liked young boys.

It appears everyone knows everyone but nobody ever knows anything….

If you Google “Leon Brittan Robin harris” you get this:

“Some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe.“

NOW WHY WOULD ANYONE DO THAT?

—————————-

SOURCE:

“When Brittan became Chief Secretary  to the  Treasury, Robin  Harris  was already a special adviser  in  the  Treasury  and  he  gradually  gravitated  towards  Brittan.  On becoming Home Secretary in  1983 Brittan  took  Harris  with  him  and  thought the  aide/confidant role was  important.”

Link