Ted Heath: an old smear resurfacing?

Madd Finn

Now that he's dead, it seems that allegations made against former British prime minister Ted Heath are to be investigated formally.

This report in the Guardian says that a man accused of a serious offence has claimed he was abused as a teenager by Heath and now the police are asking any other alleged victims to come forward.

This is not the first time prurient sexual allegations have been made against Heath. They have been around for decades. Back in the 1980s, some reference was made to them during a court case (my memory is hazy) but an injunction prevented media in Britain from printing his name. The only "newspaper" in Ireland to do so was An Phoblacht!

It should be borne in mind that there were many with a vested interest in discrediting Heath both on the left and right of British politics. The fact that he never married was for long a source of nudging and winking as to his sexual orientation. But nobody was ever able to stand up any allegations back then, and there were many who would like to have done so.

Just saying.

Here is a cautionary passage from a book written by legendary left-wing "investigative" journalist Paul Foot back in 1989. It's from his book about Colin Wallace, a former "Information Policy" operative in the army in Northern Ireland during the 1970s who, Foot believes, was framed for murder because he was going to go public about some of the dirty tricks that were being used by the authorities both against "Terrorists" in Northern Ireland and also unco-operative politicians in London.



The notion that Edward Heath was a homosexual and was therefore in some risk of being blackmailed was fairly common in journalistic circles in the early 1970s. There is no evidence of any kind to support it…..

The main base for the rumours was that Heath was unmarried and did not appear to have had any ‘romantic attachment’ to a woman. On this thin gruel, the rumours fed happily. All sorts of fantasies were circulated. I myself worked in those years for Private Eye (until October 1972) and for Socialist Worker. At both publications, especially the former, anonymous phone callers reported to me news of ‘a new set of pictures of Heath and his Swedish boyfriends’. When the pictures were asked for, or the names of the callers demanded, the phone went dead.

The regularity and frequency of these calls, however, all of them pretending to come from left-wing sources, left some of the muck sticking. If this was happening to me, who had never had any contacts in the intelligence services, what was circulating among journalists ‘in the know’, who had proved themselves receptive to the bigoted nonsense which was being churned out day by day to ….[people working in]..Information Policy?

Paul Foot
Who Framed Colin Wallace?
1989

The point to bear in mind is that Foot, a rabid Trot, was diametrically opposed politically to Ted Heath and would not have any interest in covering up any alleged sexual pecadilloes.

Happyman42

5 different police forces investigating now. Prehaps best to wait and see what they report.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/04/edward-heath-met-have-been-investigating-claims-for-several-months

Madd Finn

I quite agree. Wait and see. But I'm sceptical. And I really don't like "Dead Man" strategies.

Even if they find there is some truth to the rumour why wait until 10 years after he, and indeed many of the journalists who were being fed these "rumours", have died? Foot is no longer with us. Neither are some other famous journalists from the 1970s. If people were willing to feed journalists titbits back then without backing them up, why should we believe them now?

I'm not saying sweep it under the carpet. Far from it. I'm just saying that scepticism in the absence of convincing proof is a healthy attitude.

So yes. Wait and see. And pay attention.

Memnoch

Unfortunately we live in a world where holding the powerful to account while they are still alive and wield influence is next to impossible. It's not just about them, but everyone they are connected to who may have directly or indirectly protected and aided them. Then there are always those in the establishment who stand to lose face/status/power/wealth by association. So there are always huge vested interests acting against exposing wrongdoing by the elite of society.

The greatest crimes of all are only really prosecuted historically.

Mr.Micro

Savile spent his life doing crime after crime. He was in the public eye and he acted with impunity. I do believe there were many accusations formal and informal against him, many of those to the police. Nothing was done.

The police in the UK have a lot to answer for. The case against Lord Janner was not looked into either, at the time. Politicians and many celebrities were mostly off limits, at least pre Savile. Cover up is the first instinct. With regards to Heath we will have to wait and see. The press know that they are safe with regards libel, as a dead man cannot be libelled. Its competing with social media now and the Internet, so it has to have shock horror to print on its pages, anything short of that will not sell the rags. It's a pity the toothless press did not do its job over the decades, but instead did its masters work with spin and lies.

Fratton Fred

Memnoch wrote: »

Unfortunately we live in a world where holding the powerful to account while they are still alive and wield influence is next to impossible. It's not just about them, but everyone they are connected to who may have directly or indirectly protected and aided them. Then there are always those in the establishment who stand to lose face/status/power/wealth by association. So there are always huge vested interests acting against exposing wrongdoing by the elite of society.

The greatest crimes of all are only really prosecuted historically.

I would agree to an extent, but the media were quite happy to go after Jeffrey Archer and Lord Profumo, getting not only blood, but in Archer's case, a prison sentence.

In the 70s there were several sex scandals involving Tory politicians, including Earl Jellicoe and Lord Lambton, both members of what would be regarded "The Establishment" and both forced to resign due to stories in the News of The World.

Is there some sociological reason for the number of Tories involved or implicated in sex scandals, or is it all in my head, i.e. some form of bayesian probability or cognitive bias derived from their collective tendency toward rather extreme conservative views?

It really seems odd. If I were a psychologist, I should study this with some glee.

Fratton Fred

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Is there some sociological reason for the number of Tories involved or implicated in sex scandals, or is it all in my head, i.e. some form of bayesian probability or cognitive bias derived from their collective tendency toward rather extreme conservative views?

It really seems odd. If I were a psychologist, I should study this with some glee.

There's been plenty of non Tories. Paddy Ashdown springs to mind, then there was the Jeremy Thorpe scandal back in the 70s that was pretty juicy.

There's also the somewhat remarkable affair that two Jags John Prescott had.

But then, we get shocked, unlike our French cousins

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/10580050/What-Gordon-Brown-does-not-have-a-mistress.html

TwoGallants

I don't mind sex with adults from my politicians (In fact, I'm more suspicious if they are outwardly loyal to their spouses. Politicians crave power and that tends to give them extra sexual proclivities as well, I would find it amazing to discover that David Cameron - a rather handsome man - has only ever shagged Samantha all these years - the inbred aristocratic first lady)

I don't know about Ted Heath. My innate sense of justice argues that its not right to prosecute the dead - if they had a case, why not bring it up while he was alive? Something slimy about it all.

Mr.Micro

TwoGallants wrote: »

I don't mind sex with adults from my politicians (In fact, I'm more suspicious if they are outwardly loyal to their spouses. Politicians crave power and that tends to give them extra sexual proclivities as well, I would find it amazing to discover that David Cameron - a rather handsome man - has only ever shagged Samantha all these years - the inbred aristocratic first lady)

I don't know about Ted Heath. My innate sense of justice argues that its not right to prosecute the dead - if they had a case, why not bring it up while he was alive? Something slimy about it all.

True, but just say such a case or evidence at the time was suppressed illegally or though power or corruption? Is it right to deny some sort of justice to the living victims?

Sand

Mr.Micro wrote: »

True, but just say such a case or evidence at the time was suppressed illegally or though power or corruption? Is it right to deny some sort of justice to the living victims?

The evidence would need to be *extremely* strong to form a conclusion to which the dead have no right of reply. There seems to be a new accusation against an old politician or celebrity every few weeks in the last year or so. I think with going back into cases where the evidence is 20-30 years out of date that there is a very high risk of an injustice being done.

Sand

Sand wrote: »

I think with going back into cases where the evidence is 20-30 years out of date that there is a very high risk of an injustice being done.

The only injustice being done is that every roadblock imaginable is being thrown in the way of any proper investigation.

Here's the latest from the Guardian: "Police consider limited inquiry into Ted Heath child sex abuse claims". Why a limited inquiry? Well they can throw Heath under a bus and let everyone else off scot free because it will just focus on Heath and not on any conspirators.

On Monday Wiltshire police launched a public appeal for victims to come forward and the IPCC announced that it was investigating claims that officers had dropped a prosecution in the 1990s after a person charged with offences threatened to name Heath as a child abuser.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/09/police-consider-limited-inquiry-into-heath-child-sex-abuse-claims

The Dutroux scandal in Belgium left a lot of unanswered questions - but showed that this stuff did happen, and perpetrators would be protected (to this day).

On the witness stand, Jean-Marc Connerotte (fr), the original judge of the case, broke down in tears when he described "the bullet-proof vehicles and armed guards needed to protect him against the shadowy figures determined to stop the full truth coming out.[14] Never before in Belgium has an investigating judge at the service of the king been subjected to such pressure. We were told by police that [murder] contracts had been taken out against the magistrates." Connerotte testified that the investigation was seriously hampered by protection of suspects by people in the government. "Rarely has so much energy been spent opposing an inquiry," he said. He believed that the Mafia had taken control of the case.[16]

Does the bolded part sound familiar?

Ed Miliband and Labour fancied the party over the public good in refusing to suspend Janner, despite it being known for months that these allegations (that are serious enough to be brought to trial - i.e. beyond reasonable doubt).

A Labour MP has accused his party of failing to act quickly to suspend Lord Janner after receiving a letter last year outlining claims of child abuse against the peer.

Simon Danczuk, the MP for Rochdale, said that in October 2014 he wrote to Ed Miliband, then Labour leader, warning him of “stomach-churning” allegations faced by Janner.

The peer was eventually suspended by the party five months later in the wake of a statement by Alison Saunders, the director of public prosecutions.

Also, we may want to keep in mind that there's also rumours of the same having gone on in Washington political circles. There's simply too much smoke at this point to keep thinking that there couldn't possibly be a fire.

Mr.Micro

Sand wrote: »

The evidence would need to be *extremely* strong to form a conclusion to which the dead have no right of reply. There seems to be a new accusation against an old politician or celebrity every few weeks in the last year or so. I think with going back into cases where the evidence is 20-30 years out of date that there is a very high risk of an injustice being done.

If evidence is deliberately suppressed or ignored over a period of time, to protect a living person or a dead person, that is an injustice in itself.

If the law and the forces of the law worked at all times with integrity, including those tasked with the upkeep of the law, such as the police and officials, then there might not be many historical accusations, as they would have been dealt with at the time, hopefully. Who matters most, the living or the dead? The dead cannot in law be defamed, as far as know. I do agree that cases going back 20-30 years are dangerous with evidence often no more than hearsay.

Thinkingaboutit

He was a very rude man and no friend of Ireland, but we should await the investigations. I doubt much will come of them.

Sand

Mr.Micro wrote: »

If evidence is deliberately suppressed or ignored over a period of time, to protect a living person or a dead person, that is an injustice in itself.

If the law and the forces of the law worked at all times with integrity, including those tasked with the upkeep of the law, such as the police and officials, then there might not be many historical accusations, as they would have been dealt with at the time, hopefully. Who matters most, the living or the dead? The dead cannot in law be defamed, as far as know. I do agree that cases going back 20-30 years are dangerous with evidence often no more than hearsay.

The dead cannot be defamed, but I would be very uneasy about reputations being destroyed on the basis of hearsay. There is a danger of overcompensating for past failings by presuming every claim made is true, if not proven. The absence of compelling evidence is not evidence of a conspiracy or a coverup. It is simply the absence of compelling evidence. Ted Heath shouldn't be found guilty simply because police forces were incompetent or negligent at some given point in the past.

Madd Finn

TwoGallants wrote: »

I don't mind sex with adults from my politicians (In fact, I'm more suspicious if they are outwardly loyal to their spouses.

You see, this is the thing that smells about this case to me. As the earlier quote from Paul Foot makes clear, there had always been rumours about Heath but as he pointed out, they were unsubstantiated and were as likely, on the basis of the evidence or lack of it, to be malicious and politically mischievous. And back in the 70s, they only referred to homosexual liaisons, not paedophilia.

Back then, even though homosexual acts between consenting males had been decriminalised in Britain at the end of the 1960s, it was damning enough just to be gay. That was a bad enough slur. Nowadays, nobody gives a **** about that so you have to up the ante if you want to damage somebody. You have to get the kids into it.

If the stories were true back in the 1960s and 70s, why not blow the whistle on the full sordid story? Why let him away with "just" being gay? Could it be because the stories were complete fabrications?

Very sceptical about the whole thing.

Eugene Norman

Sand wrote: »

The dead cannot be defamed, but I would be very uneasy about reputations being destroyed on the basis of hearsay. There is a danger of overcompensating for past failings by presuming every claim made is true, if not proven. The absence of compelling evidence is not evidence of a conspiracy or a coverup. It is simply the absence of compelling evidence. Ted Heath shouldn't be found guilty simply because police forces were incompetent or negligent at some given point in the past.

There were dead priests named in our tribunals. The names were changed. Nobody cried witchhunt then.

K-9

More a general point but I always find it odd that people point to an older man with no partner and no real sexual interest as strange, and then extrapolate all sorts from it.

Eugene Norman

K-9 wrote: »

More a general point but I always find it odd that people point to an older man with no partner and no real sexual interest as strange, and then extrapolate all sorts from it.

It's far more than that.