I guess one has a vested interest in believing what one believes. I've been thinking about the Leon Brittan issue for years. I always believed that he was a paedophile, because someone trustworthy told me. One hears a lot of things, particularly if you are, or mix with, journalists. Some of them are clearly rubbish, conspiracy theories etc. Some of them are feasible, but one questions them. Somethings have the "ping" of truth about them. That was certainly what I got when I heard about Jimmy Savile, even though the man who told me was in PR. He worked for charities and had to know who to steer clear of, who was too risky, who might besmirch his clients' good names. I think he also told me about Leon Brittan - or was it someone else? For whatever reason, I always believed it was true about Leon Brittan, whereas I never believed the same story about Gordon Brown.
Tonight Panorama broadcast a programme discussing how LB was probably gravely maligned by a terminally confused lad, and that chap Chris, the former social worker, who has been on the trail of this Establishment vice ring for years. Chris always seemed very plausible when I've seen him interviewed, but now it is revealed that he's done time for fraud. So, while this doesn't mean he isn't telling the truth, it certainly casts a lot of doubt. Various former victims' evidence was found to be suspect ranging to fantasy. It all becomes a question of belief. They have come to believe this, even though people like Harvey Proctor stoutly deny it happened. HP had a terrible reputation in the past, and Private Eye made various comments about him; some gay man I worked with also told me something about him which I cannot remember, but the gist of which was that he was not a strictly vanilla person - it was probably some S&M thing - which in those days was frowned on but now seems to be every other modern person's quirky habit.
Children in homes, traumatised and obviously being given unpleasant times, often by staff, are probably liable to create false memories. The worst thing was a man who had been interrogated by the police about his miserable past, and who said that it had destroyed all his defences against his bad memories, and left him more vulnerable. He was a very credible, sensible witness, who seemed to lack a lot of the (not unreasonable) self-pity of a lot of these former child victims.
The fact is, like the police, I know nothing - I believe what I was told years ago, and now wonder about it. I could say "it's all a conspiracy" - the Establishment are undermining the credibility of these victims and their spokesman to protect themselves - but why protect them? Half of them are dead anyway - why shouldn't these individuals be prosecuted? It's certainly convenient for them that these questions are being asked. I do find the police modus operandi in these cases very odd. But it was so long ago, a lot of people are dead now, it's hard to find evidence. It is never going to be proved one way or another. It remains a matter of belief.
Tonight Panorama broadcast a programme discussing how LB was probably gravely maligned by a terminally confused lad, and that chap Chris, the former social worker, who has been on the trail of this Establishment vice ring for years. Chris always seemed very plausible when I've seen him interviewed, but now it is revealed that he's done time for fraud. So, while this doesn't mean he isn't telling the truth, it certainly casts a lot of doubt. Various former victims' evidence was found to be suspect ranging to fantasy. It all becomes a question of belief. They have come to believe this, even though people like Harvey Proctor stoutly deny it happened. HP had a terrible reputation in the past, and Private Eye made various comments about him; some gay man I worked with also told me something about him which I cannot remember, but the gist of which was that he was not a strictly vanilla person - it was probably some S&M thing - which in those days was frowned on but now seems to be every other modern person's quirky habit.
Children in homes, traumatised and obviously being given unpleasant times, often by staff, are probably liable to create false memories. The worst thing was a man who had been interrogated by the police about his miserable past, and who said that it had destroyed all his defences against his bad memories, and left him more vulnerable. He was a very credible, sensible witness, who seemed to lack a lot of the (not unreasonable) self-pity of a lot of these former child victims.
The fact is, like the police, I know nothing - I believe what I was told years ago, and now wonder about it. I could say "it's all a conspiracy" - the Establishment are undermining the credibility of these victims and their spokesman to protect themselves - but why protect them? Half of them are dead anyway - why shouldn't these individuals be prosecuted? It's certainly convenient for them that these questions are being asked. I do find the police modus operandi in these cases very odd. But it was so long ago, a lot of people are dead now, it's hard to find evidence. It is never going to be proved one way or another. It remains a matter of belief.
No comments:
Post a Comment