Leon Brittan - it's getting closer to home

Woke up this morning to hear that LB had been questioned by the police.  "Yikes!" I thought, "that was quick!"

I instantly assumed that he was being questioned in connection with something to do with the Elm House stuff - and the dossier - and that they'd finally decided to act on the persistent rumours.   However, it is apparently to do with a rape accusation from before he was an MP - rape of a woman incidentally.   This was interesting - since it shows a predilection for an unwilling partner... or the imposition of one's own will or power.

A man of considerable integrity - Geoffrey Dickens - who handed Leon Brittan a dossier!

Perhaps I am especially sensitive to this subject - but it seems to me that the police and questions are slowly getting closer to Leon Brittan.  The fact that he was Home Secretary when the dossier about paedophilia in public life amassed by the late Geoffrey Dickens MP, went missing is not a coincidence.  I am most curious to know whether the dossier included information on LB's own involvement.   Would GD have had the chutzpah to do this?  Would he have included LB's name (if he knew it) to tell him "we're onto you!  Beware: your sins will find you out!"?  I don't know.


Mark my husband thinks I am being a bit triumphalist about this - he say when he met me hearing what I knew about LB and Saville et al. he thought I was a bit of a nutter, a conspiracy theorist.  Now he says "whatever happened to tour comprendre, c'est tout pardonner"

Sir, I refute him thus

Let us suppose LB was the victim of abuse himself, that his mental state was such that he knew no other form of sex other than rape, domination and cruelty?  Yet, he is an intelligent, rational man - a lawyer I think.  He must have noticed that his attitude towards sex, his tastes and preferences were not generally shared.  He must have known that rape was not an agreeable consensual form of sex, that love had no place in it.  So, what does the rational man do when he finds his sexual preferences are loathesome.   Apparently he goes underground and enjoys his habits in the company of like minded companions.   WRONG.  The intelligent, sensitive decent person does not do this - he GETS HELP!

This is his true crime - loathesome though these people are, they all had an alternative, they could have got therapy, help, they could - like some people - attempted to sublimate this taste into good works and heroic actions and avoided all temptation to sin.   I am using religious language here because we have all got very scared of using it - but all the language used about this crime is getting tired.  It is a sin - a failure in ourselves to live the best life we could, to follow the example of Jesus - or whichever spiritual authority we may recognise.

Geoffrey Dickens - the Tory MP who tried to pursue paedophilia - had a troubled and unhappy childhood - if he was absued it isn't reported, but whatever the miseries, he used his position to the full to try and help others - as can be seen in his obituary http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/obituaries--geoffrey-dickens-1619966.html  .  I would probably have violently disagreed with him over many things, but I admire the fact that he pursued these people to the utmost of his abilities.  This is marked contrast to the way Tebbit, Gove et al are closing ranks now.  Yech.

If you watch this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORU5x-ryedU
you will see a rather horrifying interview about the Elm Guest house - the interviewer Bill Maloney is rather volatile (with reason) which is a bit offputting - the interviewee Chris Fay was involved with the National Association of Young People in Care - who is calm and sensible and very convincing.    A number of Bill Maloney's videos are up on You Tube - I haven't heard of LB taking any legal action against him.

Lord McAlpine

In 2012 I wrote some pieces which named a couple of people in the Conservative party who were rumoured to be involved in paedophilia (that's upper class child abuse... or is it just a more distinguished form of child abuse?).  At the time there was a great BBC-scandal because Lord McAlpine had been named as connected with the Welsh childrens' home paedophilia scandal/cover up.... he took offence, sued etc. and threatened to pursue everyone who had ever retweeted disobliging tweets about him.    Although I hadn't written much about him, I had mentioned his love of boxing matches in passing.   He died the other day, which is why I am now writing this, not because I have any thing scandalous to say about him - the love of boxing not being exactly connected with paedophilia - although I think the way it was seen in the Ancient Greek world at the Olympic and other games, leaves one in no doubt about the erotic stimulus in provided for some.

Anyway, what I guessed at the time was that Lord M (bottom) could have been mistaken for Peter M (below) - the now dead Welsh office MP, worshipper of Mrs Thatcher and apparent paedophile.

They are not that similar - but to a frightened child, one stout, rubicund, jowelly Tory probably is as bad as another.  So maybe this solves the Lord M thing, that he was wrongly identified when it was Morrison all along.  Unless of course it's true.  Apparently a lot of BBC journos believe it is true - but that may just be the strength of the conspiracy theorising.  I know nothing, only that he liked watching boxing, and this fact has not been thought worthy of mention in the obituaries.  After all, plenty of people like boxing apparently.

Despite the death of Lord M I don't think I shall bring back the very popular pieces on Tory paedophilia... who knows, someone else's lawyer may be on the qui vive for this sort of material, and I don't really want to be bankrupted.  At the time I wrote them a great deal was being made of some investigations into a place called Elm House in Barnes...here apparently more cavorting with the denizens of care homes took place.  Oh why do I say cavorting?  I am trying to be euphemistic, but why don't I just say rape?  Since then, nothing more has been said.  

As I wondered in the previous post, why do the Tories seem to be so heavily implicated in child abuse?.  Is it just a coincidence that nearly all the well-known men charged with it have been Tories?  I imagine Stuart Hall was a Tory (the commentator, not the sociologist!).  I'm not saying there aren't Labour voters who abuse children (probably their own, rather than purchasing other people's), but somehow child-rape seems to be an unpleasant metaphor for just how much these people care for the weak, vulnerable and marginalised and how insouciantly they screw us all.