The very much alive Harvey Proctor in the news again and (again) for all the wrong reasons, he is accused of:

● In 1980, Proctor is accused of stripping and tying a boy to a table in a house in central London, stabbing the child through the arm and the body over 40 minutes, before raping and killing the boy through strangulation. Nick claims to be a witness to the murder.

● In a London home between 1981 and 1982, Proctor is accused of anally raping Nick at a party before being joined by two other men who then punched and kicked an alleged victim who is believed to have died.

● In Kingston upon Thames, between May and June 1979, Nick claims he witnessed a boy being run down and killed by a car, and believes Proctor was part of the group responsible for the killing.

● Proctor is accused of raping Nick with several other males in Dolphin Square between 1979 and 1984.

● He is alleged to have opened the door to the exclusive Carlton Club when Nick was taken there by a rapist between 1978 and 1981.

● Proctor is accused of raping Nick at a swimming pool party in central London between 1978 and 1981.

● Between 1981 and 1982, Proctor is accused of forcing Nick to perform oral sex in a large townhouse in central London. On another occasion, Proctor is also accused in the same venue of producing a penknife and threatened to cut Nick’s genitals.

● Between 1979 and 1984, Proctor is accused of forcing Nick to perform oral sex before beating him with punches at a central London address.

● Over the same period, at locations including the Carlton Club, a flat in Dolphin Square and a central London home, Proctor was alleged to have been present at Christmas parties with Nick. At one of these parties, he is alleged to have forced Nick to perform oral sex.

Note the fact that he has previously lied through his teeth about historic child abuse charges (then pleaded guilty). He has also admitted that there was abuse going on around this time but strangely asked why the Police did not come to him previously about this. He was at the centre of this ring (it is alleged) and there is strong evidence he regularly attended Elm Guest House.

If he is charged and found guilty and decides then to spill the beans on the whole ring you can guarantee many heads will roll. It is plainly obvious this man cares not one tiny bit for the victims (by the way he talks) as he bleats his innocence in tears. Poor you.

I am seeing a lot of "alledged", "accused" and "claimed" - and no "charged" and "convicted".

This is clearly your personal crusade and should enough evidence be gathered to pursue conviction then ensuring the same thing can't happen again is a "good thing", but the language you use implies that the former terminology equals the latter, when in fact it doesn't.

Jimmy Saville was never charged or convicted either was he?

Your 'speculation' that it is my personal crusade is also annoying but the difference is that I am definitely not alone in wanting to see justice for the victims before the accused die like the many who also are behind this cause.

Why not just don't read the content of this thread if it irks you so much or get behind Harvey Proctors campaign for innocence. It is a democratic society we live in these days is it not?

It's fairly well established that the security services have a dossier on all MPs. The aim is to prevent people with too dodgy a past (and so being vulnerable to blackmail) being elected. (I'd have thought that "being a politician" should be considered pretty dodgy to start with...).

So almost certainly Ted Heath's proclivities (or lack thereof) would have been know to MI5 - or at least investigated. However:
If these accusations are true, then being cleared by MI5 would mean nothing.

I think Proctor's being fed to the dogs as he's an easy target. Still no new news on Leon Brittan's list....

Be aware that being part of a verbal population doesn't make it as big as you would think - witness what happened at the last GE in the UK where social media would have had us believe that Labour were going to win quite easily.

At present they are "alledged" victims in the sameway that Harvey Proctor is "accused" - until the cases are heard in a court of law and a conviction is achieved that is what they will be.

The subject of rape and abuse is highly emotive and why when allegations are made the accused is almost always vilified and the "victim" supported prior to a conviction. When a case is quashed the stain remains.

I don't have a problem with the pursuit of abusers, charging and convicting them, my issues lie the vilification prior to conviction and in some situations prosecutions made from a moral position that wasn't held by society at the time.

__________________
"Don't believe everything you read on the internet" Abraham Lincoln

surely its all about the law, not the "moral position" at the time?

The interpretation of a law 40 years ago maybe quite different to it now, with the interpretation being subject to society's changing moral compass.

For example look at "bribes" - taking a few executives away for a weekend to watch a Grand Prix - comp them in a good hotel, ply them with good food and plenty of champagne - for them to sign a sponsorship deal may be considered a bribe to some - but not to others. Bribery is an offence.

40 years ago the above wouldn't be considered bribery - now it almost certainly would. The law hasn't changed.

__________________
"Don't believe everything you read on the internet" Abraham Lincoln

thanks, I see what you mean. Running with your moral ball there is a huge difference morally between some execs plying some business partners with booze and a systematic cover up by police, M15 and politicians on paedophile rings

Again it depends on the moral viewpoint. Taking it a step further and to deal with it in a more abstract way. If at a point in time society as a whole adopted a "cover-up" approach to breaking the law, does the same society have the right to go back and re-appraise the offences once that approach has changed.

For example 40 years ago you got sloshed, drove home, knocked someone off their bike - they didn't die, but they were injured enough to miss a couple of days of work - and become a nervous road user and to stop cycling. Back then you spoke to your dad who spoke to one of his chums at the golf club who just happened to be the Chief Constable - and the whole thing was swept under the carpet.

40 years later and society would deem such behaviour as unacceptable and either it wouldn't happen (although in some situations clearly it does) or a whistleblower would ensure that if it did people found out about it. Society's moral compass has moved on and coverups aren't as acceptable as they once were.

Another example is that of VAT avoidance - 40 years ago dodgying a bit of VAT and giving Dave (who is on the social) £10 for a day of labouring wouldn't cause moral outrage, now there is a far harder line. The offences haven't changed but society has.

To reiterate, I don't condone the alledged behaviour.

__________________
"Don't believe everything you read on the internet" Abraham Lincoln

Oh dear. Read the POLICE charge list (alleged) of suspected crimes, you might notice MURDER as one of them. Then or now, murder is murder (at least) in this investigation, or is not as serious as 30 or so years ago?.

@ dodgyken. Thanks, so what would you do, let bygones be bygones?

Not sure I'd go that far, but I'd be questioning why allegation of these offences and subsequent cover up took so long to come to light, the motivation behind them and perhaps more importantly the "trial by media" that has followed.

In other words - who benefits from bringing these allegations to light? Society? An individual?

Assume a simple crime happens, you get mugged and your wallet stolen. Who benefits from justice in this case? You - as your assailiant is caught, charged and convicted. Society because the laws as defined are adhered to and those who break the law are punished.

Lets say that mugging happened 40 years ago and was covered up because the assailant (now dead) was the son of the mayor (also dead) - who it transpires coerced the police into covering up a number of incidents involving his son. Now who benefits from bringing it into the public eye? You? Unlikely unless you genuinely believe your life pivoted from that moment and you never addressed the emotions. Society? Perhaps, but those involved are now dead and the institution has changed - the police of 40 years ago is not the police of today. 40 years ago the assailant might have been given a beating to confess - that isn't so fashionable now.

__________________
"Don't believe everything you read on the internet" Abraham Lincoln

So, DK, what exactly is it that you did way back when, that you are worried about being prosecuted for it today? C'mon spill the beans, what skeletons are you trying to hide?

As I said at the time: "If I told you that I'd have to kill you"

If that were the case, then homosexuals convicted of gross indecency should not be pardoned. Or is only when the past law and/or moral position doesn't jibe with the current law and/or moral position?

All these horrific accusations, how many people are making them exactly ? Just so we can rule out that its not just one person ruining someone's character. For such serious offences and a police investigation there must be several accusers I assume.

good point, if paedophilia, rape and physical abuse are made legal now and those who committed these crimes are given pardons and there is an amnesty then I suppose we should let these b*stards go.....

Exaro which is a very well respected organisation are supporting the victims and managing the accusations.

I see them talking about Nick quite a lot in fact it says he came to them first. So the question is still the same: this politician, who you may or may not like, he's had his life reputation destroyed by the look of it. Is this on the back of some kind of evidence, or at least more than one source, or is it from one anonymous person, Nick, making multiple accusations ?