Anyone else hear Ted Heath's friend/private secretary equivocating on the Today programme today?(14 Posts)
Dodgy as hell. He was quite adamant his friend Ted Heath wasn't a wrong 'un, but he got very slippery when asked what he'd known about establishment child abuse cover-ups in the 80s. He confirmed on questioning he'd advised Thatcher against knighting Savill. I'm also not buying the line that Ted Heath had close protection officers around so couldn't have abused children given the info coming out about Special Branch and others holding info (and therefore turning a blind eye) about other establishment figureslike Cyril Smith. Anyone else hear the interview?
It was really no secret back then that sailor Ted's sexuality, as you quaintly put it, made him a "wrong 'un."
Now whether we believe the ‘Madame’ that just said Mr Heath’s tastes were young, fit and usually foreign men, or not - so far with no Heath child sex proof, the only ‘revelation’ so far, is that Heath was indeed gay.
But if we want to start casting spurious allegations around of the period at the time the Paedophile Information Exchange was considered socially and politically acceptable.
So until Heath’s non hetro secret is proven to involve children, let us remember nowadays it is considered just fine for a Member of Parliament to prance around in just his over large skiddies covering his ‘member’ - on a website that COULD be seen by anyone, including under aged children.
Now me, I’d more worry why the powers that be in the likes of Rotherham, in the 21st century, still can’t stop systemic child abuse even when both out in the open TOLD they have to.
There's nothing in it for the PS to agree to give interviews if he has skeletons to hide about his boss.
But having some idea of where other skeletons might lie is a totally separate question. Especially if it involved the police (who are the ones who call off investigations, based on something someone denies she ever said).
I agree that we shouldn't be equating "gay" with "paedophile". However, it's becoming increasingly clear that Heath and the people around him were at the very least turning a blind eye to child abuse. I also don't think buying sexual consent is the same as posting horribly embarrassing pictures on a dating website/app. Even if there was no child abuse he was buying sex from young men.
Posted too soon- any MP caught doing that today would be in trouble let alone the prime minister.
Well there wasn't a website in the 1970's etc to advertise your (under) wears and satisfy what cum natural to a homosexual, and 'buying sex' with consenting and over age of consent adults, is the oldest profession and not illegal.
On that subject, when was being homosexual legal, and /or when was there no stigma attached.
And what do you think this Paedophile Information Exchange was, a baking club?
when was being homosexual legal
Homosexual activity was legalised in 1967. The age of consent for homosexual activity was not equalised with heterosexual activity until 2001.
when was there no stigma attached
The proportion of the population who regard homosexual relationships as always or mostly wrong did not drop below 50% until 1999. It took until 2006 for those saying such relationships were not wrong at all to outnumber those saying they were always or mostly wrong. Even today over one third of the population describe homosexual relationships as always or mostly wrong. There are still those (as we are seeing with these allegations) who equate homosexuality with paedophilia.
given the info coming out about Special Branch and others holding info (and therefore turning a blind eye) about other establishment figures like Cyril Smith
Cyril Smith wasn't under close protection. Failing to investigate allegations is on a somewhat different level to ignoring something going on in front of you.
Heath and the people around him were at the very least turning a blind eye to child abuse
I'm not sure I agree with that. The police were but that doesn't mean politicians were. And if Heath was then so were Wilson and Callaghan.
Ted Heath is being called asexual. Of course, there is no way of knowing now, he is the only one who knew whether he was or wasn't, but if he was asexual, it is likely that the assumption was made that he was homosexual, because in those days it was seen very much either/or, ( either gay or straight) but 1% of the population would have been asexual, than as now.
Isit, Chris Bryant's photo was on his Gaydar profile. So it would have to be a pretty advanced child who could sign up to Gaydar, get a user name and password and then search for hm.
Thats right, kids of several years old nowadays have no idea how to use computers/technology with passwords etc. Hmmm.
And as for 'search', looking for superheroes they could put in 'Captain Underpants' and get a result(?). lol
I'd like to see six year old actually be able to sign up for Gaydar though. I don't think it's as common as you would believe.
My children were able to get on to facebook when about 7 or 8. Children whose parents choose not to control them can get on to gay websites and indeed some children are gay and all parents have the issue of at what age they allow their children to read about sex.
I am sure I was not the only 12 year old at the library in the 1970s trying to find erotic material to arouse me!
I was referring only to Gaydar, which requires a paid registration in order to view explicit or nude photos. Would a 7 or 8 year old be organised enough to steal their parents credit card and create a profile? I wouldn't have thought so but I may be wrong.
Anyway, I don't think Chris Bryant's Gaydar photos in any way equate to what Heath and Smith allegedly got up to so I don't think it's very fair to even mention him in the same breath!
I agree a 7 or 8 year old is unlikely to do that.
I don't think Heath did anytyhing (and I am old enough to remember him) but I am not against investigations as I doubt he had anything much to hide. I also want to ensure we protect children today too which we are not that great at doing, sadly.
Join the discussion
Please login first.