Ted Heath pedophile / satanic abuse allegations

[lottieandmia]

www.google.co.uk/amp/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/19/claims-sir-edward-heath-paedophile-120-per-cent-genuine-police/amp/

It's so worrying that this stuff only comes out after someone dies. As in the case of Jimmy Savile. These satanic abuse stories are so horrific most people just don't believe them. But it seems to me that what really happening is that people like Ted Heath got away with this because of cover ups.

Once their safely dead they can't sue

May Saville rot in Hell.
Still Just a bunch of rumours with no evidence about Heath.

As soon as I hear conspiracy coverup talk my instincts say load of ridiculous tosh. I'll hide thread now.

I am prety sure Heath is innocent and Savile was guilty. However Heath has no one to defend him and I suppose as he's dead it may not matter too much now even if he's falsely accused. If you read the press articles it all looks pretty much made up against him.

Heath is innocent? That's not what the police are saying. Why would people make up stuff about some Ines who's died.

The more people say 'no evidence, la,la,la' the more vulnerable children are at risk if people choose not to believe them.

It's not 'conspiracy talk' that crimes of people in influential positions gets covered up. How do you think Savile got away with it for all the years he did?

That's not what the police are saying

I don't know whether Heath was guilty or not but I wouldn't necessarily trust what the police say. There are many cases where they have been "120% certain" that someone committed a crime but were wrong. And in this case, given the amount they have spent on the investigation and the high profile they gave it initially, it would be embarrassing if they had to say the allegations were false.

Why would people make up stuff about some Ines who's died

All kinds of reasons. They may want attention, they may be hoping to receive compensation, they may be mistaken as to the identity of their abuser (as happened with Lord Alpine, although he was alive at the time) and so on.

I agree that we should start by believing someone who alleges they were a victim of child abuse. Too often in the past they were disbelieved, allowing abusers to continue their activities. However, that does not mean we should continue to believe blindly. Their allegations may fit our preconceptions but that does not mean they are true. They must be investigated properly, which is not always easy when the accused is dead.

The thing that's stood out for me recently about Heath is that someone who knew him well defended him by saying that he couldn't have done something he's alleged to have done "because he never drove himself"

But he did. There are pictures of him driving his own car.

So that's a bit strange...

And since when do people need to be able to drive to do atrocious things?

And since when do people need to be able to drive to do atrocious things

They don't. The significance in this case is that some of the allegations involve Heath driving a car. If he could not drive (or could but didn't) those allegations are false.

For what it is worth the photos available online show him at the wheel of a stationary car which does not prove he could drive. However, that does not rule out the possibility that the police have different photos that prove he did drive himself.

I wonder whether the people accusing him of car related offences have mentioned his lack of driving skills.

(Although I suppose that, as children, they could claim not to have realised)