Paedophilia and Politicians 129

I am genuinely confused following today’s official police report that paedophilia allegations against Edward Heath were credible enough to bear investigation. It does not surprise me that powerful politicians were protected from investigation in their lifetime. It is sad and sick, but not surprising. In the large majority of cases – Heath, Janner, Brittan, Freud, Smith, activities at Elm Guest House and Dolphin Square and more – we will never really know the full truth.

But my confusion is this.

These are not “copycat” allegations, because they were hushed up at the time. Yet there were, undeniably, a total of scores of allegations of paedophile abuse against politicians, spread right across the country, made by people nobody listened to and who in the vast majority of cases had no knowledge of each other.

Now there are not a similar tranche of historic allegations of other crimes against politicians. There is no evidence of historic shoplifting allegations, and surprising little of historic fraud and corruption allegations. Sexually, there is some limited number of historic adult rape allegations, but not nearly on the scale of the historic paedophilia allegations.

Why? It is not a rhetorical question. I genuinely do not understand it.

Paedophilia is in fact thankfully rare in society. It is notoriously difficult to estimate but medical authorities rate sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children at around 2% of the male population. But that is a figure for those who feel any kind of attraction, not for those who are prepared to act on it. That figure is far, far smaller. But it is very hard to quantify. There are approximately 20,000 convictions per year in the UK, but as the crime mostly happens within families that is certainly an understatement of the incidence. Most of the convictions also involve a family relationship.

To my knowledge, no significant proportion of the historic allegations against politicians involve their own family members. This makes them part of a still rarer group, those who set out to procure the sexual services of children with whom they have no connection. I do not see any room to doubt that Parliament had, over a period of decades, an incidence of criminals that indulged in this odious pattern of behaviour, that was very much higher than the incidence in the general population.

I ask again, why? I do not think power and impunity is enough of an answer. They were doing something the vast, vast majority of us would never do, no matter how sure to “get away with it”.

I can only think of two explanations. The first, and unlikely, is some sort of organisation of paedophiles designed to help each other into parliament. The second and probable explanation is that the desire for political power often reflects a personality disorder which leads to other aberrant behaviour, such as paedophilia.

It is rather important for society that we come to understand this, as it has severe implications for the way we organise society. Unfortunately, Theresa May, whether by design or incompetence, made such a pig’s ear of the Inquiry into historic child abuse, I fear our best chance has passed.





129 thoughts on “Paedophilia and Politicians

1 2 3
  • philw

    If one wants to control a country, then controlling people in key positions is very useful. In order to control people, being able to blackmail them is an excellent method. Paedophiles in senior positions are particularly open to blackmail. Set up a network of paedophiles promoting each other and you have a powerful tool of control.

    If you own both parties, then democracy is a sham, a show for the masses.

    Is it really any wonder that so many politicians have been caught doing things which the majority of us would never dream of doing?

    • Paul Barbara

      philw October 7, 2017 at 19:27
      ‘….If you own both parties, then democracy is a sham, a show for the masses….’
      Do you seriously doubt that that is the case, particularly in the US but also in the UK (sans JC, which is why he is demonised)?
      ‘Truthers’ have been aware of that for some time, but of course we are mere ‘conspiracy theorists’, to be dismissed as, well, ‘conspiracy theorists’. I wear the badge, with pride.

  • Tony

    “The second and probable explanation is that the desire for political power often reflects a personality disorder which leads to other aberrant behavior…”

    I think this may be another such example:

    Simon Jenkins:
    “I was talking to Jim Callaghan during the
    (Falklands) War and I said to him:
    ‘Erm. How do you think the war’s going?’ ”

    “And I always remember his face just looking completely ashen and he said:-

    ‘I wish I’d had a war. If only I’d had a war’ ”

    A total of around 900 people were killed in the Falklands War.

    (Interview with journalist Simon Jenkins,
    “Tory! Tory! Tory!” BBC 4, 15 March 2006).

  • Sharp Ears

    Cyril Smith’s abuse was covered up.

    Sexual and physical abuse allegations

    Margaret Thatcher’s office ‘told of Cyril Smith abuse claims before his knighthood’
    An inquiry hears a knighthood “reinforced the veneer of respectability”, allowing the MP to continue as a child abuser unchecked.

    The proceedings of the IICSA inquiry are being made public. Broadcast. live today with a 5min delay.

  • Paul Barbara

    ‘I was raped at the aged of 4 by Scots Tory MP who was one of Margaret Thatcher’s closest allies’:

    ‘…Miss Henderson, who lives near Inverness, claimed Sir Nicholas raped her when she was in bed with him and ‘another guy’ in a guest room on the top floor of her five-storey family home.
    She says she was just four or five years old at the time, and remembers the pungent smell of his feet.
    Last month broadcaster Esther Rantzen spoke of her revulsion after learning Sir Nicholas, with whom she had an affair after they met in a BBC studio in 1966, had been implicated in the Westminster child abuse scandal.
    Miss Henderson, speaking publicly after Sir Nicholas was linked to the guest house, said: “I knew this would come out.
    “I’m only surprised it has taken so long. I told the police about him in 2000, I told them what Fairbairn was. But they just wanted me to go away.”
    Miss Henderson now works in social care and has a grown-up son.
    She said: “It’s really only in my 40s that I’ve started living my life. I have good days and I have bad days. It will never go away and I get horrendous nightmares at times but, because my father is dead now, I’m not as scared as I used to be.”…..’

    Same old same old…it only comes out after the bastards are dead.
    The victim told the police in 2000, but they took no action (Fairbairn was already dead then – he died 1995).
    When decent cops do try to take action, they are told to lay off by higher-ups.

    How many MP’s are ‘at it’ right now, yet it will only come out after they are long gone?
    Why is May not doing her best to make the ‘Historic Child Abuse’ inquiry work?
    The most likely reason is that it goes too high up, and many abusers are still alive and doing their abominations.

  • Bert.


    The second is correct. it is now a commonplace to remark that paedophiles can be extremely shrewd at getting into positions where they can have access to young children and, hopefully, the protection of the establishment. What is not recognised – but is exactly equally valid – is that anyone with a deep-seated unconscious psychological bent can be very shrewd in placing themselves in positions where they can satisfy that bent. Cops, lawyers, teachers, and many others are much less savoury characters than they would have us believe.

    That those in Parliament are of the most distasteful quality is no surprise to me whatsoever. I quite expect reports like this. When Esther Ranzen presented her programme introducing ChildLine in 1986, on the first examples was a female who started by saying that we would not expect it in her family given that her father was a BARRISTER. Oh yes I would. Recall in their book: ‘A Mind To Crime’ Anne Moir and David Jessel offer George Carmen as an example of ‘controlled aggression’. After Carmen’s death we heard that he was persistently violent and always got away with it by using his status and reputation to silence the cops who visited the house on a number of occasions.

    I have spent far too long trying to get people to understand that it precisely those on top of the pile who are the sickest of the sick.

    On the back of the original Corgy publication of Eric Berne’s: ‘What do you Say after You Say Hello’ a reviewer says, referring to the book title: “…explains what makes the winners win, the losers lose and the in-betweens so boring…” When I first read this I thought the reviewer has missed the point: the winners are not winning, they are as desperate and driven as the losers. The real winners are the in-betweens that float from beginning to end while no-one notices.


    • Paul Barbara

      @ Bert. October 12, 2017 at 18:26
      Disagree. The PTB, the ‘Puppeteers’, PLACE these ‘Creatures’ there, knowing they can control them.
      That’s why we have such shit decisions made by ‘MP’s’ etc.
      A**holes are groomed, from relatively early, for ‘Power’ (prime example Obama, ‘discovered’ and groomed by none other than Zbiegniew Brezenski).
      Check it out, don’t take my word for it (not that you’re likely to!).

1 2 3

Comments are closed.