Was 'Kids Company' a Victim of the Westminster Paedophile Ring Cover Up?

originally posted by: HumanPLC
a reply to: uncommitted

Nope mate, its not that.

He alleged that it happened in a private office during a cash for questions sting 20 years ago.

It was nowhere near as trivial as the casual brush you seemed to be suggesting.

ETA - no, I wouldn't agree he is credible for the reasons below.......

I apologise, I'm obviously thinking of a different occasion. This is the one where Roger Cook says he never even met Ben Fellow isn't it, and it was described in the press as a grope at the time. Interestingly none of the people who worked on the Cook report had heard of the allegation either....

www.birminghammail.co.uk...

Of course you will say 'well they would say that' I guess

a reply to: uncommitted

So you are choosing to believe the article from a local newspaper as oppose to the verdict of a jury of peers who, as part of the trial, would have been privvy to a lot more facts in the case than we know?

I find that bizzare, he was found to be innocent, the claims that he lied were found to be false.

There is no greater test of evidence than a trial and yet you still refuse to accept that.

But, putting all of that aside, i still believe that he has the right to have his allegations investigated properly; sadly, as of yet it has not happened.

originally posted by: HumanPLC
a reply to: uncommitted

So you are choosing to believe the article from a local newspaper as oppose to the verdict of a jury of peers who, as part of the trial, would have been privvy to a lot more facts in the case than we know?

I find that bizzare, he was found to be innocent, the claims that he lied were found to be false.

There is no greater test of evidence than a trial and yet you still refuse to accept that.

Am I prepared to believe Roger Cook and the production team that were part of the recording when the alleged incident took place? Yes, why should I not believe them, or more to the point why should I not believe them, but believe Ben Fellows?

The claims he lied were not found to be false, if that was the case then I'm fairly sure the CPS would have absolutely no grounds not to prosecute Ken Clarke (remembered it's spelled with an e). The jury didn't find him guilty of attempting to pervert the course of justice - that's not the same thing as saying whether he was lying.

That local paper was reporting the events in court, why would the fact that it's a local newspaper have anything to do with it? If you want a more national one, then the Metro is below with fairly much the same report -

metro.co.uk...

a reply to: uncommitted

The case was directly related to his allegations re Ken Clarke, if it had been proven he was lying he would have been found guilty.

I say local paper because its local to me, that's all, I wasn't trying to belittle the newspaper or your source in any way at all, im aware its what Roger Cook stated in evidence.

I don't think you are seeing what im saying, I'm not saying Kenneth Clarke is guilty, I'm not saying any one of the Westminster gang are guilty. What i am saying is that regardless of the person making the allegation it still needs to be investigated thoroughly.

You know what, i'll lay my cards on the table. I think Ben Fellows might be a little bit mixed up and i too question whether he was or was not involved in the cook report; however, regardless of this he still has the right to have his allegations investigated, and this has not happened.

Child abuse tends to mess people up, and a lot of people who have now come forward have a somewhat colourful history, does that mean that we should treat them as a lesser person and not take their word on face value when they decide to disclose? Of course not!

originally posted by: HumanPLC
a reply to: uncommitted

The case was directly related to his allegations re Ken Clarke, if it had been proven he was lying he would have been found guilty.

I say local paper because its local to me, that's all, I wasn't trying to belittle the newspaper or your source in any way at all, im aware its what Roger Cook stated in evidence.

I don't think you are seeing what im saying, I'm not saying Kenneth Clarke is guilty, I'm not saying any one of the Westminster gang are guilty. What i am saying is that regardless of the person making the allegation it still needs to be investigated thoroughly.

You know what, i'll lay my cards on the table. I think Ben Fellows might be a little bit mixed up and i too question whether he was or was not involved in the cook report; however, regardless of this he still has the right to have his allegations investigated, and this has not happened.

Child abuse tends to mess people up, and a lot of people who have now come forward have a somewhat colourful history, does that mean that we should treat them as a lesser person and not take their word on face value when they decide to disclose? Of course not!

I think we are actually both saying the same thing - almost. Before I go into that, Ben Fellows isn't alleging Ken Clarke abused him when he (Fellows) was a child, he is a 40 year old talking about an alleged incident that happened when he was 19, so let's forsake any talk of child abuse in this example.

If anyone makes an allegation to the police, without any evidence, witnesses, anything at all that could corroborate the claim, especially with the lack of others making similar claims about the same individual to at least give some potential cause for doubt, exactly how could a trial proceed? Throw in the fact that it's historical and you get down to one persons word against another. How could the accused expect a fair trial in such a scenario?

a reply to: uncommitted

I think we are actually both saying the same thing

I agree... almost, lol.

he is a 40 year old talking about an alleged incident that happened when he was 19, so let's forsake any talk of child abuse in this example.

You are correct, fair enough.

If anyone makes an allegation to the police, without any evidence, witnesses, anything at all that could corroborate the claim, especially with the lack of others making similar claims about the same individual to at least give some potential cause for doubt, exactly how could a trial proceed?

I see what you are saying but here is how i see it... Allegation is made -> Police Investigate (collect evidence) -> CPS assess strength of evidence and decide trial or not.

Thats exactly my issue with this. If there is no investigation then there has been no attempt to collect evidence that corroborates the potential victims version of events.

I can see your logic in what you say but good testable evidence does not always come directly from the victim, its often just their word as to dates, times, etc but other evidence may be available from third parties, etc on further investigation.

Anyway, im pleased we are cool.

Right, whats next for us to disagree on, you choose, lol

Right, whats next for us to disagree on, you choose, lol

lol, just the point you didn't cover that whatever Ben Fellows was saying, it had nothing to do with child abuse as he was 19 at the time of the alleged incident.

a reply to: uncommitted

see my edit, lol

Actually, i didnt previously know but Ben Fellows only lives a few miles from me. Wonder if i could get an interview, lol

a reply to: uncommitted

So what is Ben Fellows motivation here do you think?

I'm not taking either side here, I'm just interested in why you think he is lying and what he stands to gain from doing such a thing.

I first read about him on David Icke's site a few years back, well before any of these allegations came to light in the Mainstream Media.

Also just been reading that there has been a second allegation made against Ken Clarke by a 14 year old boy.

This is the only source at the moment, apparantly there has been a reporting ban in it thats now been lifted... Cant help but wonder how many of those 'reporting bans' are in place at the moment hiding the real truth.

But the jury in the Fellows trial was not told about the other historical allegation against Clarke because the judge, Mr Justice Peregrine Simon, ruled that it would take too long for police to investigate it. At the preliminary hearing, five days before the start of the Fellows trial, the judge said: “The complaint relates to a man who alleges that when he was 14 he was subjected to a serious indecent assault by two men, and one he recognised later as being Ken Clarke.”

www.exaronews.com...

Gimme a bit i will see what i can find.

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
a reply to: uncommitted

So what is Ben Fellows motivation here do you think?

I'm not taking either side here, I'm just interested in why you think he is lying and what he stands to gain from doing such a thing.

I first read about him on David Icke's site a few years back, well before any of these allegations came to light in the Mainstream Media.

He's made multiple claims against various people in the public eye, none of which were substantiated, and on at least one occasion he lied about his age at the time of the alleged incident -

www.dailymail.co.uk...

(yes, I know it's the Mail, but it's referring to an interview Fellows gave to the Times).

Personally? Maybe he is a fantasist, maybe what happened is true (I doubt) but his recollection may not match reality. I just find it hard to swallow that one individual on multiple occasions was the 'victim' of crimes by various high profile people in the manner that he claims - and the fact he clearly lied about the age he was at the time of allegedly being 'seduced' by someone in the BBC when he initially said he was 14, but a little fact checking confirmed he would have to have been 19 when such an alleged seduction attempt may be unwelcome but would not be illegal make me question what credibility he could have.

Was it for money, was it for fame/infamy? No idea, but he doesn't help anyone else's cause.

originally posted by: HumanPLC
Also just been reading that there has been a second allegation made against Ken Clarke by a 14 year old boy.

This is the only source at the moment, apparantly there has been a reporting ban in it thats now been lifted... Cant help but wonder how many of those 'reporting bans' are in place at the moment hiding the real truth.

But the jury in the Fellows trial was not told about the other historical allegation against Clarke because the judge, Mr Justice Peregrine Simon, ruled that it would take too long for police to investigate it. At the preliminary hearing, five days before the start of the Fellows trial, the judge said: “The complaint relates to a man who alleges that when he was 14 he was subjected to a serious indecent assault by two men, and one he recognised later as being Ken Clarke.”

www.exaronews.com...

Gimme a bit i will see what i can find.

So, a web site that uses a logo of 'holding power to account' was the only (and I use the term with caution) news agency with a reporter in a preliminary hearing and this hasn't been raised by the defence? A prelim hearing which could have ruined the reputation of a very major and more importantly still living MP and that is the only site that has this information? Hmmmm, is it in any way affiliated with Before it's News?

a reply to: uncommitted

lol, thats a bit of a cop out mate, there has been a reporting ban... And whats wrong with holding power to account, its a dirty job but someone has to do it.

In fact, the conspiratorial part of me is starting to think that this Ted Heath thing might have been strategically released to divert attention from this as Ken Clarke is still living.

As i said, gimme a bit

originally posted by: HumanPLC
a reply to: uncommitted

lol, thats a bit of a cop out mate, there has been a reporting ban... And whats wrong with holding power to account, its a dirty job but someone has to do it.

As i said, gimme a bit

So, if there was a reporting ban............................ you know where I'm going with that.

The holding power to account thing was more about they are therefore starting with the assumption that someone in power is guilty and needs to be accountable - IMHO. It's a level of bias that makes me not find them a source I would trust without corroboration that they blatently say they can't give as their reporter was the only one there.

So, if there was a reporting ban............................ you know where I'm going with that.

Reporting bans, or D - Notices are actually voluntary, i guess you didnt know that.

Im not a fan of one source either so.... Gimmeee a bloody bit! lol

their reporter was the only one there.

And you dont see how that looks... Media not even interested, etc.

originally posted by: HumanPLC

So, if there was a reporting ban............................ you know where I'm going with that.

Reporting bans, or D - Notices are actually voluntary, i guess you didnt know that.

Im not a fan of one source either so.... Gimmeee a bloody bit! lol

their reporter was the only one there.

And you dont see how that looks... Media not even interested, etc.

Were they not even interested, or did this actually take place as 'reported''?

If BIN stated the same, everyone would be saying hoax, and actually a lot of times a single, accredited reporter may cover a syndicate of news agencies (possibly from a local newspaper) so I wouldn't always expect a full to heaving press gallery, but I would have thought there would have been more than a 'reporter' from the web site in question.

a reply to: uncommitted

I agree about not helping other's cases, but it is a bit strange that he should actually accuse Clarke of this and now there is a second investigation. Also strange that the source of the second investigation is from the only reporter in court. Why weren't there other reporters in court? Are they afraid to report on any of this?

I appreciate there is an investigation going on and no arrests or charges have been made, but as the reporting ban was lifted, why has no other media organisation picked up on this?

a reply to: uncommitted

Actually it was a prelim, i used to work at a crown court (oh man could i tell you some stories, lol) and to be fair its not abnormal for no media to be present for the prelim.

The reason i decided to included this source is because they use a lot of quotes, its not just their opinion; this leads me to believe that this did happen. As i say though, gimme a bit as i believe that more of this will come out shortly. Im searching as we speak.

As ponted out above, the fact that no other media outlets are reporting this tends to raise more question in my opinion.

originally posted by: HumanPLC
a reply to: uncommitted



But, putting all of that aside, i still believe that he has the right to have his allegations investigated properly; sadly, as of yet it has not happened.

That is the nub of it, the trial was a trial. What goes on beforehand, like an arrest becomes blurred. Even trials are something to behold if you are a participant, like advocates being free to indulge up to some point, like as you say the prosecution talking about Fellows as being 'imaginative', whose the hypocrite when the trial ends, or in this case, who was the hypocrite when the trial ended? obviously it was the prosecutor..since it was he who indulged in the hypocrisy, by being imaginative himself.
Aside from that, you will see that there are those who would complain about the initial investigation, post trial of course, on Fellows of around a couple of months, as being a waste of time where there are more important avenues/issues to follow? figure that out. Or, that Ken Clarke now needs to do a legal repost, both from the same quarters, figure that one out too. Or, is there an intent, from somewhere, high but low to say that the whole thing is a waste of time.