Lord Bramall: IPCC identify ‘victim’.
For all the richly deserved ‘scrambled egg‘ that decorates Lord Bramall’s formal dress, none can mean as much to him as the discreet star depicted here – which signifies that he was the 973rd person personally chosen by the reigning monarch to join the select 24 Knights of the Garter. He is currently the second most senior Knight of the Garter, second only to Lord Carrington.
Other titles and decorations that he holds are the result of meritocracy in the military, or were suggested by the Prime Minister of the day – decorations notorious for being politically motivated. Although there were periods in history when the government of the day was involved in choosing new Knights of the Garter – since 1946, it has been entirely a personal choice for the Monarch in recognition of exceptional service, either to the Monarch or the country. Lord Bramall must have been mortified, on behalf of his Sovereign, to have had that honour overshadowed by the events of the past ten months.
Now the man who stormed up the beaches of Dunkirk (Whoops!) Normandy on our behalf, and oversaw the Falklands war, is at war with the Metropolitan Police. Their mealy-mouthed announcement, carefully concealed within the Janner furore:
“Following a thorough investigation officers have concluded there is insufficient evidence to request the Crown Prosecution Service to consider charging the man with any offences.”
Is simply not good enough. ‘Insufficient evidence’ could mean anything from ‘no evidence’ to ‘not enough evidence to mount a successful prosecution’ – and Lord Bramall is entitled to having it made clear whether there was, in fact, any verifiable evidence at all.
Nor is the derisory ‘the man’ necessary considering the manner in which they went about investigating the lurid claims of yet another of Exaro’s stable of ‘victims’. The fact that they had carried out a flat footed and very public search of his house and subsequent interview meant that Lord Bramall had been more than publicly identified.
I am not suggesting that no investigation should have been carried out into ‘Nick’s’ claims, nor that Police officers should take to doffing their caps when dealing with anyone of any public standing – all are equal under the law.
However, 22 policemen arriving unannounced, to turn your house upside-down, during the quiet breakfast being enjoyed by a 92 year old man and his deeply confused 93 year old wife in the final weeks of her life is utterly unnecessary.
It is street theatre; designed to appease the social media mob that the Met appear to be in thrall of, it is not a proportionate response to one of a number of lurid claims, none of which have been substantiated.
Nor is it necessary for the 22 strong squad to then take off to the local pub for a gossipy lunch; leading, in a small village, to untold calls to the main stream media. Tell them to take sandwiches next time!
In short, investigate by all means, but do it in a discrete manner that leaves the dignity of the allegedly ‘accused’ intact until such time as you actually have verifiable evidence that they might have a case to answer to.
Pity ‘Nick’ hadn’t claimed that he been raped by aliens – we might have had the welcome sight of some of the ‘Midland’ squad being blasted off to Mars, never to be seen again.
Fortunately, we have some common-sense being whispered quietly. Anthony Stansfield, one of the Independent Police and Crime Commissioners, has spoken out:
‘This is a man who has commanded our nuclear deterrent, was in charge of all our armed forces.
He would have been surrounded by staff, he would have had a very, very detailed diary of every day. It is utterly inconceivable and the slightest investigation would have shown that.
Instead they seem to have barged into the house of a 92-year-old. His wife was dying of Alzheimer’s in the house…
The victim in this entirely is Field Marshal the Lord Bramall.’
Indeed, it is Lord Bramall who has been the victim.
It is time the Metropolitan Police showed some of their much vaunted sympathy and support towards victims – starting with a fulsome apology for treating this investigation as though it was an episode of ‘Meet the Kardashians’.
- Eric
January 18, 2016 at 9:24 am -
I think you are in error here.
The point of the 22 strong army landing on your doorstep is only partly to satisfy the mob. The main reason for it is to get the name of Lord Bramall out in the open as “one of them paedos” to try and get the usual mix of the insane and compensation chasing criminals to conveniently “remember” things about him, in order to create a bulk of allegations so they can prosecute under “no smoke without fire” (aka similar fact) law.
- Mr Wray
January 21, 2016 at 11:48 am -
Is there any link between his accuser and certain politicians of dubious morals?
Some of our politicians do not like the fact that the Falklands War was an away win and might be seeking revenge.
- Mr Wray
- Richard Bartholomew
January 18, 2016 at 9:37 am -
September 2015: the Met announce on Operation Midland that “we have not yet completed this task. It is then for the Crown Prosecution Service to make a decision on whether to prosecute.”
January 2016: the Met announce: “Following a thorough investigation officers have concluded there is insufficient evidence to request the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to consider charging the man with any offences.”
I wonder how much back-and-forth there has been between the CPS and the Met about who should take final responsibility for ending this farce? The new police statement appears desperate to insist that it is merely following CPS guidelines. Further discussion here
- The Blocked Dwarf
January 18, 2016 at 9:43 am -
Honi soit qui mal y pense … how apt when pinned to Lord Bramwell’s chest…although I doubt the Exaroites ‘do’ shame.
- David
January 18, 2016 at 9:53 am -
If you are accused of ‘anything’ these days, you are likely, in the words of Detective Hogan-Howe, ‘to have your door pushed in’. I see dozens of police in London, lined up next to police vans, early in the morning, waiting to search another property, for drugs, stolen goods, etc.
The idea that certain people should be exempt from this ‘normal procedure’, because they are ‘titled’, or well known, is wrong, particularly when we are talking about the abuse/murder of children? - Ho Hum
January 18, 2016 at 10:17 am -
Er, storming up the Beaches at Normandy seems more likely …. :-/
- Ho Hum
January 18, 2016 at 10:19 am -
Oh! Looks like you got there first
- Ho Hum
- Hadleigh Fan
January 18, 2016 at 10:23 am -
He knocked Janner to the floor of the HoL with a well-directed punch …
- Rightwinggit
January 18, 2016 at 12:04 pm - The Blocked Dwarf
January 18, 2016 at 7:16 pm -
He knocked Janner to the floor of the HoL with a well-directed punch …
Begorrah! That could almost be from a Pogues song…
”He took them out
With a well-aimed clout
…He fought the champ in Pittsburgh
And he slashed him to the ground”
- Rightwinggit
- Keith Hart
January 18, 2016 at 10:46 am -
Heads should roll and not just junior ones. The unprofessionalism of decamping to the local pub afterwards (if true) to have a good gossip with the locals is shocking to me. It wouldn’t happen in the Army. What the British police need is an officer class.
- Pericles Xanthippou
January 18, 2016 at 11:58 am -
In the good old days, Keith, most senior police officers were former senior officers in H. M. forces. That however was when H. M. still had forces and, as you imply, those forces were run by an officer class!
ΠΞ
- Peter Raite
January 18, 2016 at 2:54 pm -
It has been mooted recently that all new Cadet Plods should already have a degree. I’m not sure if that says something about the devaluing of degrees, or a desire to “upscale” Knacker and Co.
- Pericles Xanthippou
- Gaye Dalton
January 18, 2016 at 11:39 am -
Is nobody ever going to officially point out that all these people, high ranking military, diplomats, front bench politicians (not sure about others) etc were personally vetted by the home office, even without their full knowledge, by experts who could sniff out a single gay one night stand in Cambridge quicker than a pig can sniff out a truffle! It was (and perhaps still is) an issue of national security, not morality, that always erred on the safe side, and there WAS no way round it.
Of course a lot of “historic accusations” are also directed at equally innocent people this did not apply to, but at least spare the ones that it did, because the accusations are impossible, on record, albeit top level classified…
- Eric Hardcastle
January 19, 2016 at 2:27 am -
You would think that may occur to the Met & they would make inquiries but I guess not. Seems they now start from the premise that anything an accuser says (in sexual matters) must be taken as fact and then they seek ways to confirm it.
Keir Starmer did inestimable damage with his “you will be believed”mantra and handed the malicious or the mad a perfect, no consequences way to destroy either their perceived enemy or just about anyone.
- Gaye Dalton
January 20, 2016 at 12:19 pm -
Women (certainly not all women!) have been making false accusations of rape since the dawn of time…and some proved to be false beyond question…so what *IS* the rationale behind “you will be believed”.
I just remembered something, in summer 1973 I was no longer in Duncroft, but another place quite comfortably. My father was, however, threatening social workers on a very direct and personal level unless they moved me to a locked unit call St Charles for which I was far too old (and precociously developed). This was a truly horrifying prospect for me, the worst thing he could he tried to do, even Sir Kieth Joseph attempted to reason with him, at length.
With tears in my eyes (because he was innocent, and a very nice guy) I threatened my social worker with a false claim of sexual activity that I could make stick…it worked to an extent, then all hell broke loose…so it was not that nobody would have believed us…that part is bullshit…in fact, I would not have attempted such a terrible thing if I did not KNOW I would be believed.
In my experience the Police in the 70s tended to see sexual abuse everywhere and try to prosecute it.
- Gaye Dalton
January 20, 2016 at 9:32 pm -
Sorry…I was as high as a kite on antibiotics and off on a bit of a fugue there…but my point is…if I send my mind back in a tardis, I am 100% certain that there was no fear that any such allegation would not have been taken seriously at the time…so why would there be SO MANY real crimes that were never reported?
- Major Bonkers
January 21, 2016 at 9:50 am -
That’s very true; I once had an interview with someone whom I took to be from Naval Intelligence/ MI5 who wanted to know all about a friend of mine as part of the ‘positive vetting’ process. He was working from a checklist of questions and wanted to know any possible detail which might have compromised the subject.
Any senior military officer must have gone through this process repeatedly throughout his career.
- Major Bonkers
- Gaye Dalton
- Gaye Dalton
- Eric Hardcastle
- Dioclese
January 18, 2016 at 12:02 pm -
I am reminded of the equally squalid raid on Cliff Richard. Like him or not, you have to hold the police in contempt when they orchestrate a media circus when raiding the home of any public or famous figure. Such people are then open to public vilification for something unproven and for which they may well be completely innocent.
Names should not be named unless charges are brought IMHO.
- Eric Hardcastle
January 19, 2016 at 2:29 am -
The British police have picked up the infamous ‘perp’s walk’ form the US police where high profile accused persons are regularly paraded before the media,rather than say, use a discreet back door.
Difference is that ‘same fact evidence’ is not accepted there.
- Eric Hardcastle
- Pericles Xanthippou
January 18, 2016 at 12:08 pm -
En passant, are we still playing the game, much loved by punters at the old Raccoon Arms, of Find the Gramattical Error?
ΠΞ
- Ted Treen
January 18, 2016 at 1:22 pm -
Only grammatical errors count.
- Ted Treen
- the moon is a balloon
January 18, 2016 at 12:23 pm -
I had always understood that the dawn raid business was not an attempt to find evidence but a device to catch the alleged perp still half asleep.
And as I am here, is not the whole notion of corroboration through trawling for like complainants just plain bollocks? If I was a lawyer, I’d want each and every instance examined, even separately tried. “Date? Time? Venue? Act? And now, where is the evidence of this? Oh, you have none. So it is this one’s word against that one’s word and thirty years ago? Case dismissed and a good afternoon to you all.” If somebody was truly at it with any frequency some corroborative evidence would be found.
Bramall now finds himself like the young student last week. No smoke without fire staining his name and character until he dies.
- David
January 18, 2016 at 2:47 pm -
No, Lord Bramall is a Soldier, he knows about ‘duty’, and he would expect, and demand, that the police do their duty. He has de-camped his own men to a local pubs in France, many times, after a house raid. He said in the Times that, as an Army man he would not want to take any action the police. However in the letter from the police they do say that if further information comes in, he may be questioned again.
- Peter Raite
January 18, 2016 at 3:02 pm -
That’s a rather grotesque jusifiction for using such low tactics against a 92-year-old, and especially for excusing subsequent pub gossip with the accused’s neighbours. Evidentially there is little more or less that they could have got out of the raid, had they turned up at mid-day. Intinimation, on the other hand….
- the moon is a balloon
January 19, 2016 at 2:23 am -
What is the duty of a public servant when he finds himself part of a circus of aged accusation without corroboration? What is the duty of a public servant when he finds himself at the door of a 92-y-o man and his confused wife? And it is 6am. I’ll tell you what his duty is – it is to ring the gentleman up and ask him to attend his police station with his solicitor – and at is convenience – and that he will send an unmarked car to fetch him if he requires it. it is further his duty to enquire as to the welfare of his wife while he is absent and to ask if a nurse or friend will be available to ensure that no undue horror or stress ensues.
And then – and before he does any of that – it is the duty of the public servant to turn around and tell his masters to go fuck themselves.
- Eric Hardcastle
January 19, 2016 at 2:37 am -
That has been the usual procedure for decades when the accused is unlikely to run and is living in a stable condition. An invitation to the police station. In fact as Lord Bramall was not arrested, just as Cliff Richard hasn’t been or indeed Paul Gambiccini, this has the appearance of Trawling and a deliberate ploy to court publicity.
Raids only take place, or did, when real evidence had been discovered , not just person’s claims which were so fantastical as to make the listener wary.
Or could I now go to the police and say Met commissioner Bernard-Hogan-Howe participated ina sexual assault and murder 30 years ago?. Does this mean the Met would raid their own chief at 5am and if not, why not?
- Eric Hardcastle
- Peter Raite
- David
- Carol42
January 18, 2016 at 2:59 pm -
So good to see you back on form Anna, I despair at all this nonsense, will it ever end? High time we had a statute of limitations as it is impossible for the accused to totally clear their name and so easy to make false accusations using the Internet to check places where the accused might have been 30/40 years ago. As for the police far from trusting them as I did once I now think they should be avoided as far as possible.
- Backwoodsman
January 20, 2016 at 4:07 pm -
Anna, I just wish to echo the sentiment that it is good to see you back on form.
As a reasonably practical person, my immediate reaction is, what exactly were 22 officers expecting to find relating to an offence which took place 30 years ago – comfortably before the days when camera phones to record your latest exploit were available ? I can understand a second officer to lug your hard drive out, but the other 20 mystify me !
- Backwoodsman
- AndyM
January 18, 2016 at 11:34 pm -
“Indeed, it is Lord Bramall who has been the victim.”
I think we are all victims – taxpayers being mugged to pay for senior plod wasting resources. I have no issue with the ordinary police (I have some experience of them and have great respect for how they deal with members of the public “under the influence” as they used to say) but senior heads should roll over this – somebody, somewhere made this crass decision (to pursue the case) and that person’s career should termminated forthwith.
- Fat Steve
January 18, 2016 at 11:47 pm -
However, 22 policemen arriving unannounced, to turn your house upside-down, during the quiet breakfast being enjoyed by a 92 year old man and his deeply confused 93 year old wife in the final weeks of her life is utterly unnecessary.
Too true Anna,
When in practice if i got wind the boys in blue were after a client of mine I used to take the Client to the Police Station and offer assistance and volunteer a statement. In fairness in those days I found the police pretty discreet if one was cooperative and there was something of a presumption of cooperation if the suspect didn’t have a criminal record for dishonesty or violence but now it all seems to be about sweeney style operations and photo opportunities. Christ alone knows the cost of 22 bobbies up at the crack of dawn, bussed in fully kitted out and stood down after lunch to make certain some geriatric soldier and his demented wife don’t try some stunt to destroy evidence of events thirty years ago that they woulsd so obviously have carefully preserved (for what reason one might speculate) or seek to flee. It would be interesting to see some figurework on a cost per hour basis for each member of this elite team of crimefighters and measure it against likely risks posed in executing the operation sucessfully.
But there is an influence I suspect fosters this sort of behaviour and that is the way the police are portrayed on television whether in dramas or quasi documentaries where the public are shown as permanently breaking the law one way or another be it not having a light over their back number plate, possessing a joint or being drunk and civilisation is only preserved by our cops of whom we are so proud being ever vigilant.
Mind you I chuckle a bit if a similar early morning raid was carried out on an equally prominent and distinguished member of the Afro Carribean Community ? Less the inevitable cry of Racism but more the cry of why can’t the Police show proper respect and exercise discretion to a respected member of our community.
I suppose nowadays its which community one belongs to that determins the respect that is due to any member of it.- Eric Hardcastle
January 19, 2016 at 2:40 am -
The very fact there was 22 officers is ridiculous. 6 at most would be all that is needed unless they thought remainders of the Richardson Gang were hiding out at Lord Bramall’s
- Eric Hardcastle
- Carstairs
January 19, 2016 at 12:48 am -
I recall some writer observing about this case that there must be very few occasions in the history of British crime when an innocent bystander viewed or had incriminating knowledge of three different murders committed by members of a criminal conspiracy on different occasions and lived to tell the tale. Nevertheless this claim was made by “Nick”. One would think that it would cast a certain doubt on his credibility. I would love to see a senior member of the plod involved in this “investigation” asked to give a few examples of such a witness taking the stand in a murder trial.
Glad to see the site is up and running again by the way.
- Carol42
January 19, 2016 at 2:53 am -
I would thoroughly enjoy it if one of the senior police was accused of historic sex crimes against a minor. Let’s see how they defend themselves when faced with accusations of historic offences that are impossible to disprove. Then again on such an occasion perhaps the accuser would not be ‘believed’.
- Carol42
- CEDRIC SANDER
January 19, 2016 at 12:14 pm -
The Lord Bramhall should report the conduct of ‘Nick’ to the Met. Police as a crime of wasting police time and perverting the course of justice. He should identify himself as a victim. The police are required to record the alleged crime and to investigate. The protocols are clear within the National Crime Reporting Standards wef April 2015.
” The belief by the victim…that a crime has occurred is usually sufficient to justify its recording [para. 2.3]
If the police refuse to do so, then “an auditable incident report must be registered. [para. 3.1]
” A victim focused approach is the standard to be applied based on a presumption that the victim should be believed.” [para 3.2]
If the police are so ready to pursue unfounded allegations, how can the retain public confidence when they ignore well evidenced criminal acts by the original accuser. Justice?
- Peter Raite
January 19, 2016 at 12:46 pm -
A couple things I enjoyed in the dead tree edition of the Standard on my commute home:
- Bandini
January 19, 2016 at 1:14 pm -
The former makes much of the fantastical nature of the allegations against “the former Prime Minister Ted Heath and former Tory MPs Leon Brittan and Harvey Proctor, the heads of MI5 and MI6 and two senior army generals” – but somehow manages to miss out the supposed involvement of Jimmy Savile in the giant ‘ring’. That is, they’d like us to overlook the fact that in ‘clearing’ Bramall et al Savile is ALSO being cleared of some serious allegations.
The latter picks up the baton, as when speaking of those who “got away with egregious child abuse” they quickly remember the script, and the name of “Jimmy Savile springs immediately to mind”. Having their cake and eating it too doesn’t even come close.
- Peter Raite
January 19, 2016 at 4:19 pm -
Sadly I don’t think the public is ready yet for any direct questioning of the veracity of the accusations against Savaile, even though he’s invariably the yardstick against which others are judged.
- Bandini
January 19, 2016 at 4:34 pm -
I don’t think the public at large are even aware of the dubious nature of many of those accusations as the press seem determined to look the other way and pretend it isn’t so.
- Bandini
- Peter Raite
- Bandini
- Ian B
January 20, 2016 at 8:29 am -
Good to see the website back up!
On matters abusive, I am intrigued to see in the newspapers today that regarding the case of Poppi Worthington, it’s now the case that a judge can simply declare a man guilty of the most despicable crime without a trial, and that this appears to come down to the opinion of one single expert witness- an opinion disagreed with by three other expert witnesses, by the bye- who seems to have decided on the father’s guilt before she had even examined the child. This against a backdrop of a police force not pursuing charges despite being in a society where they would gain nothing but kudos for pursuing such a case. And the judge glibly saying that there is now no evidence for a conviction, which means he didn’t have evidence for such a conclusion either.
Interesting times.
- A J Scott
January 20, 2016 at 5:24 pm -
I served at a senior level in the Hong Kong Government at the time the then Lt-Genl Bramall was CBF. It is beyond scandal that such a distinguished servant of his country should have been subjected to such treatment. The responsible police officers, from top to bottom, should be examined in the same way they “examined” his case, and disciplined, including dismissal without pensions, where their incompetence or improper behaviour is proven.
The “informant” should be “investigated” in his turn in the same public way as Lord Bramall, and in due course, if the CPS decides that he should be, brought to court for his offences.
I despair at what has happened to the police and judicial processes in the United Kingdom.- Ho Hum
January 20, 2016 at 6:09 pm -
‘The “informant” should be “investigated” in his turn in the same public way as Lord Bramall, and in due course, if the CPS decides that he should be, brought to court for his offences.’
As arguably, should he then be prosecuted, so also should be any other individual or organisation that might then have been found to have encouraged, aided or abetted him in the course of his actions. After all, it should be for a jury to decide on their innocence or guilt, as they are all free to plead innocence, or at the very least, possibly diminished responsibility. It’s not for the CPS to presume those by dint of their, unqualified, determination of his sanity or otherwise, or, indeed, even their version, or understanding, of what ‘belief’ should be.
- Ho Hum
{ 69 comments… read them below or add one }