Tory MP in drugs and sex scandal

Tory whips were warned about Warburton weeks ago

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/whips-were-warned-about-david-warburton-weeks-before-mp-s-drugs-and-sexual-harassment-scandal-900tshmkq

It’s in all the press. I think there’s a documentary on Saville due to start on tv.

DiamondLily

As far as Saville goes, it was "people in high places", that protected him.

He was good friends with Thatcher, (PM during some of this time), to the point that he spent Xmas Day with her, and very good friends with Prince Charles.

These letters have come to light, from Charles to Saville:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10689515/Prince-Charles-heaped-praise-Jimmy-Savile-asked-help-fix-Royal-Familys-image.html

(In other media as well as the DM).

?

In the Times as well

DiamondLily

There were worries about Saville for a long time. Thatcher was warned, by her own advisers, not to give him an honour, because of what was known by them, but did anyway because he was a friend.

The royals would also have been warned, but chose to ignore it.

Which is how these "VIP" child sexual offenders get away with it.?

Exactly so. A local example is the head teacher of a primary school, accused by two 14 year olds of abusing them at his previous primary school. Police investigate, CPS won’t prosecute because it’s historical and one of the girls first made allegations to a psychologist at CAMHS
85% of parents are delighted as he’s a very good, well like headteacher. He is promoted to a bigger school. Three years later, 2 children from the school he was at during the first investigation make allegations. He isn’t prosecuted because the CPS generally only prosecute these cases where they believe there’s a 90% chance of a guilty verdict.
The education department persuade him to move into a senior administrative post. This at least keeps him away from children.

There were worries about Saville for a long time. Thatcher was warned, by her own advisers, not to give him an honour, because of what was known by them, but did anyway because he was a friend.

The royals would also have been warned, but chose to ignore it.

Which is how these "VIP" child sexual offenders get away with it.?

Iam64

It isn’t true to say the police didn’t properly investigate Cyril Smith. He was investigated twice by Lancashire/gtr Manchester CID. On the first occasion the CPS returned the paperwork ‘ not in the public interest to prosecute’. The second occasion involved a number of young witnesses. Police found their testimony credible. Again. papers returned by CPS. The senior investigating officer sent the paperwork to the Chief Constable who agreed prosecution should happen. CID officers describe ‘men in suits from London” (mi5) arriving, taking all the evidence and telling the assembled team if CID that if they spoke of this, they’d be prosecuted under the OS Act, sacked and possibly imprisoned.
I have this first hand but it’s all available on line. One of the detective sergeants involved was interviewed a few years ago and gave this information to tv and press

It’s often said that people were found ‘not guilty’ because they weren’t prosecuted.

Blimey

As for Saville, I was warned aged 16 in 1965 to keep away from Saville when I went into a Manchester club with a 17 year old friend. She added that as I was tall and could pass as older, I’d probably be ok ‘because he likes them young’.

It isn’t true to say the police didn’t properly investigate Cyril Smith. He was investigated twice by Lancashire/gtr Manchester CID. On the first occasion the CPS returned the paperwork ‘ not in the public interest to prosecute’. The second occasion involved a number of young witnesses. Police found their testimony credible. Again. papers returned by CPS. The senior investigating officer sent the paperwork to the Chief Constable who agreed prosecution should happen. CID officers describe ‘men in suits from London” (mi5) arriving, taking all the evidence and telling the assembled team if CID that if they spoke of this, they’d be prosecuted under the OS Act, sacked and possibly imprisoned.
I have this first hand but it’s all available on line. One of the detective sergeants involved was interviewed a few years ago and gave this information to tv and press

It’s often said that people were found ‘not guilty’ because they weren’t prosecuted.

As far as Saville goes, it was "people in high places", that protected him.

He was good friends with Thatcher, (PM during some of this time), to the point that he spent Xmas Day with her, and very good friends with Prince Charles.

These letters have come to light, from Charles to Saville:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10689515/Prince-Charles-heaped-praise-Jimmy-Savile-asked-help-fix-Royal-Familys-image.html

(In other media as well as the DM).

?

Being mentally unwell will not prevent prosecution if there is evidence a crime was committed. It may be considered by a judge as a mitigating factor when giving out a senrence but will not excuse the crime.

Ah ..I see what you say M0nica Perhaps
"many gay men in the public eye tried to stay undiscovered because of the reaction if they came out."
would have offered greater clarity for skim readers like me ?

PECS, not 'Stay gay', 'stay gay and undiscovered' ie are gay, but trying to stay in the closet.

Note that there is no comma between 'stay gay' and 'and undiscovered. That would be necessary for your misinterpretation.

M0nica not sure there is a choice to ' stay' gay!
There is a choice for any person to behave decently, morally & within the law.

There were accusations against both of the above, which were not properly investigated by the police, if they had been they would have been charged.

All I am saying is that we should not rush to condemn someone until we have all the facts and know them to be true. I am certainly not suggesting we should consider them good guys, with the unspoken secodnary ' and forgive them their little foibles'.

Personally, I found both Jimmy Saville and Cyril Smith, unpleasant and unlikeable and I would not wanted them to be anywhere near my children.

Iam64 Are you saying that there were rumours of paedophile orgies where young boys were murdered and mutilated going around before Operation Midland? And no investigation.

There are still men in the closet and in the recent past, many men in the public eye tried to stay gay and undiscovered because of the reaction if they came out. But rumours about someone being gay is one thing. being gay is not a crime, but being a paedophile is something else, but again I would not condemn some one until all the facts were known.

...and Cyril Smith....

Most people though Jimmy Saville was an eccentric but " good guy" ....

M0nica

I'd heard the rumours about Cliff Richard since in my early 20s. There used to be two gay pubs in Kensington - one for the leathers and bike boys and one for the "pretty boys" as the were then known. We occasionally drank in the latter and Cliff Richard apparently in the former. Whatever the rumours, in no way is the behaviour of the press justified.

I see it differently. Those accused in operation midland were not tried and convicted by the press. The press woukd have been well aware of rumours about some of those named over many years. They didn’t print them then either.
This situation is current, not based on the words of one individual. The MP booked himself into a private psychiatric facility. There are suggestions he’s been set up. It seems much more like other occasions where an MP has been found out. Keith Vass Is one example

When I read these stories I constantly think back to Operation Midland when almost a football team of politicians: Lord Bramall, Harvey Proctor, Leon Brittain and others were all accused of depraved paedophilia. Then there was Paul Gambaccini, Cliff Richard and many others, again accused of crimes, hounded by the press, some died with the accusations hangingover them, others lost jobs and houses.

The Press excoriated them, they dare not leave their homes - yet, however damaging the evidence. In the end it was found to be imaginery, false stories concocted by a compulsive fantasist, or people out for money or notoriety.

When I see cases like this one. I very determinedly do not join the baying instamob. Until the case is fully examined by a responsible body, not necessarily a court. Unitl we know everything behind it. I am reserving my judgement.

Having a drug habit doesn’t get you admitted to an NHS hospital psychiatric unit though, unless you are in a position where you pose an immediate danger to yourself or others. There just aren’t enough beds or staff to admit everybody who would benefit.

PECS yes, that’s what I’d want for a loved one.
It doesn’t stop me feeling irritated the government is raising the possibility he’s been stitched up.
We all have responsibility for our actions. Ordinary folks struggling with mh and addictions are out on a limb.

Whether he is guilty of reprehensible behaviour or just mentally ill, either way he should resign.

His constituents deserve to be represented by a competent, compus mentis and honourable MP.

I am not defending here but if a person has begun to use cocaine increasingly & regularly their behaviour can become unpredictable. To check into a drug rehab clinic AKA psychiatric care seems a sensible thing to get you away from the media & start to help you sort your habit... anything a decent PR trained wife & PA might advise

Warburton borrowed the dodgy Russian money in 2017 and failed to declare it as he should. He was already an MP then and he has been re-elected since 2017, so we can only assume he was in good health when he did that.

fair enough, but this thread was inundated by kneejerk reactions at the start, and I prefer to suspend judgement until all the facts are known.