When allegations first surfaced about a paedophile ring made up of high profile politicians, the public didn’t find them hard to believe. The complaint, raised by a man known only as Nick, included accusations of rape and murder which he claimed involved a former Prime Minister, Home Secretary, army chief and politician.

At the time these allegations were made, there was already a deep sense of cynicism about government and Britons were angered by politicians’ constant abuse of power and a complete disregard for the British public. It wasn’t difficult for the country to entertain the idea that the Establishment was as cruel and depraved as it was greedy and despotic.

The Establishment in England also carries with it a dark history, where powerful groups with personal interests have done, and will do almost anything to protect their positions and their wealth. Over time, these groups have evolved and now include men and women from all sectors and classes of society, though historically the Establishment has been dominated by members of the aristocracy. It is this section of the Establishment, which still exists today, that has become synonymous with a culture featuring routine buggery at public schools and homosexuality as emotional and sexual outlets. Nick’s claims that he witnessed privileged men in powerful circles rape children and even kill young boys in the 70s and 80s seemed conceivable, and led to the creation of Operation Midland, a multi million pound investigation into alleged non recent child abuse within Westminster.

Nick’s claims have since been discredited, though we don’t actually know what that means in real terms. Was his story disproved through scientific fact? Did evidence come to light which clearly showed that Nick’s allegations were not true, or was it simply the case that no evidence one way or the other was found? The police themselves went on record saying that Nick was a credible witness and that his claims were true, so how did we go from a credible source who put himself forward as a child abuse victim, to a suspected offender charged with several child sex crimes, who the police now say is a paedophile himself?

The scant information fed to the media only tells us that Nick has now been charged with making and possessing hundreds of indecent images of children. He has also been accused of voyeurism. The crimes were alleged to have been committed during 2015 and 2016, with no charges relating to any other time period. This is a strange pattern, given that most mature paedophiles usually have a longer history of downloading exploitative content, and voyeuristic behaviour. It also seems highly coincidental that these alleged crimes appear to have taken place at around the same time Nick himself was filing his complaints and airing his case in the media.

Whilst the press are sharing as much information as they can on this latest development, no one is talking about whether or not the Establishment may have had anything to do with what is admittedly a very strange turn of events. In what could be seen as a vengeful act after former Tory politician Harvey Proctor, who was accused by Nick, lost his job over the allegations, Nick has now himself been fired from a school at which he was a governor. Research on paedophiles tells us that they often find work in places where they can access children, but the lack of allegations from school staff and students and any indication that Nick had made or accessed indecent images and even engaged in voyeurism before 2015 do not readily fit the behavioural patterns of a paedophile. Where did these allegations come from, and why did they only allegedly take place from 2015-2016?

It is impossible for us, or anyone, to come to a conclusion about this case based on the little we know, but the idea that these allegations may not necessarily be real needs to be aired, especially as the little information available makes those allegations, at this time, seem much less credible.

Dolphin Square