Elizabeth II

[firstfloor]

It's all rather Egyptian isn't it?

The British are very fond of their Monarchy. It gives a depth to the National character that other traditions cannot approach. Ancient and traditional, rather than old-fashioned.

[seanD]

No they do not. No victim is being reported. Allegations against unknown/unnamed victims were made.

Nor did anything "supposedly" happen to Beech. He was jailed.

[https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-wiltshire-49035949

The godson of Sir Edward Heath has branded the handling of allegations the former prime minister was involved in historical sex abuse a "witch-hunt".

Lincoln Seligman said Wiltshire Police had been "foolish" to believe claims made by Carl Beech about Sir Edward.

Beech, from Gloucester, made false claims of murder and child sexual abuse against a string of public figures.

The Police and Crime Commissioner for Wiltshire has called for a public inquiry to get closure for the family.
[...]

"All information from Carl Beech regarding Operation Conifer was provided to Wiltshire Police by the Metropolitan Police's investigation Operation Midland which was established in 2014."
[...]

His concerns were echoed by Dr Richard Hoskin, a criminologist brought in to review parts of the Metropolitan Police's Operation Midland - which looked at allegations sexual abuse by a "VIP ring" - and others from Operation Conifer, which was launched in 2015.

Dr Hoskin said: "There's no doubt in my mind that, if Carl Beech had not pushed his fantasies, Sir Edward never would have been investigated."

He said there never was any "substantial evidence" against him, describing police as showing "collective gullibility".

I think an article from 2017 in The Guardian summed up the whole issue as it was unfolding, in its final paragraph

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ng-the-citizen

This is the nightmare that is at the heart of the huge attempt to learn the lessons of institutional child sex abuse. On the one hand, there are many hundreds of people whose lives have been disfigured, and often worse, by the childhood experience of abuse, denial and cover-up. There are also abusers who have never been brought to justice. On the other, there are familiar faces who have been accused but were entirely innocent. Add to this trust-sapping mix the difficulty of finding credible witnesses among survivors who are often left vulnerable by their childhood experience, and the persistent charge that there has been some kind of establishment cover-up, and it is indeed a poisonous stew.

Man, you really are dumber than I thought.

I meant "supposedly" as in what Beech was claiming happened to him. Your article doesn't reference any of those other victims or their accusations, but only focuses on what Beech was claiming Heath did to him. From your link...

The former chiefs of MI5 and MI6, Sir Michael Hanley and Sir Maurice Oldfield, as well as the former Prime Minister Sir Edward Heath, former Home Secretary Lord Brittan, and the ex-MPs Harvey Proctor and Lord Janner, also became part of his story.

Beech alleged his stepfather handed him over to this "group" and that it operated using chauffeurs who collected him from school or his local railway station.

Despite his apparent strong recall of incidents involving famous names, he offered nothing tangible about the various drivers, witnesses and non-famous abusers his account incorporated.

(...)

Beech claimed that, on a separate occasion, Proctor was only prevented from removing his genitals with a penknife after Sir Edward Heath intervened.

Where is there reference to these?

1961 Heath allegedly raped and indecently assaulted an 11-year-old boy during a paid sexual encounter in private in a dwelling. At the time Heath was MP for Bexley and Lord Privy Seal in Harold Macmillan’s government with responsibility for negotiating the UK’s first attempt to join the European Economic Community.

1962 While Heath was still Lord Privy Seal, he allegedly indecently assaulted a 10-year-old boy during a chance encounter in a public place while in the company of an unknown adult male.

1964 While secretary of state for industry, Heath allegedly indecently assaulted a 15-year-old boy during three paid sexual encounters. Heath was made Tory party leader a year later.

1967 Two years after becoming leader of the oppositon, Heath allegedly indecently assaulted a 15-year-old boy who was not known to him, in private, during a chance encounter in a public building.

1976 A year after being ousted as Tory leader, Heath allegedly indecently assaulted an adult male during a chance encounter at a public event. The alleged incident was “over clothing”, according to the police. Heath was MP for Sidcup at the time.

1990-92 While MP for Old Bexley and Sidcup, Heath allegedly indecently assaulted a boy in private, during a chance encounter in private gardens. The boy, who was aged between 12 and 14, was not known to him. But the report says investigators “gathered information that potentially undermines the victim’s account”.

1992 Then father of the House of Commons, Heath allegedly indecently assaulted an adult man after consent was withdrawn, in what had been a paid consensual sexual encounter in a hotel.

Or did you confuse the two subjects and you just don't want to admit your mistake?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Man, you really are dumber than I thought.

I meant "supposedly" as in what Beech was claiming happened to him. Your article doesn't reference any of those other victims or their accusations, but only focuses on what Beech was claiming Heath did to him. From your link...




Where is there reference to these?



Or did you confuse the two subjects and you just don't want to admit your mistake?

You just seem reluctant to accept facts.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ccused-by-nick

Carl Beech’s allegations against high-profile men resulted in the ill-fated police inquiry

• Carl Beech made up VIP paedophile ring claims, jury finds
• How the serial child abuse accuser became the accused

[seanD]

You just seem reluctant to accept facts.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ccused-by-nick

Carl Beech’s allegations against high-profile men resulted in the ill-fated police inquiry

• Carl Beech made up VIP paedophile ring claims, jury finds
• How the serial child abuse accuser became the accused

You're confusing two separate investigations. Here's a Guardian article (which was source linked from the previous Guardian article I referenced) indicating the Midland investigation was a separate issue from the other allegations (the ones I initially referenced) made against Heath that Wiltshire police investigated. But since I've already derailed the thread more than once, I'll leave you to fester in your ignorance.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The British are very fond of their Monarchy. It gives a depth to the National character that other traditions cannot approach. Ancient and traditional, rather than old-fashioned.

Other countries are fond of their monarchy but have dispensed with the mummery and feudal behaviours of the English.

It is this constant harking back to a rose-tinted past that is preventing the UK from accepting its present position in the world. All this "Rule Britannia" and nostalgia for an Imperial past which is encapsulated in these out-dated royal pantomimes serves to reinforce the myth that the UK is still a global power. It isn't.

However, until the British [and to a large extent the English] recognise that fact, the country is going to continue to live in a fantasy image of itself.

Many of these so called "ancient" traditions are not nearly as old as some would like to pretend.

The British monarchy has been reinvented and has reinvented itself numerous times in the past. Victoria demonstrated that.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You're confusing two separate investigations. Here's a Guardian article (which was source linked from the previous Guardian article I referenced) indicating the Midland investigation was a separate issue from the other allegations (the ones I initially referenced) made against Heath that Wiltshire police investigated. But since I've already derailed the thread more than once, I'll leave you to fester in your ignorance.

The investigations Midland and Conifer resulted from Beech's fantasies. Furthermore, the Chief of Wiltshire police was accused [and later exonerated] of misconduct.

As to Heath, one of the accusations concerned his alleged abuse of a fifteen year old boy on the island of Guernsey. On the date of the alleged incident, Heath was not even on that island.

[rogue06]

Why am I awful?

You have a nasty habit of seeking to pit posters against each other. And not just occasionally.

But don't worry you have several other qualities that make you an awful person as well, so it's not just that.

[rogue06]

What people may not understand is that the role of members of the Royal family is to support the Monarch.

In the manner of the Duke of Sussex and his wife?

[rogue06]

All those "allegations" came from Beech as was discovered two years later.

Apparently police said that if he were still alive that they would have loved to have interviewed him after doing the British equivalent of "reading him his rights" -- told he didn't have to answer -- concerning 7 of the original 42 accusations but say nothing should be inferred from that regarding his guilt or innocence.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You have a nasty habit of seeking to pit posters against each other. And not just occasionally.

I observed that another poster appeared to agree with me.

In what respect is that "seeking to pit posters against each other"?

Given numerous remarks made on these boards between individuals towards other contributors, you appear to advocating, "Do not do as we do, but do as we say".

But don't worry you have several other qualities that make you an awful person as well, so it's not just that.

As I do not believe we have ever met, that remark is nonsense.

However, writing nonsense does seem to be your forte.

[rogue06]

I observed that another poster appeared to agree with me.

Much more than that. You sent a notification to them seeking to draw them in hoping to cause conflict.

In what respect is that "seeking to pit posters against each other"?

You sent a notification to them seeking to draw them in hoping to cause conflict.

Given numerous remarks made on these boards between individuals towards other contributors, you appear to advocating, "Do not do as we do, but do as we say".

What you are doing is very different. You sent a notification to them seeking to draw them in hoping to cause conflict.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Much more than that. You sent a notification to them seeking to draw them in hoping to cause conflict.


You sent a notification to them seeking to draw them in hoping to cause conflict.


What you are doing is very different. You sent a notification to them seeking to draw them in hoping to cause conflict.

You appear to be displaying symptoms of mild paranoia.

[CivilDiscourse]

I saw this video clip on The Daily Mail and it has put me off him for life sorry to say.

Funny how a seemingly little thing can do that sometimes, but it was so extremely ugly and petulant. He needs to be dropped off in Siberia or somewhere inhospitable for a good while to learn some real character imo. If a small thing like the ink pots being in his way makes him lose control and this done in front of others and the media...God have mercy. We are only as strong as our weakest link.

I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I cannot imagine the amount of stress he is under at this point. His mother has just passed, and in the midst of that grief, he has also inherited the role she was known for (and beloved for) by millions of people. He knows she was loved, and knows his popularity is nowhere near that level. So, grieving, while, what likely feels the whole weight of the world is on his shoulders, feeling he's going to be judged for any little misstep, he's trying to make sure everything "goes right" in this transition. (You can feel free to point out that this handwave is the opposite of what he's trying to do, but nobody said grief and tunnel vision make for rational decisions)

Now, if he's acting like that after a month, or a year? That does open a whole other can of worms.

[rogue06]

You appear to be displaying symptoms of mild paranoia.

The fact is that you don't merely mention that someone disagrees, you purposefully send them a notification to that effect trying to draw them in.

You really are an awful person.

[firstfloor]

The King is back in Edinburgh. Hoyle’s address this morning in London:

1688 refers to the Glorious Revolution.

House of Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle made a speech in Westminster Hall before presenting a Humble Address from MPs to the King.


Here is the text of Sir Lindsay’s speech in full:

“Your Majesty, let me repeat a welcome to you and to Her Majesty, the Queen Consort, on this solemn occasion.

“Members of both Houses of Parliament gather here to express our deep sympathy for the loss we have all sustained in the death of our sovereign lady, Queen Elizabeth.

“We have seen that this is a loss that is felt around the world. It is a loss to the United Kingdom, the overseas territories, the Crown dependencies and many countries over which she reigned.

“It is a loss to the entire Commonwealth, which she did so much to nurture. It is a loss to all of us but we know most of all it is a loss to you, Your Majesty, and to the royal family.

“Newspapers have been filled with photographs of Her late Majesty since the news broke. The most touching have been the glimpses into the family life which were usually kept sheltered from public view.

“Deep as our grief is, we know yours is deeper. We offer our heartfelt sympathy to you and all the royal family. We know that there is nothing we can say in the praise of our late Queen, your mother, that you will not already know.

“Over the past days, Members of the House have spoken of their encounters with Queen Elizabeth. They have spoken of her sense of duty, her wisdom, her kindness, her humour, how she touched the lives of hundreds of thousands of their constituents in her visits to every part of this country. Their words have been heartfelt.

“She sat in this historic hall as you sit now on many occasions. Some of those occasions were to celebrate milestones in her own reign. The address to celebrate her Silver, Diamond and Golden Jubilees shared a common thread – that our constitutional monarchy is a symbol of stability in an ever changing world.

“As Speaker Boothroyd said, Queen Elizabeth’s wisdom and grace demonstrated for all to see the value of a constitutional monarchy in securing the liberties of our citizens and the fundamental unity of this kingdom and the Commonwealth.

“On other occasions, our late Queen was here to mark the historic moments, such as the 50th anniversary of the Second World War, a war in which she herself served in the armed forces.

“And in 1988, we celebrated the 300th anniversary of the revolutions of 1688 to 1689.

“It is perhaps very British to celebrate revolutions by presenting an address to Her Majesty; but those revolutions led to our constitutional freedoms, set out the foundation for a stable monarchy, which protects liberty.

“In your first address to the nation you recognised your life would change as a result of the new responsibilities.

“You pledged yourself to uphold constitutional principles at the heart of our nation.

“These are weighty responsibilities, as the early Queen Elizabeth said in her final speech to parliamentarians ‘to be a king and wear a crown is a thing more glorious to them that see it than it is pleasant to them that bear it’.

“We know you hold the greatest respect, the precious traditions, the freedoms, and responsibilities of our unique history and our system of parliamentary government.

“We know that you will bear those responsibilities which fall to you with the fortitude, dignity, demonstrated by Her late Majesty.

“When the House met at the Accession Council, my first symbolic act was to make the oath to be faithful and bear true allegiance to Your Majesty King Charles, and so it is my duty to present our Humble Address to you, our new King, to express both our sorrow and loss of our sovereign lady and our confidence in the future in your reign.

“Most gracious sovereign, we, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, express deep sympathy felt by this House for the great sorrow which Your Majesty has sustained by the death of the late Queen, Your Majesty’s mother.

“Extend to all the royal family the deep sympathy of this House in their grief which is shared by all its members.

“Assure Your Majesty that Her late Majesty’s unstinting dedication over a reign of over 70 years to the service of our great country and its people, and to the service of the countries and the peoples of the rest of the wider Commonwealth, which will always be held affectionate and grateful remembrance.

“And to express to Your Majesty our loyalty to you and our conviction that you will strive to uphold the liberties and to promote the happiness of the people in all your realms now and in years to come.”