It’s becoming clearer, as each day passes, that the filthy British Establishment will stop at nothing to keep a lid on their sordid child-raping secrets.
Their usual tactic of smearing and vilifying victims and witnesses who come forward is faltering thanks to social media and their dirty tricks campaigns are being exposed in the full glare of the public eye.
One such disturbing example of how they try to silence victims can be seen in the recent furore over rape allegations linked to a tory cabinet minister.
According to investigative journalists at Exaro News and the Sunday People, a sinister, high-level cover-up has been in operation following claims made by ‘ Jane’, that she was seriously sexually assaulted by the minister.
It also appears that Parliament’s whipping boys, the Met police, have been pressurizing and ‘leaning’ on victims and seem more concerned with doing their master’s bidding than actually questioning suspects.
The Mirror reported on the sinister machinations:
” Tory cabinet minister accused of rape ‘protected from arrest in a murky establishment cover-up’
The alleged victim became so concerned about the failure of police to act on information she gave them that she angrily confronted a senior detective involved
The woman who accuses a budding Tory star of raping her believes he is being protected from arrest in a murky establishment cover-up.
She became so concerned about the failure of police to act on information she gave them that she angrily confronted a senior detective involved, reports the Sunday People
Her experiences left her convinced that officers looked for excuses to shelve their investigation and shield the man – who had gone on to become an MP and Cabinet Minister.
The alleged victim, who we are calling Jane, said in an interview with the Sunday People and the investigative website Exaro: “Compare the handling of this case with celebrity investigations.
“There appears to be an inconsistency.
“Celebrities were quickly interviewed by police, and yet my allegations are similar. I am concerned that people may be protecting this man.
“I am mindful of the fact that there have been cover-ups after cover-ups.
“I am realistic about what has gone on with regard to this person and how much has been done to cover up.
“I simply wanted to help the police, to be able to get things out in the open, which they have not been able to do.”
Her fears are shared by Labour MP Tom Watson , who made allegations of a network of sex abusers among senior politicians and dignitaries to the House of Commons in 2012.
Mr Watson believes that by not interviewing the former MP who Jane accuses, police failed to follow their own guidelines on rape allegations.
At the centre of the dispute is whether or not Jane made it clear she did not consent to sex.
She says police have argued that she “voluntarily undressed” – which she disputes.
She went to police after watching on TV the dramatic Commons exchanges between Mr Watson and David Cameron, in which the Prime Minister was urged to investigate historical claims of a “powerful paedophile network linked to Parliament and No10”.
Mr Watson’s extraordinary intervention followed the exposure of BBC DJ Jimmy Savile as a paedophile.
The Metropolitan Police responded by launching Operation Fairbank, to investigate claims, also revealed by the Sunday People, that senior political figures sexually abused children.
Another inquiry, Operation Fernbridge, began looking at claims from three decades ago that senior Conservatives and other VIPs sexually abused boys at the Elm Guest House in South West London.
Jane decided the time was right to offer detectives her evidence that she was raped in 1967 by a man who later became a Cabinet Minister.
She first contacted local police outside London, who interviewed her and took video testimony.
The case was then referred to the Metropolitan Police. Jane said: “They clocked it because of the name of the person.”
Scotland Yard passed the case to its paedophile unit, which was already investigating allegations that the man had sexually abused male teenagers and at one point planned to arrest him.
A female officer was assigned to liaise with Jane, who then gave a second round of detailed interviews.
Months later the liaison officer fixed an appointment with Jane and another CID officer.
Jane said that during the meeting, at which her partner Michael was also present, the liaison officer commented that she was already sexually active at the time of the alleged attack and had “an illegitimate baby”.
Jane said: “It struck us as odd. What relevance did that have to what happened?
“It was very insensitive of her just to throw it at me like that.”
The detectives then told her the case would not proceed.
One read from an email she believed was from the Crown Prosecution Service, saying the reason was Jane had not explicitly refused to consent to sex.
Jane recalled: “I was totally taken aback. I might not have gone forward if I had known they felt they wouldn’t have enough to prosecute.”
The detectives insisted the alleged attacker had received no special treatment and had not been identified to the CPS, ensuring objective treatment.
“Jane remembered the detectives seemed deeply disappointed by what she assumed was a CPS decision not to proceed.
She said: “I am not sure that they were surprised but I think that they were upset.
They wanted to move forward but could not.”
Although there was no DNA evidence and nothing to support Jane’s testimony about the attack, the detectives accepted that her account of what happened on a blind date with the man in 1967 was supported by other people, including Jane’s former flatmate.
She said: “They said they fully appreciated what I had gone through and felt for me – but there was nothing more they could do.”
Jane asked the officers if it would help if she brought a private prosecution.
She was told: “If you want to lose your home.”
Some time later, Jane asked her liaison officer for sight of a letter from the CPS that would confirm, as had been implied to her, that its lawyers decided against proceeding.
She was astonished to be told there was no letter from the CPS, nor indeed any record they made that decision.
Jane then met a Detective Chief Inspector in charge of investigations into the former Tory minister.
Both she and Michael recalled that the DCI told them he – NOT the CPS – took the decision not to proceed because there was no evidence.
“He had, however, taken advice from prosecutors.
He said no one had spoken to Jane’s alleged attacker, who was neither arrested nor interviewed under caution.
The DCI said the evidence suggested Jane “voluntarily” took off her clothes – which she angrily rejected.
He then read from a summary of her alleged statements to police.
But she insisted: “It was nothing like what I told detectives. I asked him why he was doing this to me.
“He said: ‘We only have your word.’ But if they had questioned him it could’ve been tested.”
Jane said the DCI told her: “With you, it is all about who he is.”
But Jane, who says she feels “brutally misled”, added: “No. It is about what he has done.”
Scotland Yard said: “All matters under Operation Fairbank remain under review and we will not be discussing further.”
Slowly, slowly we’re getting to the truth about who really counts in this country, and it’s certainly not abuse victims.
In the eyes of the filth running this septic isle, they count for nothing.
But the day is coming when all that will change and the child-raping scum who’ve destroyed thousands of children’s lives will get a taste of their own dirty medicine.
That day is coming sooner than you think…