Person 1: Ted Heath is innocent.
Person 2: I beg your pardon?
Person 1: I said Ted Heath, the former Conservative prime minister, is innocent.
Person 2: You’re joking.
Person 1: No I’m not. I don’t joke about things like this.
Person 2: So Ted Heath, the man whom Scotland Yard have been investigating for several months over charges of child sex abuse, is innocent?
Person 1: Yep.
Person 2: The man the Independent Police Complaints Commission had in mind when they announced that a retired police officer is claiming that a prosecution back in the 1990s was dropped because a suspect threatened to name Heath as being involved in child abuse?
Person 1: Yep.
Person 2: The same Ted Heath about whom the Daily Mirror reported a claim made by an anonymous man.
Person 1: What did this man claim?
Person 2: That he was raped at the age of twelve by Heath. And you still stand there and say Heath is innocent?
Person 1: I do.
Person 2: You know that the Metropolitan police have been talking to a man who, two years ago, claimed he was a victim of abuse by Heath when he was a teenager?
Person 2: I do.
Person: And you know that Labour MP Tom Watson said he got information three years ago alleging child abuse by Heath? And that these claims are “being investigated and taken seriously” by the police?
Person 2: I do.
Person 1: And you know Heath was unmarried and that all sorts of suggestions had been made over the years about his sexual inclinations?
Person 2: Yes.
Person 1: And you know Heath was no friend of Ireland when he was PM?
Person 2: I do. But we’re talking about his guilt or innocence on this child abuse claims at the moment.
Person 1: For God’s sake – something like five different police forces in England are checking out these claims. How can you go on saying he’s innocent?
Person 2: Because he is.
Person 1: Eh?
Person 2: All the things you mention are true but they are, right now, simply allegations?
Person 1: So you’re saying Heath didn’t get involved in any of the stuff people are claiming about him?
Person 2: No. Just that he’s innocent.
Person 1: You’ve lost me.
Person 2: Well let me make one more attempt to find you again. According to English law, no one is guilty of an illegal act until they have been proven so in a court of law. The cases against Heath haven’t even got as far as the courts yet. Therefore he’s innocent – right now he’s innocent.
Person 1: But –
Person 2: What’s more, no one has the right to refer to the people making the claims against him as victims.
Person: God Almighty. Why not?
Person 2: Because they are alleging they are victims. That’s a different thing from being a victim – that is, you need to prove in a court of law that you are a victim.
Person 1: Well yes, but…Surely our sympathies must lie with the victim, not with the perpetrator?
Person 2: Couldn’t agree more. But the perpetrator isn’t a perpetrator until the case is proven in law. And likewise the victim isn’t a victim until the case is proven in law.
Person 1: Mmm. Why are you taking such a firm line on this?
Person 2: Because I’ve seen what happens in other cases. Someone claims they were abused, the alleged perpetrator is named, and next you know the media and people generally are talking about the perpetrator and the victim, usually describing the perpetrator as a vile animal and the victim as having been cruelly wronged.
Person 1: And you think they weren’t.
Person 2: They may have been. But it’s absolutely contrary to justice, not to mention common sense, to suspend judgement about who’s a perpetrator and who’s a victim until the case has been tried in court. Otherwise anyone could say anything about someone, and we’d all accept it as true. No need of proof.
Person 1: And you think there’s much of this assuming guilt about?
Person 2: Judge for yourself. How would you feel if I said you were a child abuser and everyone believed me?
Person1: I’d be mad as hell. I’m nothing of the sort.
Person 2: Exactly. Claims of child abuse are worthless – in fact, for all we know, malicious – until the case has been examined in court and guilt or innocence established.
Person 1: Still, that Heath. You only had to look at him.
Person 2: That’s exactly what I mean. Assuming guilt without evidence produced and the case tried.
Person 1: But you’ll have to admit, Heath was no friend of Ireland.
Person 2: According to the records, he was heartless and couldn’t have cared less what his armed forces got up to here. But that’s a separate issue.
Person 1: So I’m to stop saying Heath was a paedophile and that his victims were cruelly treated?
Person 2: Not until it’s proven in a court of law. Innocent until proved guilty.
Person 1: Oh, OK then. Although I still don’t like the way his shoulders used to shake when he laughed.
Person 2 Me too.
Old Edward Heave …innocent until proven guilty…that’s as clear as running water .Pity he’s dead , mind…………………………….!!
One important point is being missed here, Jude.
You’re right to raise the question of ‘innocent until proved guilty’ & the accused’s right to privacy (alive or dead), BUT in the nature of the oligarchy we live in where Heath was a prime mover & shaker there is the high probability that none of this stuff would come to light unless it does get media scrutiny. It would be covered up by the ruling elite as always. Also those that believe they were abused by a powerful public figure may only come forward if they see the issue raised in public. For one thing many of those who claim abuse by powerful figures also say they are in fear for their lives if they come forward.
If the accused is never publicly named then those who may very well have suffered at their hands may never come forward because they think they are on their own & fear they will be isolated & vilified.The public naming gives these people some comfort.
It’s not a great system it is true, but its a byproduct of the secretive oligarchy we live in & is the only way to deal with their alleged shady dealings. I am afraid I have little sympathy for the oligarchs who get publicly named. They perpetuate the system.
Ted Heath ( the politician, not the band leader) is dead and therefore cannot be charged with anything. He will therefore remain always innocent despite all the awful stories about his and Jimmy Saville’s conduct on his boat Morning Cloud with the now missing boys from the Jersey orphanage..