Nomen Nescio
2014-04-22 00:25:08 UTC
This is difficult for me to write.
I have worked for most of my professional life in a UK hospital.
My position is senior.
Until Tony Blair revealed his true colours, I was a supporter,
though increasingly reluctant, of Labour. My fondness was for
Smith. But there truly isn't much political conviction in me,
I expect never to vote again. I mention this only to address
issues of bias and thus credibility.
In the late 1990s, I was required to consult medically about a
lady aged around 30. Her condition was idiopathic. The issue
was not psychiatric. I had to place her under the mildest of
sedation, as much to relax her as to reduce possible pain
involved with the diagnostic procedure. The drug is not
hallucinogenic. If it has any side-effect relevant to what I
am about to relate, it is that it reduces inhibitions. A nurse
was in the vicinity but not in the room itself, which was in
accordance with procedure.
The lady made certain clear statements relating to events that
had apparently occurred to her when she was at school. The
nature of these was such that after several minutes I seriously
departed from ethical and probably legal clinical practice and,
using a microcassette recorder that I had to dictate notes,
recorded her.
Starting with pleas like "why did you do it, why did you do it,
J--k" and then progressing to quite involved descriptions, it
became clear she was relating to events or times when she had
turned teenager. She mentioned a rock concert she attended at
precisely that time, when she considered confiding in her best
friend. From her date of birth, which I had before me, I was
later able to work out she was speaking of a time beginning 2
years after the likely onset of puberty. Her background was
working class, as was her accent, but her diction was unslurred.
She was technically conscious throughout and was aware of her
surroundings and my presence, though not of the recorder.
It occurred to me I was being set up by her, for a reason I
cannot imagine, as I had never heard of her before in my life.
If I had ever treated her, something I later confirmed I had
not, she would have to have been a child at the time. My memory
is acute.
Her statements, if true, had only one possible meaning. This
is that she, while aged under 14, had experienced frequent and
"consensual", in the medical sense, sexual intercourse with a
person who is still prominent in the Labour party. His wife,
who does not use his surname, is even more at the forefront,
and it is fair to state that she has been among the five most
powerful people in the land.
At that time, and for many years later, I had no knowledge at
all of rumours about both of their alleged promotion of, or
involvement with, an organisation that advocated legalising
sexual intercourse between adults and minors. Since hearing
about it, I am aware the evidence is not clear-cut, and that
the parties have denied it, but the detailed timeline suggests
that there is at the very least some inconsistencies in the
denials. It predates their union but not their meeting.
I was wholly in confusion as to what to do. For me, this was
unprecedented. While I have heard confessions or disclosures
before, they did not involve prominent people, and their nature
was less dramatic or potentially illegal. Further, these were
either not under mild sedation, and so I was either able to make
suggestions to the patient immediately, starting with a
reminder that I was not a police officer, or I could put them
down to the delirium of a someone coming out of anaesthesia,
when people can say the most extraordinary things which may have
no basis in reality.
My very immediate instinct was, having no medical senior, to
report the matter to the hospital's chief administrator, and
thereafter the police, if that was course was decided upon.
I was dissuaded by several things. It was probably all her
fantasy or delusion. Secondly, I was terrified my use of the
taperecorder could bring about the end of my career. Thirdly,
I was acutely aware the matter involved some of the most
powerful people in the country. Unknown to me then, their
influence was only to grow. The hospital administrator was
very much a New Labour person and we did not get along. For
reasons I do not wish to explain, I do not feel this disclosure
narrows down the field.
So I did nothing at all.
Yes, I did nothing. I was busy but the matter was never far
from my mind. As I want to do nothing to identify myself at
this stage, it suffices to say I confided in no one at all.
I did, however, make discreet enquiries while leaving behind
no trail. The lady's location when she was around the age it
allegedly happened was consistent with the location of the
accused party. I did look in the local records for anything
which would contradict the story, but there was nothing. I
came to learn a month later that, at an inappropriate age,
and without any evidence of parental involvement, she had
been "on the pill". This evidence was indirect, deductive
and objective.
To my dismay, a period later, I do not wish to disclose how
long, I found that the same lady had contrived to make an
appointment to see me again. In itself, it could have been no
more than to seek reassurance re her successful treatment.
My suspicions were confirmed when, as soon the door was shut,
she said she thought she had told me about the terrible things
that were done to her. While I started to deny this, my face
obviously gave it away. She launched into a more detailed
account. I asked her to stop and to go to the police. She did
neither.
Till today I do not know why I was chosen for the disclosure.
In all likelihood, I was not chosen, I merely happened to be a
medical professional, and therefore trusted, whom she had
encountered at the wrong, or right, time and place. Certainly
she could have had no reason to think I could be helpful.
She flat-out refused to involve the police in any way, implying
that her life wouldn't be worth tuppence if she did. It soon
became evident to me I was dealing with an intelligent, lucid
and rational person, whose own need to confide had eventually
overpowered her. I believed her when she said I was the first
and only person she had told. I partly believed her when she
said she might kill herself if I told anyone.
Her detailed explanations for her terror seemed far-fetched,
though. In later years, noting what happened to various people
who brought them into conflict with New Labour, they do not
seem so unbelievable. Not just the unfortunate Dr Kelly, about
whom I am sure we will never find the whole story, but other
events too. I do not think Princess Diana was murdered. I do
not think the government covered up for Jimmy Savile, but the
BBC luvvies and police helped with his reign of terror that kept
his victims either silent or dismissed. Some of the similar
applies to the head of the Co-operative and how many in power
were active in the cover-up. The baneful influence of the likes
of, to mention one, the loathesome Alistair Campbell on the
fourth estate, and even on agencies of law enforcement, be it
police or MI6, is not underestimated by me.
But back then, these were only to unfold well into the future.
Since, she has tracked me down and wants to "come forward", but,
if anything, is even more terrified of the consequences for
herself. I still have the microcassette, concealed where only I
know, and whose location is disclosed in a sealed will lodged
securely, other than with a lawyer. Her belief is that she
can in some way whistleblow, without being identified. I have
explained many times that this would be an impossibility.
She has no clear plan. The general state of her life, as I
could informally assess it, is poor.
I have considered going to a lawyer but even that would "blow"
my anonymity. Legal privilege has its restrictions, just like
medical privilege. This comms method comms is, as far as I
know, the way for me to retain that anonymity uncomprisedly,
but ask the question and get answers. I've been practising this
for months. I am aware that if her related story is true, which
still must be an "if" though I am convinced, and provable,
which it may not be, a detailed search by the perpetrator
could possibly narrow down the field. He does not know her
present name or address, and would have a hard time as her
closest family are deceased or lost contact with her when
she left school, but I would prudently assume he is very
resourceful and determined and might find her, and therefore
me. I am confident he would not try to involve the police.
Because of these fears, it has taken me several years to write
this, which would not, I believe, allow anyone unconnected
with the perpetrator to conceivably find me. With this in
mind, I have deliberately withheld a lot of information she
gave to me, all of which inclined me to believe her story.
She was confident she was among several girls of similar age
with whom he he was "with" at the time, and that he could not
possibly now know which one she was. I had concluded that her
main motive was not about the psychological harm done to her by
the alleged relationship, but his other dalliances and the
existence of the other woman, his present wife, whom the
lady had never met and only once seen, but heartily loathed,
and whom the lady was certain, without the slighest evidence,
knew in general terms what was going on. Making it worse.
I have no recording of anything else. At the third contact,
I did disclose to her that I had a tape and had kept it safe.
What terrified me even more is that if I come forth, she will,
as she promised, deny everything and explain the recording as
being the words of a delirious patient, improperly obtained.
I understand I am sounding paranoid, and probably would be
diagnosed as such. I feel extreme guilt that I did not whistle
blow earlier, but my strongest emotion is not that but fear.
My purpose for posting this is to get guidance on what to
do next. I have her consent for this, obtained by telephone in
the only contact with her ever that was initiated by me.
I apologise to the accused, whom I have not named but whose
identity may be guessed at, if he is innocent. If I had any
doubts about his guilt I would not have written this.
What should I do now? I am able and willing to pay, in a way
that is not traceable to me, and the proviso that my identity
is not compromised even to the adviser.
I confess to a secondary motive for writing this, and it is
as an insurance policy. I have no doubt as to which side will
win the 2015 election. There is a sealed document elsewhere,
that is not with the microcassette, which sets out the full
facts and which will be opened on the event of my death.
I will from time to time read and respond to constructive
suggestions here. Abuse that I am a coward or have been unwise
is deserved but is a waste of time, I cannot change that.
My way of communicating will involve inevitable delays. Please
do not lecture me about ethics. There are times when the
national interest overrides ethics. This is such a time.
I have worked for most of my professional life in a UK hospital.
My position is senior.
Until Tony Blair revealed his true colours, I was a supporter,
though increasingly reluctant, of Labour. My fondness was for
Smith. But there truly isn't much political conviction in me,
I expect never to vote again. I mention this only to address
issues of bias and thus credibility.
In the late 1990s, I was required to consult medically about a
lady aged around 30. Her condition was idiopathic. The issue
was not psychiatric. I had to place her under the mildest of
sedation, as much to relax her as to reduce possible pain
involved with the diagnostic procedure. The drug is not
hallucinogenic. If it has any side-effect relevant to what I
am about to relate, it is that it reduces inhibitions. A nurse
was in the vicinity but not in the room itself, which was in
accordance with procedure.
The lady made certain clear statements relating to events that
had apparently occurred to her when she was at school. The
nature of these was such that after several minutes I seriously
departed from ethical and probably legal clinical practice and,
using a microcassette recorder that I had to dictate notes,
recorded her.
Starting with pleas like "why did you do it, why did you do it,
J--k" and then progressing to quite involved descriptions, it
became clear she was relating to events or times when she had
turned teenager. She mentioned a rock concert she attended at
precisely that time, when she considered confiding in her best
friend. From her date of birth, which I had before me, I was
later able to work out she was speaking of a time beginning 2
years after the likely onset of puberty. Her background was
working class, as was her accent, but her diction was unslurred.
She was technically conscious throughout and was aware of her
surroundings and my presence, though not of the recorder.
It occurred to me I was being set up by her, for a reason I
cannot imagine, as I had never heard of her before in my life.
If I had ever treated her, something I later confirmed I had
not, she would have to have been a child at the time. My memory
is acute.
Her statements, if true, had only one possible meaning. This
is that she, while aged under 14, had experienced frequent and
"consensual", in the medical sense, sexual intercourse with a
person who is still prominent in the Labour party. His wife,
who does not use his surname, is even more at the forefront,
and it is fair to state that she has been among the five most
powerful people in the land.
At that time, and for many years later, I had no knowledge at
all of rumours about both of their alleged promotion of, or
involvement with, an organisation that advocated legalising
sexual intercourse between adults and minors. Since hearing
about it, I am aware the evidence is not clear-cut, and that
the parties have denied it, but the detailed timeline suggests
that there is at the very least some inconsistencies in the
denials. It predates their union but not their meeting.
I was wholly in confusion as to what to do. For me, this was
unprecedented. While I have heard confessions or disclosures
before, they did not involve prominent people, and their nature
was less dramatic or potentially illegal. Further, these were
either not under mild sedation, and so I was either able to make
suggestions to the patient immediately, starting with a
reminder that I was not a police officer, or I could put them
down to the delirium of a someone coming out of anaesthesia,
when people can say the most extraordinary things which may have
no basis in reality.
My very immediate instinct was, having no medical senior, to
report the matter to the hospital's chief administrator, and
thereafter the police, if that was course was decided upon.
I was dissuaded by several things. It was probably all her
fantasy or delusion. Secondly, I was terrified my use of the
taperecorder could bring about the end of my career. Thirdly,
I was acutely aware the matter involved some of the most
powerful people in the country. Unknown to me then, their
influence was only to grow. The hospital administrator was
very much a New Labour person and we did not get along. For
reasons I do not wish to explain, I do not feel this disclosure
narrows down the field.
So I did nothing at all.
Yes, I did nothing. I was busy but the matter was never far
from my mind. As I want to do nothing to identify myself at
this stage, it suffices to say I confided in no one at all.
I did, however, make discreet enquiries while leaving behind
no trail. The lady's location when she was around the age it
allegedly happened was consistent with the location of the
accused party. I did look in the local records for anything
which would contradict the story, but there was nothing. I
came to learn a month later that, at an inappropriate age,
and without any evidence of parental involvement, she had
been "on the pill". This evidence was indirect, deductive
and objective.
To my dismay, a period later, I do not wish to disclose how
long, I found that the same lady had contrived to make an
appointment to see me again. In itself, it could have been no
more than to seek reassurance re her successful treatment.
My suspicions were confirmed when, as soon the door was shut,
she said she thought she had told me about the terrible things
that were done to her. While I started to deny this, my face
obviously gave it away. She launched into a more detailed
account. I asked her to stop and to go to the police. She did
neither.
Till today I do not know why I was chosen for the disclosure.
In all likelihood, I was not chosen, I merely happened to be a
medical professional, and therefore trusted, whom she had
encountered at the wrong, or right, time and place. Certainly
she could have had no reason to think I could be helpful.
She flat-out refused to involve the police in any way, implying
that her life wouldn't be worth tuppence if she did. It soon
became evident to me I was dealing with an intelligent, lucid
and rational person, whose own need to confide had eventually
overpowered her. I believed her when she said I was the first
and only person she had told. I partly believed her when she
said she might kill herself if I told anyone.
Her detailed explanations for her terror seemed far-fetched,
though. In later years, noting what happened to various people
who brought them into conflict with New Labour, they do not
seem so unbelievable. Not just the unfortunate Dr Kelly, about
whom I am sure we will never find the whole story, but other
events too. I do not think Princess Diana was murdered. I do
not think the government covered up for Jimmy Savile, but the
BBC luvvies and police helped with his reign of terror that kept
his victims either silent or dismissed. Some of the similar
applies to the head of the Co-operative and how many in power
were active in the cover-up. The baneful influence of the likes
of, to mention one, the loathesome Alistair Campbell on the
fourth estate, and even on agencies of law enforcement, be it
police or MI6, is not underestimated by me.
But back then, these were only to unfold well into the future.
Since, she has tracked me down and wants to "come forward", but,
if anything, is even more terrified of the consequences for
herself. I still have the microcassette, concealed where only I
know, and whose location is disclosed in a sealed will lodged
securely, other than with a lawyer. Her belief is that she
can in some way whistleblow, without being identified. I have
explained many times that this would be an impossibility.
She has no clear plan. The general state of her life, as I
could informally assess it, is poor.
I have considered going to a lawyer but even that would "blow"
my anonymity. Legal privilege has its restrictions, just like
medical privilege. This comms method comms is, as far as I
know, the way for me to retain that anonymity uncomprisedly,
but ask the question and get answers. I've been practising this
for months. I am aware that if her related story is true, which
still must be an "if" though I am convinced, and provable,
which it may not be, a detailed search by the perpetrator
could possibly narrow down the field. He does not know her
present name or address, and would have a hard time as her
closest family are deceased or lost contact with her when
she left school, but I would prudently assume he is very
resourceful and determined and might find her, and therefore
me. I am confident he would not try to involve the police.
Because of these fears, it has taken me several years to write
this, which would not, I believe, allow anyone unconnected
with the perpetrator to conceivably find me. With this in
mind, I have deliberately withheld a lot of information she
gave to me, all of which inclined me to believe her story.
She was confident she was among several girls of similar age
with whom he he was "with" at the time, and that he could not
possibly now know which one she was. I had concluded that her
main motive was not about the psychological harm done to her by
the alleged relationship, but his other dalliances and the
existence of the other woman, his present wife, whom the
lady had never met and only once seen, but heartily loathed,
and whom the lady was certain, without the slighest evidence,
knew in general terms what was going on. Making it worse.
I have no recording of anything else. At the third contact,
I did disclose to her that I had a tape and had kept it safe.
What terrified me even more is that if I come forth, she will,
as she promised, deny everything and explain the recording as
being the words of a delirious patient, improperly obtained.
I understand I am sounding paranoid, and probably would be
diagnosed as such. I feel extreme guilt that I did not whistle
blow earlier, but my strongest emotion is not that but fear.
My purpose for posting this is to get guidance on what to
do next. I have her consent for this, obtained by telephone in
the only contact with her ever that was initiated by me.
I apologise to the accused, whom I have not named but whose
identity may be guessed at, if he is innocent. If I had any
doubts about his guilt I would not have written this.
What should I do now? I am able and willing to pay, in a way
that is not traceable to me, and the proviso that my identity
is not compromised even to the adviser.
I confess to a secondary motive for writing this, and it is
as an insurance policy. I have no doubt as to which side will
win the 2015 election. There is a sealed document elsewhere,
that is not with the microcassette, which sets out the full
facts and which will be opened on the event of my death.
I will from time to time read and respond to constructive
suggestions here. Abuse that I am a coward or have been unwise
is deserved but is a waste of time, I cannot change that.
My way of communicating will involve inevitable delays. Please
do not lecture me about ethics. There are times when the
national interest overrides ethics. This is such a time.