Could Jim Gamble now be in serious trouble? - after today's Gary Haggerty revelations?

by **Tony Bennett** 24.06.17 0:36

A Gary Haggerty has pleaded 'Guilty' in court to FIVE murders and TWO HUNDRED other criminal offences.

He had been a leader of the much-feared loyalist Ulster Volunteer Force in Northern Ireland in the 1990s. He is now in hiding in England, under a Witness Protection scheme.

He is a 'supergrass' but is expected to receive a light sentence for his serious crimes because he is expected now to be giving 'Queen's Evidence' against dozens of colleagues, many of whom were contemporary with Jim Gamble when he was employed in a very senior position indeed in the Northern Ireland security services.

For Haggerty was a registered police informer, and now says that the Northern Ireland police and security services both allowed and ENCOURAGED him to commit these most serious of crimes. The BBC report tonight is here:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Now this brings to mind some words Get'emGoncalo wrote earlier this year on Page 5 of the CMOMM 'ROGUE OF THE DAY' thread, Jim Gamble >>>

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

QUOTE GEG:

Jim Gamble has had an intensely close relationship with the McCanns for years. If you use the search bar, you’ll find lots of information about him on CMOMM. A good introduction to his association with the Madeleine McCann case is this article on the forum, ‘Joined at the Hip’, link:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Gamble’s first job was in the Royal Ulster Constabulary. He moved rapidly up the ranks. He was an intelligence officer during the Kincora Boys Home child abuse scandal, and ended up Head of the RUC’s Anti-Intelligence Unit, a very powerful position indeed. Then he went on to head up Special Branch for the Belfast Region.

Many years later, Baroness Nuala O’Loan was asked to hold an enquiry into the Northern Ireland security services, dealing specifically with a series of murders in the 1990s. The report was shocking. Senior Special Branch officers had murdered people and covered up other murders. Undoubtedly Gamble was right in the thick of all this. Luckily for him, perhaps, Baroness O’Loan decided not to name individual officers in the report, so if Gamble was involved in any serious skullduggery up there, we will never know. Clearly, however, he was very much a ‘chosen one’ by the powers-that-be that were running the police and security services in the province.

UNQUOTE

As Haggerty starts to name names to save his own skin - names of police officers and security services staff who connived with Haggerty and others who were murdering people - or even committing murders themselves...

...COULD JIM GAMBLE'S NAME COME UP?

by Patience 24.06.17 0:52

He said Haggarty is due to be sentenced at the end of September: "At that time a full set of facts will be read out into the court.
"It is only really then that the depth of the detail of his career in the UVF and the supervision offered by Special Branch can be assessed."

Haggarty could also be a witness in cases against former Special Branch officers he said helped, protected and encouraged him.

So not long to wait to find out who he will name, if anyone.

I presume it will be a separate court case if he does name names?

by **sharonl** 24.06.17 3:15

Doesn't Edgar also fit in here somewhere Tony?

by **Tony Bennett** 24.06.17 5:57

sharonl wrote:Doesn't Edgar also fit in here somewhere Tony?

====================

A Madeleine Foundation article from 2010 about Alpha Investigations Group, or 'ALPHAIG', quoted a Daily Mirror article from 14 May 2009, which told us this:

QUOTE

[Edgar] had been a rising star among the officers of the RUC when he chose to accept demotion eight years ago in order to take a job in an English force. After policing in Portadown, South Armagh and Craigavon, he found himself at the heart of several successful murder investigations in Cheshire.

Mr Edgar left the RUC in 1986 as he was about to be promoted to inspector and joined the Cheshire police where he had to start in the lowest rank again and was constable for the second time in his career.

He explained: "There were no suitable ranks to apply for in Cheshire so I just started again but before too long I was made detective inspector”.

UNQUOTE

Any sharp-eyed reader of the above quote will immediately notice a contradiction.

Did he:

(a) "accept demotion 8 years ago" (which would mean he left the RUC in 2001)? - or is this correct:

(b) "Mr Edgar left the RUC in 1986"?

Hmmm, he either left in 1986, or in 2001. A difference of 15 years.

But whichever date he really left, almost certainly he was a contemporary of Gamble in Northern Ireland at some stage of his career.

And both men were native Northern Irelanders.

.

by Guest 24.06.17 6:06

He was an intelligence officer

Was he ever in PDL whilst the McCanns were still there?

by sallypelt 24.06.17 8:38

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
evidence

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Haggarty has given evidence against 14 fellow loyalists in connection with 4 murders and has also accused 2 ex-police handlers of collusion
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by worriedmum 24.06.17 13:04

Tony Bennett wrote:
sharonl wrote:Doesn't Edgar also fit in here somewhere Tony?

====================

A Madeleine Foundation article from 2010 about Alpha Investigations Group, or 'ALPHAIG', quoted a Daily Mirror article from 14 May 2009, which told us this:

QUOTE

[Edgar] had been a rising star among the officers of the RUC when he chose to accept demotion eight years ago in order to take a job in an English force. After policing in Portadown, South Armagh and Craigavon, he found himself at the heart of several successful murder investigations in Cheshire.

Mr Edgar left the RUC in 1986 as he was about to be promoted to inspector and joined the Cheshire police where he had to start in the lowest rank again and was constable for the second time in his career.

He explained: "There were no suitable ranks to apply for in Cheshire so I just started again but before too long I was made detective inspector”.

UNQUOTE

Any sharp-eyed reader of the above quote will immediately notice a contradiction.

Did he:

(a) "accept demotion 8 years ago" (which would mean he left the RUC in 2001)? - or is this correct:

(b) "Mr Edgar left the RUC in 1986"?

Hmmm, he either left in 1986, or in 2001. A difference of 15 years.

But whichever date he really left, almost certainly he was a contemporary of Gamble in Northern Ireland at some stage of his career.

And both men were native Northern Irelanders.

.

Do we know if Jim Gamble knew Dave Edgar prior to Madeleine's disappearance?
Do we know who suggested that the McCanns use Dave Edgar?

by **Tony Bennett** 24.06.17 14:41

worriedmum wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
sharonl wrote:Doesn't Edgar also fit in here somewhere Tony?

====================

A Madeleine Foundation article from 2010 about Alpha Investigations Group, or 'ALPHAIG', quoted a Daily Mirror article from 14 May 2009, which told us this:

QUOTE

[Edgar] had been a rising star among the officers of the RUC when he chose to accept demotion eight years ago in order to take a job in an English force. After policing in Portadown, South Armagh and Craigavon, he found himself at the heart of several successful murder investigations in Cheshire.

Mr Edgar left the RUC in 1986 as he was about to be promoted to inspector and joined the Cheshire police where he had to start in the lowest rank again and was constable for the second time in his career.

He explained: "There were no suitable ranks to apply for in Cheshire so I just started again but before too long I was made detective inspector”.

UNQUOTE

Any sharp-eyed reader of the above quote will immediately notice a contradiction.

Did he:

(a) "accept demotion 8 years ago" (which would mean he left the RUC in 2001)? - or is this correct:

(b) "Mr Edgar left the RUC in 1986"?

Hmmm, he either left in 1986, or in 2001. A difference of 15 years.

But whichever date he really left, almost certainly he was a contemporary of Gamble in Northern Ireland at some stage of his career.

And both men were native Northern Irelanders.



.
Do we know if Jim Gamble knew Dave Edgar prior to Madeleine's disappearance?
Do we know who suggested that the McCanns use Dave Edgar?

=================================

REPLY BY T.B. @ worriedmum:   We don't know if the two men knew each other when in Northern Ireland. Jim Gamble was in a very senior position indeed in the security service and intelligence community of Northern Ireland; he was Head of Intelligence for Belfast. The Northern Ireland police service as it was then - the Royal Ulster Constabulary - was not exactly a massive organisation, a few thousand officers at the most. People low down the food chain, like Dave Edgar, would routinely attend intelligence briefings by senior officers, at least once a week. So I think we can go so far as to say that, yes, there is a strong possibility that the two men knew each other.

An article appeared on 23 May 2009 in the Independent, here is an extract from it:

After a long career pursuing villains in the name of the law and public service, many might expect Britain's police officers to spend their retirement as far away as possible from the dogged pursuit of wrongdoing.

Increasingly, that is far from the case. Rather than reaching for a set of golf clubs, newly-retired detectives and their uniformed counterparts are entering the nebulous and lucrative world of private investigation to deploy their skills tracking down debtors, countering industrial espionage and accepting cases that have baffled regular law enforcement bodies.

The latter scenario is the one that currently confronts the Alpha Investigations Group, the company headed by former detectives Dave Edgar, 52, and Arthur Cowley, 57, which has been employed since last year by the Find Madeleine Fund. The two men, who between have more than 60 years experience in the Royal Ulster Constabulary and Merseyside Police respectively, are part of a growing body of professional police officers whose skills are in demand in the private sector…
The claim that the two men, Edgar and Cowley, headed up an established detective agency called Alpha Investigations Group has bneen exposed as a lie in articles by Dr Martin Roberts and the Madeleine Foundation - see the forum under 'ALPHAIG'.

We know as a fact that Brian Kennedy headed up the McCanns' private investigation, first of all appointing Barcelona-based Metodo 3, close to where he has his winter villa.

We know from Gary Hagland's call to me in April 2009 that Kennedy set up his McCann Team investigation headquarters in a house he bought for that purpose in Knutsford, Cheshire (the interior of which can be seen in the Channel 4/Mentorn Media documentary/'Mockumentary'' of May 2009), .

At the time of a Madeleine Foundation leraflet distribution in Cheshire in 2010, Dave Edgar was living in Victoria Road, Crewe.

Crewe is just a few miles away from:

(a) Kennedy's McCann investigation headquarters in Knutsford and
(b) Kennedy's palatial mansion at Swettenham Hall, near Congleton (which used to be owned by members of the McAlpine family).


P.S. SMITHMAN Note:      By the time this article appeared in the Independent on 23 May 2009, a 30-second recording featuring Martin Smith's claimed sighting had already been on the Find Madeleine Fund website for 3 weeks. Along with the same descriptions as for Tannerman and Nuno Lourenco's Sagresman: "Didn't look like a tourist", "Classic shoes" and "Cloth jacket and trousers" etc. etc.

by **Tony Bennett** 25.06.17 0:00

Please bear with me while I add a bit more information on this topic.

Basically I have realised that Jim Gamble mist have been up to his neck - up to his eyes - in all of this.

For I have just realised that Gary Haggarty was not an informer for the Royal Ulster Constabulary - but for SPECIAL BRANCH itself.

And unless I am mistaken, Jim Gamble was the Head of Special Branch Intelligence at the time that all these extra-judicial (i.e. illegal) killings were being perpetrated, by informers, by RUC police officers, and by Special Branch officers.

How could the Head of Intelligence for SPECIAL BRANCH in BELFAST not know EXACTLY what was going on under his watch?

And IF Gamble could be trusted with that, surely he must be the type of individual who was capable of covering up ANYTHING for the British government?

With that in mind, here are some more notes. I have bolded the relevant bits:

=============================================================================

Pease also see this thread on the forum:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Please see this recent article on the Sinn Fein website:   [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

'The scale of collusion in case of a self-confessed UVF killer and police informer demonstrates what the British State is trying to hide through a so-called ‘statute of limitations’, Sinn Féin MLA Gerry Kelly has said.

The North Belfast MLA was reacting to today’s hearing at Belfast Crown Court where UVF ‘supergrass’ Gary Haggarty pleaded guilty to 200 charges, including five murders and five attempted murders. All of the killings, and the majority of the other offences, took place while he was working as a police informer.

Gerry Kelly said:

“The scale of collusion in this case is appalling but it is only the latest in a line of high-profile cases which are beginning to expose the extent to which the RUC and British State forces colluded with loyalist death squads throughout the conflict.

“This man was a senior member of the UVF involved in directing that organisation’s sectarian campaign and by his own admission, was involved in a string of murders all the while acting as a Special Branch informer.

“He has claimed that his handlers not only protected him from arrest and prosecution, but also actively encouraged his activities.

“The full extent of Special Branch’s involvement with Haggarty needs to be thoroughly and independently investigated, but there are many within unionism and right-wing Toryism who want cases like this never to come to light.

“That is the real motivation behind current attempts to establish a so-called statute of limitations which would prevent investigations of past crimes. They don’t fear witch-hunts; they fear the full scale of the British State’s involvement in the murder of Irish citizens being exposed to the wider world.”'

EXTRACTS FROM THE CONCLUSIONS OF NUALA O'LOAN'S REPORT ON THE EXTRA-JUDICIAL KILLINGS IN NORTHERN IRELAND: OPERATION BALLAST:

33.2 Operation Ballast analysed a small part of the informant handling of Special Branch RUC/PSNI. The investigation examined the activities of a number of Special Branch officers of all ranks in relation to Informant 1, and also the other informants who were associated with him.

PUBLIC STATEMENT

There is no reason to believe that the findings of this investigation are isolated. Indeed given that many of the failings identified in the course of the investigation were systemic, this is highly likely and the implications of this are very serious.

33.4 In the course of this investigation it has emerged that all of the informants at the centre of this investigation were members of the UVF. There was no effective strategic management of these informants, and as a consequence of the practices of Special Branch, the position of the UVF particularly, in North Belfast and Newtownabbey, was consolidated and strengthened.

33.10 A culture of subservience to Special Branch developed within the RUC. Officers in the rest of the RUC have articulated quite clearly that Special Branch maintained control over those normal ethical policing activities which might affect either Special Branch informants or Special Branch operations. The consequence of this was that, in the absence of effective Chief Officer Management of Special Branch, it acquired domination over the rest of the organization which inhibited some normal policing activities.

33.12 On occasions this also resulted in crimes being committed by informants with the prior knowledge of Special Branch officers. Informants engaged in such crimes were not subject to any of the controls inherent in the system for the use of Participating Informants devised by the Home Office for use by all police forces. On occasion, despite the fact that they had not given informants Participating Informant status, police nevertheless watched as serious terrorist crimes were committed by their informants.

33.17 In many other crimes described in this report there were witnesses, who either drew police attention to a crime or volunteered to give evidence, some of it quite specific. There was also one occasion on which the victim of a punishment shooting gave extensive information to the police about what had happened to him. In all these situations the individuals involved were either seeking to assist the police or to be protected by the police. The Police Ombudsman has found that on a number of occasions the police did not use these opportunities to further their investigations. This had two consequences: firstly the investigation did not proceed, and secondly failure by police to use evidence tendered by witnesses to paramilitary shootings and other activity, must have given rise to a lack of confidence among the people that there was any point in assisting the police when such crimes were committed. The consequence of this would inevitably have been that the police became less effective and the community confidence in policing was reduced.

33.21 It is evident that the arrangements for ensuring compliance by the PSNI with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act were ineffective between 2000 and 2003. Before the Police Ombudsman drew these matters to his attention, the Surveillance Commissioner had not been able to identify the misleading documentation which was created by some Special Branch officers. Recent Surveillance Commissioner reports have identified very significant improvements but the most recent report still identifies areas for development. It is essential that in the arrangements for the future strategic management of National Security issues in Northern Ireland, there will be accountability mechanisms which are effective and which are capable of ensuring that what has happened here does not recur.



.

by Guest 25.06.17 0:59

All roads lead to Rome!

by Guest 25.06.17 6:56

Amaral did say MI5 was involved.

Gamble? How early?

We all know the depth the establishment has gone on this case. Big guns everywhere.

by sallypelt 25.06.17 10:57

Those of us who have been following this case from the beginning, are well aware how early the CEOP were involved. Who can forget the Wayback machine capturing a CEOP web page, from 30 April 2017? stating that Madeleine McCann was missing. After much debate about the Wayback machine, we were told that there had been a "glitch" or words to that effect. So, whether it was true, or not, it led many people to question the accuracy of Wayback.

However, without a doubt, CEOP were "on the ground" early, in Portugal, after Madeleine McCann was REPORTED missing. Here is an article from 9 May 2007, from CEOP Command:

Wednesday 09 May 2007
Disappearance of Madeleine McCann Web Appeal for Information
Portuguese Police have extended a web based plea for information following the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
The latest appeal has been issued by the Child Exploitation and Online Protection (CEOP) Centre and the Virtual Global Taskforce (VGT) at the request of the Portuguese authorities.
The appeal is sited at [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. It appears in English, Portuguese and Spanish and urges people to come forward with any information that could help police find the missing youngster.
Both sites receive extensive daily hits from browsers in more than 130 different countries. It is hoped the move will help extend the reach of the appeal to as many people as possible, including holiday goers who may have recently returned from Portugal, or be intending to visit.
Any information should be passed to directly to the Portuguese police on 00 351 282 405 400.
Two forensic behavioural analysts from the CEOP Centre have been assisting with this inquiry. They have been made available to the authorities to ensure they have the full range of expertise available for every possible avenue of investigation.
Note to newsdesks: The CEOP Centre will not be commenting further or conducting interviews in relation to this inquiry.
Ends

Note to Editors:

The CEOP Centre is affiliated to the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) and powers are derived from the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. It is based in Pimlico, London with developing outreach channels to all areas of both domestic and international policing as well as industry and specialist support and educational faculties.
For further information on the work of the CEOP Centre please visit: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
For details on the international work of the CEOP Centre: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre Press Line 080 000 3434.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Guest 25.06.17 12:40

It would be interesting to know who Amaral thought was MI5.

by Guest 25.06.17 13:55

BlueBag wrote:It would be interesting to know who Amaral thought was MI5.

This is snipped from an Express report back in June 2014 - as with all UK tabloids, it should be viewed with extreme caution, particularly when authored by James Murray..

The disgraced detective made the bombshell claim in a Portuguese television documentary that openly mocked Scotland Yard’s new investigation. When asked if people will ever learn what really happened, Mr Amaral responded: “Yes, we will, when MI5 opens the case files, we will find out.

“Don’t forget that the British secret services followed the case right from the beginning. I don’t know if that information will be made available but if it’s like the United States, it takes years to have access to confidential information.”

Mr Amaral, 56, was the officer who co-ordinated the Portuguese police investigation from May 3, 2007, when three-year-old Madeleine vanished from her family’s holiday apartment at Praia da Luz on the Algarve.

After criticising British police he was kicked off the case four months later.

In his latest interview he claims that after two British police dogs were used to searched the McCann’s apartment at the Ocean Club, his team had to take the British person responsible for the operation to Faro Airport.

Amaral, now retired and working as a crime writer, went on: “He’s at the airport waiting for a plane to return to England and he receives a phone call. Then he explains to our colleague that a member of MI5 was at the airport, waiting to talk with him about the result of the investigation.

“Someone has the information, so make the information available.”

There has been suspicion in the senior ranks of Portugal’s police that US and/or British intelligence chiefs have satellite images of the area that could be helpful but have never passed them on.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I recall in the deep distant past, it being inferred that Martin Grimes was/is an MI5 agent, or had close contact with same - I think this report must be the origin of the rumour. Personally, I find it hard to believe that a covert MI5 operative would be openly discussing a case at an airport and passing on confidential innuendo to a third party! Careless talk and all that!

It would be more interesting to learn where Mr Amaral got his information from, before trying to second guess who the person might be. Not to say MI5 aren't in the thick of it but this story is a bit too OO7 for my liking. Who was on the ground, so to speak, or active on the periphery right from the very start? Why was Jim Gamble of the CEOP involved?

DCI Andy Redwood clearly missed these very important factors when he took the case right back to the beginning !!!

by Guest 25.06.17 14:05

Why was Jim Gamble of the CEOP involved?

Or

Why was an intelligence operative involved?

Is CEOP a way of gathering intelligence and controlling actions for child abuse cases?

by Guest 25.06.17 14:10

Briton on child sex abuse charge in Cambodia orphanage

22 October 2010
From the section [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The British founder of a Cambodian orphanage is facing prosecution for sexually assaulting a boy in his care.
Nicholas Griffin, 52, was held when police raided his isolated base in countryside near Siem Reap, in the north-west of the country.
Up to 100 children were moved to a safe house in an operation that involved British and local investigators.
Mr Griffin, originally from Wales, left Britain in 2006 before founding the Cambodia Orphan Fund, one year later.
He faces a potential 10-year jail sentence over a claim he sexually assaulted a 15-year-old boy.

Fortress-like building

He was originally held on suspicion of breaking child labour laws and his orphanage licence.
The orphanage manager, a Cambodian man, has been charged with the illegal removal of a child to the orphanage.
Jim Gamble, of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (Ceop), said Cambodian police are now examining claims of "institutional abuse" within the orphanage, which occupies an unusual fortress-like building.
Mr Gamble added: "The UK and Cambodia may have different legal systems and law enforcement practices, but we share a clear, joint commitment: to prevent harm to children."
He said the operation demonstrated the value of the organisation's international child protection network.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Guest 25.06.17 14:15

In October 2010, Jim Gamble, the former CEO of the British Child Exploitation and Online Protection unit (CEOP), came to Prey Sar prison in Cambodia.
This would be acceptable of course, if CEOP had evidence of a crime or some kind of official capacity in the prison.
The fact is that the FCO, a recognised CEOP partner, has no record of any agreements between CEOP and Cambodian authorities.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]The FCO confirm there is no record of an agreement between CEOP and Cambodia
Other than the Red Cross and a few medical NGO’s, no visitors are permitted inside Prey Sar.
Undercover persecution
Jim Gamble actually came to Prey Sar for another purpose.
He entered Prey Sar, under the guise of a NGO filming prison conditions.
As a senior British police officer;
– he did not identify himself
– he did not brief detainees on their rights
– he did not explain the purpose of his unauthorised visit to Prey Sar prison.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]Jim Gamble, under cover, abusing prisoner rights
He abused his position, in order to persecute British, pre-trial detainees and as a result, also upset local detainees.
Torture
The unlawful actions of Jim Gamble could be described as degraging treatment, under the UN Convention Against Torture (CAT).
However, the British embassy will not support the victims of this action, despite the strong FCO position on acts of torture, inhuman and degraging treatment or punishment.
Perverting the course of justice
While in Cambodia and undercover Prey Sar prison, Jim Gamble produced a tabloid TV show with the American network CNN.
For this production, Jim Gamble also visited the NGO AFESIP, otherwise known as the Somly Mam foundation.
This NGO has hit regular headlines during the past years, regarding false statements and donor extortion.
These lies, supported by British authorities are concerning, when you consider that not only are there innocent men in prison, there are also false victims held custody in NGOs.
The prejudicial TV show was broadcast by CNN, worldwide, six days before the trial of Matt Harland
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]A quick shirt change and Jim Gamble is no longer under cover
First Court
Despite the screening of the prejudicial TV show, Jim Gamble did not attend the First Court.
Matt Harland was denied the opportunity to address this mistreatment and the perpetrator, Jim Gamble in the Cambodian courts, in the same way he was denied the right to face his alleged victims (now adults).
In fact, there was no evidence presented by British Authorities deemed admissible in court.
It seems that the only purposes of the TV show was, to demonstrate that CEOP have no regards for the legal process, to prejudice the courts and grant the corrupt Khmer justice system a licence to convict any British suspects.
British IPCC
The UK’s Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), accepted a complaint regarding the unlawful misconduct by Jim Gamble in Cambodia.
However, it was decided that as this action took place outside the UK, the police complaint is also outside of the IPCC jurisdiction.
No further action was taken.
Metropolitan Police
One of the victims, Matt Harland, attempted to file the following criminal complaints with the Metropolitan Police in London;
– conspiracy to pervert the course of justice
– conspiracy to torture
Under the UK Victims Code, Matt Harland has a right to report a crime, committed by Jim Gamble, in London.
The Metropolitan police would not record the complaint or accept a victim statement from Matt Harland.
The Chief of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, has not responded to Matt Harland’s email complaint.
No further action was taken.
Impunity
It seems that uncontrolled officers, like Jim Gamble, can do whatever they wish in a foreign country.
His actions were in violation of the Cambodian Criminal Code, the Constitution, UN laws and (his responsibilities under) HRA’98 and PACE.
Despite complaints, no statements have been taken and British authorities, in denial, have just closed ranks.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]Jim Gamble, undercover outside the gates of Prey Sar
There has been no response from CEOP and no action has been taken.
A fair trial
Matt Harland is only seeking one thing – a fair trial.
To have the evidence against him heard, in public, before a competent court.
To meet his accusers, and those like Jim Gamble on equal terms, to examine the evidence.
Of course, this is highly unlikely.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Doug D 25.06.17 14:20

From the original BBC report linked in TB’s post at the top:

Niall Murphy, a solicitor representing some of the victims' families, said: "On 8th September the court will convene again and at that time a direction will be issued from the prosecution service as to their assessment of Mr Haggarty's credibility to be taken forward as an assisting offender and it is on that basis that future prosecutions will be determined."

He said Haggarty is due to be sentenced at the end of September: "At that time a full set of facts will be read out into the court.

"It is only really then that the depth of the detail of his career in the UVF and the supervision offered by Special Branch can be assessed."

Can anyone really see that happening in open court?

by sar 25.06.17 14:39

BlueBag wrote:
Why was Jim Gamble of the CEOP involved?

Or

Why was an intelligence operative involved?

Is CEOP a way of gathering intelligence and controlling actions for child abuse cases?

...it's been my opinion for some time that at some juncture childline became an early warning system for peeterfiles. It would filter out and gather complaints and then let "Lord so and so" or "National Treasure such and such" know if the heat was on them. So not beyond the realms of possibility.

by willowthewisp 25.06.17 16:28

Kincora Boys Home, Teflon coated Jim Gamble,Abuse of Position,Misconduct in Public Office,then add in Sir Bernard Hogan Howe refusing to respond to claims of UK Police Abuse of Process,to Matt Harland,which the IPCC stated had "Occurred"but due to this being violated in a Foreign Country,they had No Jurisdiction of the Head of UK CEOP carrying out that process?
Old Boys network,Masonic influences,eh Sir Bernard?

Could Jim Gamble now be in serious trouble? - after today's Gary Haggerty revelations?