Brian Eley

[LawrenceCooper]

An alleged "contribution" from GMRDKOBE:

https://www.thearticle.com/unnatural-ac ... brian-eley

Correct me if I am wrong, but this article appears to contribute exactly zero that is not already known about BRE.

There was certainly a lot in the article that I didn't previously know.

[Brian Egdell]

An alleged "contribution" from GMRDKOBE:

https://www.thearticle.com/unnatural-ac ... brian-eley

Correct me if I am wrong, but this article appears to contribute exactly zero that is not already known about BRE.

There was certainly a lot in the article that I didn't previously know.

Same here, but then only because RDK has added some personal experiences of playing BRE. Beyond that he has merely produced a potted precis of Fiona Pitt-Kethley's article, even managing to introduce some homophobia and wrongly attribute it to her:

Fiona is puzzled that a long-exposed homosexual pederast, wanted by Interpol, should have eluded justice for so long.

(from RDK's article, as if the word 'homosexual' has any relevance in that context)

No, Fiona PItt-Kethley doesn't conflate homosexuality with child abuse like that. Her only reference to homosexuality in her article is the valid point that Eley's male victims were likely especially deterred from coming forward because of the taboo around same sex activity, especially at the time Eley was active.

[Paul Heaton]

An alleged "contribution" from GMRDKOBE:

https://www.thearticle.com/unnatural-ac ... brian-eley

Correct me if I am wrong, but this article appears to contribute exactly zero that is not already known about BRE.

There was certainly a lot in the article that I didn't previously know.

I agree. Add to this Keene’s intended audience isn’t the subset of the chess community who have drilled down on Eley ad infinitum.

[Jon Mahony]

I'm always fascinated with the conclusion people seem to jump to when something inexplicable happens (in this case Eley managing to evade punishment for his crimes, for the duration of his lifetime) that they must have worked for MI5 / 6 - I don't really think Bri was the sort they were looking for - and what access to state secrets (either here or abroad) would he have been privy to, to report on? If anything, your public school RDK types are more the sort for that.

It seems to be pretty open and shut - The BCF covered up / didn't tackle the issue to avoid scandal and due to attitudes at the time, once he had left the country it was very much Out of Sight, Out of Mind for the police. He probably had help leaving the country from friends and probably the same friends continued to subsidise him once he was out, but its no more mysterious than that, I would say.

[Matt Mackenzie]

An alleged "contribution" from GMRDKOBE:

https://www.thearticle.com/unnatural-ac ... brian-eley

Correct me if I am wrong, but this article appears to contribute exactly zero that is not already known about BRE.

There was certainly a lot in the article that I didn't previously know.

I agree. Add to this Keene’s intended audience isn’t the subset of the chess community who have drilled down on Eley ad infinitum.

in that case, it is all the more important that the article is accurate and insightful. Is it?

[Kevin Thurlow]

"I'm always fascinated with the conclusion people seem to jump to when something inexplicable happens (in this case Eley managing to evade punishment for his crimes, for the duration of his lifetime) that they must have worked for MI5 / 6 - I don't really think Bri was the sort they were looking for"

Yes - for example, secret work did not exactly help Alan Turing.

Eley had the advantage that he was "investigated" by the same police force that subsequently failed to deal with a massive paedophile ring. It could be as simple as that, they simply could not be bothered.

[James Plaskett]

But he did contribute this, after mentioning Eley´s usage of the false identity of ´David´-

perhaps a reference to David Anderton, the British Chess Federation officer who had the power to authorise action against Eley.

I once asked Anderton why he had taken no action. His excuse was that if the complainants withdrew or were reluctant to bear witness in court, then the British Chess Federation could have been bankrupted by a massive legal action for libel. As Shakespeare wrote in Julius Caesar: Cowards die many times before their deaths, The valiant never taste of death but once.

Fiona relates that her husband put it to Anderton that he might have felt differently had his own ten year old son been molested by Eley. That argument fell on stony ground, since Anderton had no children.

Fiona also relates that the result of Eley’s unfettered depredations on his multiple victims led to madness and suicide. Once again resorting to Shakespeare, one might speak of carnal, bloody and unnatural acts, of accidental judgements, casual slaughters, of deaths put on by cunning and forced cause…

As I have written in an earlier post, it is the opinion of the Labour leader and former head of the Crown Prosecution Service, Sir Keir Starmer, that officials involved in covering up suspicions of paedophilia ought themselves to be prosecuted.
Some contributions made by, e.g. messrs Thurlow and Horton would indicate some sympathy with that view.

I think Keene makes clear his contempt for the cowardice of David Anderton in not doing more about the vast number of allegations of paedophilia against Eley, allegations of which he was aware for over a decade before Eley was arrested with over seventy affadavits sworn against him.
It should not be forgotten that, after twenty-three years with a seat in the House of Lords, Lord David Steel resigned after the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse accused him of an "abdication of responsibility" over his failure to investigate allegations of child sex abuse against Liberal MP, Cyril Smith.

[Chris Goodall]

It should not be forgotten that, after twenty-three years with a seat in the House of Lords, Lord David Steel resigned after the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse accused him of an "abdication of responsibility" over his failure to investigate allegations of child sex abuse against Liberal MP, Cyril Smith.

They declined to say what exactly David Steel ought to have done, bearing in mind he's expected to second-guess a police investigation. Interviewed the victims himself?

The idea that no-one's actions should ever be motivated by their own fear of a libel suit, is preposterous. This is a country where tweeting "Why is Lord McAlpine trending? *innocent face*" can be interpreted as an accusation of paedophilia and compensated with a five-figure sum. Making people think twice before saying things they can't prove, as opposed to saying things and then regretting them later, is exactly why those libel laws exist. It is a feature, not a bug.

[Brian Egdell]

Those are excellent points about the risk of libel lawsuits which those in authority would have been taking if they had taken the action which, with all the benefit of hindsight, was so necessary.

And another factor of which the importance should not be underestimated is that both Brian Eley and Cyril Smith were offending in an era in which child abuse issues were treated with a collective willful blindness on everyone's part. Especially when the perpetrators were powerful, respected people. It is only in the last few years that a very belated spotlight has been shining on the issue. David Anderton and David Steel, in positions of authority though they were, would have found it extremely difficult to take the action which, through our modern lens, looks so obviously necessary now.

[James Plaskett]

Those are excellent points about the risk of libel lawsuits which those in authority would have been taking if they had taken the action which, with all the benefit of hindsight, was so necessary.

And another factor of which the importance should not be underestimated is that both Brian Eley and Cyril Smith were offending in an era in which child abuse issues were treated with a collective willful blindness on everyone's part.

Risks weren´t the main disinclination.
In my opinion, far more on the money is your point that so many of us seemed relatively unperturbed by it all. The late Anderton´s first wife, herself his legal partner, giggled in 1979 at my recounting to her of Eley´s advances on me when I was fourteen and the wife of a friend of mine (who was himself something of a chess Mycenas) giggled in similar manner in the mid eighties before accepting that, "No. I know it´s not funny."
And I also feel bad about not having done more.

[Roger Lancaster]

It's very easy, particularly for anyone who hasn't himself or herself had to decide what to do in a situation such as that discussed, to say what they would or wouldn't have done. Even leaving hindsight out of the equation, in practice it's typically very hard to decide what to do for the best. The closest I've come to having to handle this type of situation was 20 years ago when managing a local housing authority's homeless persons unit. A social worker complained that her client, a young woman, had been propositioned by one of my team. I interviewed her client who said that the team member had told her, "I'II arrange a home for you if you give me what I want" (I'll leave that to everyone's imagination) but she fIatly refused to make a written statement or co-operate in any other way, saying "I've told you what happened, now it's up to you". Alerted by this, over the next few months I uncovered four similar cases who were, however, likewise reticent. Their stories materially coincided even though, as far as I could trace, they were unconnected, making collusion unlikely. At this point I contacted the council's legal team who said "From what you've told us, we don't doubt he's guilty but you don't have the evidence to go to Court" - not only would the council be unable to prove its case but it would probably face an expensive counter-charge of constructive dismissal at an employment tribunal and likely be forced to re-employ him. In passing, the lawyers made the point that - even if I was able to obtain affidavits - it was highly likely that the witnesses would be required to attend Court personally. The best solution I could hit on was to find sound alternative grounds for terminating the man's employment - and this wasn't ideal as, although it solved my then employer's problem, it left him free to pursue similar activities elsewhere - although not, as it happened at his next would-be employer where he somewhat incautiously gave my name as a referee. Nevertheless I considered myself fortunate in being able to find sound alternative grounds for termination.

[MJMcCready]

I'm always fascinated with the conclusion people seem to jump to when something inexplicable happens (in this case Eley managing to evade punishment for his crimes, for the duration of his lifetime) that they must have worked for MI5 / 6 - I don't really think Bri was the sort they were looking for - and what access to state secrets (either here or abroad) would he have been privy to, to report on? If anything, your public school RDK types are more the sort for that.

It seems to be pretty open and shut - The BCF covered up / didn't tackle the issue to avoid scandal and due to attitudes at the time, once he had left the country it was very much Out of Sight, Out of Mind for the police. He probably had help leaving the country from friends and probably the same friends continued to subsidise him once he was out, but its no more mysterious than that, I would say.

Well that's more or less correct. There was no MI5/MI6 involvement although there were allegations that Interpol were contacted for assistance. Given that the South Yorkshire police didn't do very much, its contestable that it did go as high as Interpol.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

The closest I've come to having to handle this type of situation was 20 years ago when managing a local housing authority's homeless persons unit.

Thank you for the concrete example, Roger (it is a really good example). Are you happy, though, for that amount of detail to be in the public domain? Those involved at the time would recognise what you are describing here, unless you have changed some of the details, and even then it might be obvious what you are talking about (but then if no-one ever talked about this sort of thing, nothing gets learnt unless it circulates internally, and even then it may not help as fully as it could). I wonder what legal departments these days would say - the same or something different?

[MJMcCready]

Depends on what you mean by legal departments. It's worth remembering that this is England and the police aren't exactly the quickest of cats, as came to the fore with operation yewtree.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Yewtree

[Nick Ivell]

Yes, an excellent example.

With Eley, though, I'm not necessarily talking about legal intricacies. Take the shocking decision to make him Glorney manager in 1980. Why did that happen? Simply don't appoint him. I cannot see that he would have had legal redress.

People have been frozen out for much less.