For anyone who has children in Scotland or has family or friends with children in Scotland this video will make your stomach churn knowing that it could so easily happen to any honest person.
I watched it all the way through, and I’ve never felt so uncomfortable knowing that the people accused of such corruption could so easily do the same to me and my family.
However, like Brian & Janice Docherty I would speak out in exactly the same way and expect the justice system, social workers and courts to behave with integrity and bring those who are actually breaking the law in the various agencies to justice.
Yes as a sceptic, I always consider the possibility that the testimony I see is untrue. Indeed the scale of the allegations are so enormous it beggars belief that it could happen. However, if these people are telling lies, then they need an Oscar for their performance because they are the best actors I’ve seen. So, is the story credible? I have never seen something like this, but I too have seen police corruption – using threats of “bringing in social services” to try to threaten individuals. So it does ring true.
Therefore it appears to be two ordinary people who appear to have acted entirely properly. Their only “crime” was to report a person who offered a large sum of money for access to their child. They reported it – just as I would have done – but instead of investigating the potential paedophile, it appears that the alleged paedophile was friendly with a “viscount” who in turn was friendly with the police and in turn the social workers and as a result, these agencies in NE Scotland colluded, to turn a simple report of a potential paedophile and what would presumably have been a relatively simple investigation – possibly with no outcome – into a massive internationalist affair with police monitoring – insinuations of more and more corruption – a complete failure of the legal profession in Ireland to help and what amounts to full blown harassment and criminal conspiracy against the couple by numerous agencies.
Reports were fabricated by people who had never met them – they were kept under observation (apparently by anti-terrorist units). Children were seized forcibly with no paper work. Procedures were not followed and at no time does it appear there was any accusation except that they had made the original complaint – and then as the harassment continued, they properly reported each case of harassment.
It is just mind boggling that it could happen.
And to sum it all up – there were attempts to prevent the couple discussing the case or letting anyone know what had happened.
PLEASE Watch the video and make up your own mind .
I’ve spent a few hours this morning trying to find “the other side” of this case. The best I could find was a “devil’s advocate” comment on this blog: https://catholictruthblog.com/2016/01/11/state-vs-parents-scots-father-fights-to-protect-family-against-authorities-in-scotland-and-ireland/
I’ve taken out the parts of the comment that seem most relevant:
Having agonised for days over this case, re-playing those YouTube videos repeatedly, I sadly find myself unable to just take Mr. Docherty at his word. The man seems sincere and concise when he puts his case, which makes it more difficult to doubt him. However, his story lacks certain information that I at least would want to know before forming any judgment….
According to Mr. Docherty, the man who made the original proposition for access to his 5-year-old autistic boy is a “7 fingered alcoholic”. But it seems odd to me that this stranger just sidled up to the father of an autistic child and offered him £25.000 for perverted access to his little boy. That was a very risky thing for a paedophile to do given that these deviant types generally keep a very low profile, … So, we need to know from Mr. Docherty just how well he knew this man and how said man knew his little boy was autistic. … And where was this maimed drunkard going to find £25,000? From Lord Petersham?
Whilst I too find the situation difficult to believe, in the video Mr Docherty repeatedly said that the man did not deny offering £25,000. The case has been to court twice – and the Dochertys have clearly been told there are some things they cannot say in public. If this allegation were not substantially true, it is incredible that the Dochertys would continue to make this assertion in the face of the courts.
It is not impossible there is an innocent explanation for this offer – maybe, just maybe, someone who thought they could cure autism needed a trial subject. I have not heard their side of the story and if something bizarre like that had happened, it is easy to see how it would be wrongly interpreted. But it needed investigation. Also, I think the “Devil’s advocate is being a bit naive in assuming a social delinquent like a paedophile would have the greatest social skills. A social deviant like that may not be able to recognise when other people would bow to threats or take the money. So why would they recognise when those they were dealing with would not bend over to their will and the paedophile had to be silent?
And what is the relationship between this man and Lord Petersham? Mr Docherty makes the link, incriminating both, but does not say how they know each other. Furthermore, he states that Lord Petersham has influence within Social Services, alluding to corrupt individuals who may even be part of a paedophile ring.
The only evidence anyone needs to know someone knows another is a comment like “I’ll speak to … and get them to … ” and if the threatened action takes place it is strong evidence there is a link. And I strongly doubt that once it was obvious the Dochertys were pursuing police action that those who are the subject of allegations would reveal any further private information. So, it is quite reasonable that the Dochertys only know they know each other without knowing how.
As for police corruption in the case, would it not have been far easier for a corrupt police officer to simply have informed Mr. Docherty that he had spoken to the accused, who denied the allegation. It would then have come down to one man’s word against another and the police would have been able to walk away without taking further action.
Someone has been reading too many crime novels! Most people don’t set out to break the law. Likewise, corruption usually happens by accident and starts at a fairly mundane level. The police officer doing a favour for a friend by “trying to calm things down”. They don’t start with blatant law breaking – just “bending the rules” just a little for a friend. What happens is that events get out of hand. Most people – particularly in a small community where they know each other – would recognise the “advice” not to pursue the case and know that if they want to have a quiet life they best drop it. That is after all what is called “friendly policing” – talking to kids about vandalism – they know what the warning means – there’s no need for official action.
So I suspect, that unfortunately for the police officer and the Dochertys rather than bend to the pressure and drop the allegation, the Docherty chose to do “the right thing” and push the matter for a proper investigation. At that point, a police officer who had bent the rules “just a bit” would realise that if the Dochertys were not stopped then he might be subject to disciplinary action. We then see a vicious spiral, as they try to use more and more dirty tactics to prevent themselves being caught by the original (minor) offence.
One tactic I’ve heard the police in Scotland use to put pressure on people is to threaten to involve social services. So, it rings true that a police officer would try to use this tactic to silence the Dochertys and stop the complaint – which would involve possible disciplinary action for the officer. We then have an escalation of threats – and only when “normal pressure” such as threats had failed, and the Dochertys were not prepared to back down, would an officer (or even by then other officers) turn to outright criminality.
“I am in blood stepped in so far that should I wade no more, Returning were as tedious as go o’er,” (Lady Macbeth – I believe after killing King Duncan and before killing the guards?)
But continuing with the “Devil’s advocate”
And how is it possible that Mr. and Mrs. Docherty, who, by their own testimony have not been charged with any crime or accused of being bad parents, be brought before a court of law threatened with psychiatric sectioning? There is a very complicated process in place for sectioning people that involves professional psychiatric assessment on a number of levels. The two main criteria that must be proven for sectioning those suspected of mental distress are that the person must represent a violent danger to himself and/or others, or have lost all sense of reality and not know where he/she is. Not even a corrupt band of conspirators in high office can circumvent this process.
First, as I understand what the Docherty’s were saying those harassing them were attempting to fabricate evidence of them being mentally unstable – I didn’t hear anything about being “sectioned” (but I could be wrong). Secondly, it is a well known phenomenon of establishments to consider those who disagree with their world view to be in some way mentally ill. We saw precisely this approach in Soviet Russia, I’ve seen this exact allegation used repeatedly against those who highlight the lack of significant warming in the climate record (and the known adjustments to data). Also I have a friend that has been involved in the mental health system – and the (English) mental health is no paradigm of virtue at following its own procedures (although I also have sympathy with doctors in a resource constrained environment with difficult people).
The key issue in this case is why after reporting the incident that the local police failed to follow procedures. As such Police Scotland urgently need to answer these questions:
- How can Police Scotland justify not investigating the man who offered Brian Docherty £25,000 for `access` to his autistic son, when the man in question has admitted that he did, in fact, do so
- Why, less than twenty-four hours after Brian Docherty reported that Alan Low, the occupant of a neighbouring property on Viscount Petersham`s Crimonmogate estate, had offered him £25,000 for `access` to his autistic six-year-old son, did Sergeant Buchan of Police Scotland, Fraserburgh, arrive on his doorstep and attempt to persuade Mr Docherty, with considerable persistence, that there was nothing to be concerned about ?
- Why did PC Lamont, the female officer who allegedly wrote a concern report to social services attacking Mr and Mrs Docherty and their children, have no knowledge of the content of her own report.
There are also questions I would like the Docherty’s to answer. But given they are clearly under restrictions as to what they can say, I appreciate they may not be able to answer them in public. That is why we need an independent investigation (not police Scotland – and not Scottish social workers who must in some way collude with the police.)
- What exactly were the circumstances of this offer of £25,000. If they were a paedophile – why did they think they could approach apparent strangers
(although a paedophile is hardly likely to be very socially aware and in a small community, they may have been able to get away with criminal behaviour by knowing the right people)
- I would like to see evidence for the repeated break-ins and the police monitoring. At the very least I would like to see that they reported them to the police (But it does appear it was admitted in court by the police they were monitoring).
On the second issue of repeated break ins. Given the way anti-terrorist legislation was being cited by the police (why?), It is quite possible that there was a break in by the police. It is then quite possible that once the Dochertys knew the police were “breaking in” – that they were over-sensitised and interpreted things that would normally be ignored (doors opened by the wind when they were out) as signs of further break-ins.
Also – we sometimes have kids messing around in our street, the landlord may have come in to check, there are even regular accounts that some birds will fly in open windows and take away small objects. There could be perfectly rational explanations not involving the police, but in the situation where their safety and family security were being threatened, it is understandable they might interpreted the smallest changes as being police action.
However, it would also be an extremely easy way for someone well placed to make something like this “go away” if they could portray those making the allegations as mentally ill. By repeatedly breaking into their house they would no doubt both cause & increase mental anxiety as well as lead them to create multiple reports of minor incidents which would in itself be taken by “numpties” in officialdom as evidence they were “obsessive”. I’m dubious that even a very corrupt police force would get involved in such activity – but if someone very rich were desperate to stop an investigation and attempting to discredit someone like the Docherties – it would be a very easy way to employ someone to use these tactics for relatively little money.
Is it credible that someone would employ someone to engage in these tactics?
When I formed the Scottish Climate and Energy Group, I was approached by several people to join, who when I checked appeared to be in some way linked to the wind sector. However, despite vetting everyone as far as I was able to make sure they were who they said they were, one person did get through. They volunteered at the meeting to buy the appropriate domain name, they did so, and then after attempting to gain access to my own email server and websites and me politely declining their “help” – they disappeared and it was impossible to contact them.
I knew this kind of activity was likely, because when I worked in the wind industry, I heard stories of similar tactics being used against anti-wind groups. Apparently it was possible to hire people to join the groups and disrupt them. Finally, several years later when out of curiosity I checked to see whether the domain name had been released, I traced back the then ownership and the domain name was ultimately held by a security company (which could be co-incidence but in light of what happened is strong evidence that something underhand took place). I therefore have strong reasons to believe the person who attended the meeting and took the domain name and attempted to gain access to my own email server had been paid to disrupt our group.
As I’ve seen many many wind groups fall apart due with very similar symptoms, symptoms compatible with paid agitators provoking “in-fighting” – it seems very likely to me that at least some in the wind “industry” have been involved in a widespread black-ops campaign. As they are not the kind of people to get their own hands dirty, I am therefore quite sure that there are people available to hire in Scotland who who will try to stop others using “black ops” of dubious legality and certainly immoral.
What is the least “bizarre” explanation for these events which involve the least criminal behaviour?
I can discount mental illness and making it up (unless they are the world’s best actor). So, I’m convinced the Docherty’s believe what they are saying, but that does not exclude the possibility that they may be mistaken in some way.
Having dealt with officialdom in Scotland’s government – I know that many are complete numpties who can easily cock up something very simple. I also know they like to “punish” people who point out they are a bunch of incompetent numpties (come on it’s only natural behaviour!). However whilst regrettable, being an incompetent numpty is not a crime. So, I can dismiss much of the stupid harassment as officialdom trying to “push back” on those making complaints and I understand that they have a “group think” mentality which means many just assume any of the public complaining about them are frivolous, petty, conspiracy ideationists or mentally ill. This is an endemic problem in Scotland – where we seem to have an obsessive deference to officialdom – however it is not as I say a crime.
The repeated break-ins in Ireland are more difficult to explain rationally. One possibility is that being in a new environment and under pressure the Dochertys are more sensitised and interpret events and things other people would accept as normal as “intentional action”. It’s also possible that being from outside the community – they are naturally the focus of interest – and that in itself causes them to feel as if they are “under watch”. It is also possible that there were legitimate lawful break-ins by the Irish police (even if ultimately the Scottish police may have been acting illegally). But it is also a phenomenon that when people feel their personal boundaries are being transgressed that they will make “boundary patrols” to check for further ingression. So, the mere fact that the police have invaded their privacy, will make them far more sensitive and indeed will seek out perceived transgressions of their personal space (at least until they can be reassured their personal and family environment is secured). Therefore this appears to me to be explainable as a reasonable normal response to their situation in a new locality in a hostile legal environment where they are clearly under attack by the numpties of “the system”.
Turning to the specific events. I can conceive possible scenarios – albeit in themselves quite bizarre – where someone may innocently offer £25,000 to a couple with a disabled child. However, I cannot conceive of any innocent reason, why there was no investigation when the couple were insistent that there needed to be an investigation. If there was an innocent reason for this original offer – the investigation might have caused a few red faces, but any reasonable person would understand why it needed investigation. So, whilst it may only have deserved a minor “slap on the hands” to the officer for failing to do their job, NO, I cannot construct an innocent explanation for the lack of investigation.
There is then the bizarre reports produced by social services or others by people who never met the Dochertys an vicious cycle of escalation as it appears the “powers that be” tried to prevent themselves being investigated.
Apparently – if the account of the judges comments on them are correct – the report produced at that time were not credible as evidence, which seems to me to mean it was dishonest. This is the point where I find it incredible to believe there was not some form of criminality by officialdom – a conspiracy to try to silence the Dochertys – and then a conspiracy to prevent this conspiracy being investigated. As this ought to go to trial, I will say no more.
During my time as a climate sceptic, I have observed a worrying tendency amongst certain groups of professionals to “group think” and to “push back” against any outsider who criticises them. There is then a “closing together” of the ranks, information from those within the ranks is accepted without question, information from outsiders is considered “attacks” leading to denial and attacks on the outsider – in climate this is usually an accusation of “conspiracy theorist” but I have also seen attempts to label climate sceptics and mentally ill and I strongly suspect the attacks on the Dochertys follow the same general pattern.
Like the Climategate inquiry the original crime: failing to investigate an allegation; in the case of Climategate: bungling the climate data and being technically incompetent to use Excel, was hardly going to land someone in jail. The real criminality comes in the cover-up. In the case of Climategate the conspiracy was to “pervert the course of justice” by very highly placed people who prevented a proper inquiry by colluding with the inquiry chairmen (after appointing stooges) to investigate papers that were not in dispute and exclude those where there was evidence of wrong-doing. In this case, it appears to me there is very strong evidence that there was a conspiracy to use the threat of taking children away to silence the Dochertys and stop them pursuing the allegation. This then escalated when they did not comply and as the Dochertys correctly complained about each new assault by officialdom, officialdom responded by further attacks (presumably justified because no reasonable person fit to look after kids could complain about their incompetence) And whilst from the available evidence, it is not possible to know whether this conspiracy originates from the police themselves or those subject to the original allegations, it is inconceivable that the police have not in some way enabled and/or colluded with the attacks on the Dochertys.