Share, , Google Plus, Pinterest,


Carl Beech and the ‘Useful idiots’ at the BBC. The incompetence of the BBC has now made it a pawn in the cover-up of VIP sex abuse. The darkest forces in MI5 and MI6 are the true beneficiaries of its ineptitude.

By Joseph de Burca.


The documentary on the liar and fraud Carl Beech raises the most serious questions about the competence of the BBC which broadcasted it on 24 August. For years Beech masqueraded as the survivor of a VIP sex-abuse ring that allegedly engaged in the rape, torture and murder of children. During his charade, Beech enjoyed the attention of the mainstream British media and a now defunct website called Exaro. Meanwhile, the reporters who gave Beech acres of publicity ignored the existence of genuine victims of sex abuse. Some even misreported what they said.

The BBC documentary on Beech did not reveal a single new fact of any relevance and was a pointless exercise from a journalistic point of view. All it has done is cast doubt on the credibility of genuine victims of sex abuse such as Richard Kerr.

Instead of devoting its massive resources to a meaningful inquiry into the issue of actual VIP sex abuse, the BBC has now produced two documentaries on Beech.

Village magazine has produced an online book which describes the role of MI5 and MI6 in the exploitation of children in Ireland and Britain in the 1970s and 1980s for those who would like to look beyond the output of the BBC and the Murdoch press. It begins at The Anglo-Irish Vice Ring. Chapters 1 – 3.

One question about Beech was raised repeatedly during the BBC documentary, namely why did he lie? Yet, having raised this extremely important question, it did not provide anything resembling an answer. Instead, it offered speculation and bewilderment. Significantly, none of the speculation touched upon the possibility that Beech was a player – and a well-paid one at that –  in a plot by a cabal determined to convince the public that VIP sex abuse was nothing more than a figment of his imagination. Once he had achieved his goal, it was his plan to start a new life in Sweden with his financial rewards. The media had not published a single picture of his face and had only referred to him as ‘Nick’. Then he was thrown to the wolves by his erstwhile colleagues, discredited and sent to prison. Now, even if he were to reveal that he was part of a plot to discredit claims of VIP child sex abuse, his credibility has crumbled and no one will ever believe a word of what he has to say. If this is actually what has happened or close to it, the BBC has served the cabal’s purposes admirably. Intelligence services have a term for people who advance the agenda of those they oppose without realising they are being manipulated: they are called “useful idiots”.


Last year the more excitable elements of the British media went into something of a frenzy after the conviction of Beech by a Newcastle jury. Beech, a former NHS manager then aged 51, was convicted for perverting the course of justice, i.e. telling the police a pack of lies. He was sentenced to 18 years imprisonment. Beech’s deceit related to the existence of an alleged murderous  VIP paedophile ring based around Westminster involving Jimmy Savile, the former British prime minister Ted Heath (1970-74), and others. Beech’s allegations prompted a £2million Scotland Yard inquiry. Beech claimed he was a survivor of an “establishment group” which including politicians, military figures and spies. Absurdly, he claimed the group kidnapped, raped, tortured and murdered  boys in the 1970s and 1980s. This had triggered an ill-fated police probe that ended without a single arrest being made.

The BBC broadcast did not attempt to answer any of the questions which Village  magazine and other publications raised last year. It did not even ask:

  • Who funded Beech’s lavish expenditure in Sweden;
  • Why did the police treat Beech as a credible witness when it was obvious he was a liar;
  • Who was the “high-level” figure who told the police not to look at Beech’s laptop computer for two years, something that permitted him to engage in the crime of watching child pornography during that time period.


Beech planned to make a new life for himself under an assumed identity in Sweden. He was in the process of arranging this while his lies were unravelling and he was facing a slew of criminal charges in Britain.  He purchased a riverside property in the village of Overkalix near the Artic Circle in the name of Stephen Anderson. Yet, the BBC did not bother to ask:

  • Did he have a passport in the name of Stephen Anderson?
  • Did he have fraudulent legal documents in the name of Anderson?
  • If so, how did he acquire them?
  • Did he get them from MI5, MI6 or another government agency?
  • What documents did he use in the purchase the house in Sweden?

The BBC did not raise the issue of his funds apart from mentioning that he had received the sum of £22,000 in compensation for his alleged abuse. That sum, however, could not possibly have funded his lavish lifestyle. The BBC did not make that important fact clear.

Even if the BBC lacked the wit to raise the mystery surrounding Beech’s wealth on its own volition, the issue was already in the public domain. The Daily Telegraph reported last year as follows: “Seemingly flush with cash [in Overkalix], Beech, who was given £22,000 from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority in the wake of his claims of abuse, did not hesitate to pay 450 Krona (£38) for a haircut, £84 for a tin of paint, or £1,350 to fix the air conditioning in his car”. The Sun reported how the house cost £17,000 and that Beech planned to buy a “large house across the road plus several cabins by the riverside, including a luxury villa”. A local plumber called Patrik Elemalm has revealed how he installed a new bathroom and renovated the pipework for £4,500.  According to Par Andersson, the budget for the villa was £85,000.

The BBC also ignored the fact that Beech went on the run under yet another name, Samuel Karlsson, from an extradition warrant. He was finally caught and returned to the UK to face justice. Again, did he have documents for this false identity? If so, where did he get them?

The £22,000 from the Criminal Injuries cannot explain the money he spent in Sweden. The most elementary enquiries by the BBC would have revealed that Beech spent £10,000 of the compensation he received as a deposit on a white Ford Mustang convertible. The full cost of the vehicle was £34,000.

He also appears to have spent most of his life in debt and lived in a rented accommodation. While he and his former wife had once lived in a house they had acquired with help from his mother they had been unable to maintain it. At the time of his divorce he was living in a house for which he paid  £1,100 rent per month.

Since he did not possess property or other valuable assets which he could have sold and was always in debt, the source of the money he spent in Sweden is deeply troubling. Where did he get it all? None of this was of any concern to the BBC.

There is more: before he fled, he had become bored living in his new Swedish house – presumably while the refurbishment works were taking place – and on 16 February 2019 he checked into Room 110 at The Grand Arctic Hotel for six nights where he told the staff he was “sick of microwave meals”. Significantly, he checked in under the name ‘Carl Anderson’ and, according to The Telegraph,  “paid by card”. Does this mean he was able to get a credit card in yet another false name. If so, how? Again, none of this is of any interest BBC.


The BBC broadcast lasted one hour. It briefly mentioned the fact that he had an interest in child pornography. Yet, that was only the tip of an iceberg. There are other deeply disturbing questions about Beech’s sexuality. The police in fact found 342 child-abuse images on his computer some of which were rated at the A level, i.e. the most serious category on the scale. After the police found the images, Beech tried to blame his teenage son for downloading them. He has also been convicted of spying on a teenager while he urinated. He videoed the boy with the use of a secret video camera. His long suffering former wife has disclosed perhaps unsurprisingly how Beech had very little interest in pursuing a sex life with her. Indeed, he went years without having sex with her.

There was much more that the BBC ignored including the fact Beech was well able to hide the dark side of his nature and his interest in children. He gave talks to children as young as five about the dangers of child abuse for the UK National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) and attended workshops attended by young children. He has visited dozens of primary schools in Herefordshire as part of the NSPCC Speak Out Stay Safe  programme. Again, all of this was in the public domain. According to a report last year by Simon Murphy of  The Guardian  he “was also the governor of two schools…In total he volunteered at 33 schools for the NSPCC”. In the 1990s he worked as a paediatric nurse on a children’s ward in London. His former wife has revealed that she had believed he ‘loved children. He went straight onto a paediatric ward when he qualified, then did his sick children’s nurse training’. Also that  when “he was a student nurse, he used to go off and help at a school with children who had difficulty reading”.

Bearing all of the foregoing in mind, it is reasonable to ask:   was Beech part of a paedophile network  which supplied him with the photographs found in his computer? Worse still, was  he part of a network which recruited him to make his dishonest claims so as to protect a group of VIP paedophile higher up the food chain? The BBC did not explore a single one of Beech’s friends, associates or contacts aside from his former wife. It did not consider who had supplied him with the child pornography.


The BBC repeatedly hammered home the point that the claims Beech made were preposterous. This begged the rather obvious question: why did the British police believe him? More pointedly, did they actually believe him or were they acting on orders from above to treat him as credible. If so, was MI5 pulling their strings?

Beech’s ten-week trial in 2019 exposed the transparent and idiotic nature of his allegations. He claimed he had been abused by Ted Heath on a double bed on his yacht. Yet Heath’s rather famous boat ‘The Morning Cloud’ was far too small for a double bed and merely had hammocks. The BBC made no attempt to interview the police who purportedly believed this nonsense along with other absurdities.

There have been reports that some of the police involved in the fiasco have since received promotions. How is this possible? Why did the BBC not look at this angle?


The BBC broadcast journalist Alastair Jackson was able to deduce after making one phone call that Beech was a liar. He published a story in the Daily Mail (28 July 2019) entitled: ‘Police tried to block TV show that told the truth: BBC Panorama producer says all it took to expose Carl Beech’s lurid fantasy was a single phone call’. In the piece Jackson explains how one of Beech’s “central claims was that a well-connected paedophile had knocked down and killed one of his school friends. Unlike the police, who seemed intent on taking Beech’s claims at face value, we decided to do some elementary checks. We discovered a possible name for the purported victim of this hit-and-run and traced him to Australia. When I dialled the number, I expressed my surprise that he hadn’t been crushed to death. ‘No, mate, alive and well’, he replied. It would be many months before detectives from Operation Midland flew half-way round the world to see him”.

Jackson’s research was unearthed for a programme which was broadcast under the title,  ‘The VIP Paedophile Ring: What’s the truth?’  Jackson has revealed that, “Towards the end of 2014, I went to Scotland Yard to discuss our investigation into abuse claims against high profile figures. I asked a press officer if the Met wanted to take part in the documentary. I thought the force might at least want to point out the difficulties it faced with historic allegations. The answer was no”.

What is even more disturbing is Jackson’s revelation that the Yard’s “fear of losing Beech’s confidence was, I understand, behind a high-level decision not to analyse his computers and phones – a decision that put children at risk. For two years, until the case was taken over by a different force, Beech was able to indulge his interest in photographing young boys and fuelling a market of horrific child sex abuse images”.

 Why did the BBC not take the opportunity to identify the ‘high-level’ figure who gave this order when it revisited the story on 24 August 2020?

Even if it was unable to ascertain his/her name, why was the issue ignored?


The former Tory MP Harvey Proctor featured on the BBC documentary as a victim. Beech had alleged that Proctor had been involved in child murder. That was a lie. Proctor never murdered anyone. He did, however, exploit teenage rent boys.

Proctor was convicted for this crime in 1987. His criminal record was wholly ignored by the BBC. None of the following issues were explored:

  • Proctor’s abuse of a 17 year-old boy. He also abused a twenty-year old;
  • Whether he exploited rent boys on occasions other than those for which he was convicted?
  • Whether he had a collection of pornography featuring boys as young as twelve?
  • Whether any such collection included polaroid pictures? If so, who took the polaroids if not him?
  • If he did not take the polaroids, who gave them to him?
  • What does he know about the boys in the collection he is alleged to have had, especially any polaroids?
  • What steps – if any – he took to ensure that the rent boys he encountered had not been groomed and abused in orphanages or care homes earlier in their lives?
  • Why he thought the rent boys he hired let him abuse them violently if not on account of poverty?
  • What are his views now about adults who exploited homeless teenagers who were trying to avoid hunger and cold weather?
  • Whether it ever occurred to him – an MP – that he could have spent his time and money in efforts to help the teenage boys he encountered escape from a life of misery and exploitation rather than purchase degrading and demeaning sex from them?
  • Whether it ever occurred to him to get help for these rent boys who were being exposed to the risk of death from AIDs on a daily basis?
  • What are his views now about engaging in sexual practices which involve inflicting pain on vulnerable teenager? Did he ever inflict wheals on any teenager with whom he had sex as has been alleged?
  • Is he prepared to apologise to the rent boys he beat and exploited sexually?
  • Is he aware of other MPs and VIPs who paid teenage boys for sex? If so, is he prepared to name them?
  • What was the nature of his relationship with James Molyneaux, the Unionist MP and paedophile who was involved in the notorious Kincora Boys’ Home scandal?
  • Whether it is true he once shared an apartment, flat or residence of any nature with Molyneaux in London?
  • Whether he knew Molyneaux’s boyfriend Christopher Luke who was a teenager when Molyneaux, then in his 60s, began his relationship with Luke in the 1980s? See also: JAMES MOLYNEAUX AND THE  KINCORA  SCANDAL
  • What does he know about the pornagraphic stories Luke wrote and which featured sexual violence?
  • Whether he is willing to discuss the restaurant where he took one particular teenager from Northern Ireland for a meal and describe the full nature and background to his contact with him? Whether Molyneaux arranged the encounter? If not, who did?
  • Does he have a copy of the picture he took of this individual from Northern Ireland?

Proctor has spent decades portraying himself as a victim of the police. He has argued that the rent boys he abused were of an age that is no longer below the threshold for consent. (It was 21 at the time of his conviction.) In other words, it would not be a crime to have sex with a young male of a similar age now. He seems oblivious to the fact that he exploited young and vunerable human beings in a violent manner to satisfy his sadistic sexual urges.


Village  repeatedly warned that Beech was probably a cog in a devious plot by the remnants of a VIP abuse network to distract the public from their repulsive  crimes by getting puppets like him to make  absurd claims that were so utterly irrational no one would believe them and thereby taint genuine VIP sex abuse survivors with the same brush. We called it the ‘Dietrich Gambit’  after the celebrated film based on Agatha Christie’s ingenious play ‘Witness for the Prosecution’.  In that film Marlene Dietrich played a cunning witness for the prosecution who testified at a murder trial with the premeditated intention of being exposed as a liar and thereby discredit the prosecution. Village  published  its suspicions that equally dark forces were conducting a comparable gambit in an effort to  control and manipulate the public perception of the VIP sex abuse scandal in the UK.  This was done, we speculated,  with the tacit – if not outright – support of MI5 and MI6 who have a vested interest in covering up what went on at Kincora Boys’ Home and other institutions in Britain and Ireland where children were exploited by VIPs. For a start, they lied to the Hart Inquiry about their practice of sexual blackmail.  We raised the possibility that these dark forces had spent years promoting manifest hoaxers like Beech and other frauds who received attention from the British press. These liars produced remarkably similar and far-fetched yarns. We speculated that the strategy all along was to expose their lies at given points in time and thereby paint all claims of VIP sex abuse made by survivors as dubious if not unhinged.  All of this happened long before Beech’s trial in 2019.


The picture below features Richard Kerr while he was a resident of Kincora Boys’ Home in Belfast. It was taken in Venice. Yet, according to Judge Anthony Hart, who chaired an inquiry into Kincora, Kerr was in Belfast at the time. Does the picture look to you like one taken in Belfast?

Kerr was taken to Venice by Roy Cohn, a notorious NY lawyer with connections to the mafia and various American Intelligence services. Some of these connections were forged when he worked with Senator Joe McCarthy on the witch hunt of alleged communists in the 1950s, especially the FBI. Later, Cohn became Donald Trump’s laywer and guru. How is it the BBC is not interested in the case of Richard Kerr but it has produced two documentaries attacking Carl Beech?

MI5 and MI6 officers lied to the Hart Inquiry into child sex abuse in Northern Ireland only a few years ago. Hart published his error strewn (and internally contradictory) report in 2017.

The same dark forces in MI5 and MI6 have hardly been troubled by the ongoing Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) in London. Sadly, the IICSA is led by people who are determined to ignore a mountain of evidence about VIP abuse from credible sources.

Village has repeatedly published the names of paedophiles who not only know about the Anglo-Irish VIP network but were key players in it.

We have also identified other leads which it could follow.

The list includes {i} the brutal and violent child rapist Eric Witchell who now lives in London, {ii} Morris Fraser, another sadistic child rapist who exploited his status as a child psychiatrist to cover-up for child rapists in Northern Ireland who murdered a 10 year old boy and {iii} a senior DUP politician who was a wife beater. While the IICSA once contacted Village about a report on Carl Beech, it has never asked us about any of the information we published about Witchell and the others.

The inquiry has also ignored the evidence of Richard Kerr, a survivor of both Williamson House and Kincora, despite the evidence he possesses about:

{i} Enoch Powell (see also Suffer little children

{ii} a former minister in Margaret Thatcher’s cabinet who abused him;

{iii} Roy Cohn;

{iv} Elm Guest House which served as a child brothel;

{v} Sir Peter Hayman a Foreign Office diplomat and one-time Deputy Chief of MI6 who violated him.

The IICSA has not bothered to ask Kerr for his financial records – some of which we have published on this website. The statements prove Kerr was provided with enormous amounts of money by one of his VIP abusers, a man named in the following article: Trump’s mentor: another sociopathic paedophile child-trafficker in the mix; from Roy Cohn to Epstein and Maxwell.


Carl Beech must have had a number of passports and other documents to enable him to purchase property and travel around Europe under his false aliases. If people in or close to MI5/6 did not provide him with them, who did?

Who provided him with the vast sums of money he was spending?

Is it really just a coincidence that his lies have suited MI5 and MI6 so perfectly?

Why did the BBC ignore all of these issues?

The dark forces inside the Cabinet Office, MI5 and MI6 responsible for the ongoing cover-up of VIP child sex abuse must be delighted at the useful idiots of the BBC and their counterparts in the IICSA, not to mention the hapless Judge Hart.


With regard to Lord Mountbatten see: SECOND UPDATE: Kincora boy abused by Mountbatten committed suicide months later

See also Judge a (future) king by his courtiers: Prince William and the Duchess of Cambridge, pawns in the cover-up of a transatlantic paedophile network.

With regard to Prince Andrew The Prince, the pauper and the paedophile peer: the dangerous questions the BBC failed to ask.

With regard to Roy Cohn who was Donald Trump’s mentorTrump’s mentor: another sociopathic paedophile child-trafficker in the mix; from Roy Cohn to Epstein and Maxwell.

Village’s online book on the Anglo-Irish Vice Ring begins here: The Anglo-Irish Vice Ring. Chapters 1 – 3.

With regard to the Profumo scandal including Prince PhilipKeeler Concealer: the British Establishment’s severe embarrassment at the depth of the Soviet Union’s penetration of MI5 and MI6.

With regard to Enoch PowellSuffer little children.

With regard to former British prime minister Ted HeathNot just Ted Heath: British Establishment paedophilia and its links to Ireland

See also Does ‘Nick’s’ conviction mean Jimmy Savile and Ted Heath are innocent? Yes, if you work for the British tabloid press. By Joseph de Búrca