Savile was a fair cop. This is a witch hunt

As a direct result of the new-found confidence of victims, actions by the police and the CPS has seen the castles of very powerful people crumble and fall. People such as Rolf Harris, Stuart Hall and the PR guru, Max Clifford. Many other less famous people have also been brought to justice.

But the impact of exposing Savile has now taken a very dangerous turn.

When I investigated Savile, I carefully collected victims’ accounts to build up a catalogue of compelling testimonies. All the time I was aware that my evidence needed to be tested at every stage, because Savile was dead and not able to defend himself.

In the past few weeks we have seen allegations against one of the highest-profile individuals so far, the late Sir Edward Heath.This became public on August 3, when the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) announced that Wiltshire police had referred to them an allegation by a former senior police officer. In late 2014, the officer told Wiltshire police that he believed a trial in the 1990s was halted because information became known that Heath was involved in the abuse of children.

Wiltshire police say that, “having worked tirelessly to establish the facts of the allegation”, they made the referral to the IPCC in March. The IPCC therefore knew the details for five months before making them public.

On the same day that the IPCC made the referral public, a Wilshire police superintendent stood outside Heath’s former home and made a press statement: “This is an appeal for victims: in particular, if you have been the victim of any crime from Sir Ted Heath or any historical sexual offences , or you are a witness or you have any information about this, then please come forward.”

By directly appealing for victims, the police sent a clear message that they had already decided that the former prime minister was guilty of sex crimes.

It is normally only after the courts have determined the guilt of a living suspect that the police appeal for victims to come forward, or where the alleged offender is deceased and the CPS has considered all the evidence and decided that had the person been alive they would have been charged.

It raises the question of what enquiries Wiltshire police and the IPCC made in the many months each had to establish the truth, because within 48 hours of going public the media had established who the prosecutor and the defendant were in the case in question. The prosecutor's account and that of the defendant both confirm the case was dropped – but not because of a cover-up, or political inference, but because two witnesses refused to attend court.

So why did the IPCC and Wiltshire police make public this clearly unsubstantiated and incorrect complaint? At the stage of the Wiltshire police press statement, there was no direct allegation that was substantiated by evidence, or supported by a witness or another victim. Overwhelmingly the allegations they had were third-party reports.

We now know that the Metropolitan police received an allegation of rape against Heath in April but decided that there were “no lines of inquiry that could proportionately be pursued”. Also that North Yorkshire police, which had also received information, have now cleared Heath as a suspect.

I am a supporter of naming before charge but after arrest or interview for certain crimes, but it has to be done only when allegations have been made and substantiated and where strong supporting evidence exists. This was crucial in helping to convict Clifford, Harris, Hall and others – and the naming was done after the police had a number of victims making allegations.

It is clear that a small number of journalists and well-placed individuals, including a few politicians, have been determined to be at the forefront of trying to set out that a significant number of well-organised paedophile rings existed, involving politicians both past and present. Sadly these individuals are not evidence-focused , preferring instead to pass off rumour as fact and, very worryingly in a few cases, putting pressure on victims of child abuse, which has led them to name high-profile people as offenders.

I can tell you that the determination of the Metropolitan police force since the Savile exposé involves officers determined to follow up every lead and catch offenders no matter how powerful they are.

Over the past few days an investigation under the strand Operation Midland has come in for criticism by the former conservative MP Harvey Proctor, who had his home searched and has now been interviewed twice by the police, having been directly accused of child abuse. The allegations against him are that he seriously sexually abused a male at various times between 1975-84 while part of an organised paedophile ring, and that he was “directly” responsible for the murder of two young boys and implicated in a third. Proctor was also asked during questioning if he knew and had visited on any occasion the homes of his alleged co-offenders, which included the late Leon Brittan and Edward Heath.

Proctor set out these allegations in detail, along with his total denial of them, in a press conference on Tuesday. In it he called for the resignation of the head of Operation Midland, detective superintendent Kenny McDonald . While I think the phrase used by McDonald at a press conference earlier this year – that the allegations were “credible and true” – was poorly used, Proctor is wrong. I have total respect for the officers of operations Yewtree and Midland.

Even after high-profile public calls for victims of organised political paedophile rings to come forward, many such victims remain sole complainants. This has made it easy for them to be described as fantasists, even when some of what they are saying might have occurred. (In relation to the allegations of child murders, though, to date the police have been unable to identify any victims, and I know that at least one child who could possibly have been a victim is very much alive.)

Something that few people have acknowledged is how child sex offenders operate. Remember, the more people who know about an individual’s offending, the far greater the risk of their being exposed and caught, especially if they are a well-known or a wealthy person. Think of the really strong position an offender would be in to have information on a political or high-profile co-offender.

I have worked in the field of child sex offenders for nearly all my professional career, and can tell you that offenders overwhelmingly offend in isolation with victims known to them.For example, Savile did offend with a few other co-offenders (less than four), but he was very select, and on those occasions they were never with groups of other offenders.

Yet nearly all the allegations being made against political figures past and present are alleged to have occurred in group situations.

I have no doubt that over the years politicians have abused children, but we have to be very careful how we investigate and properly expose them. We must search for evidence and not respond to hearsay and rumour. By treating unsupported rumour as fact, without a thorough investigation and evidence collection, we run the very real risk of derailing the huge strides that have been made since Savile's exposé.