Quote:
Originally Posted by krisk
I'd never heard that part of it, and as I do not and never have had access to British rags, I have no idea where I got my information. I never heard of any corrections either. if you have any links I would be interested in looking at them
|
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/74938.stm
Quote:
The deputy inspector-general of police, MSM Nizam, said: "We are satisfied that he has not violated any Sri Lankan laws or committed any crime.
"He denied the allegations and spoke about his abhorrence of child sex and paedophilia."
Police interviewed three young men who had told the Sunday Mirror they had sex with Sir Arthur when they were teenagers.
Mr Nizam said all three had now withdrawn their allegations.
|
http://www.britishpapers.co.uk/obitu...thur-c-clarke/
Quote:
|
All the obituaries touch on the scandalous 1998 story in the Sunday Mirror alleging his pederasty, which broke just as Sir Arthur was about to receive his newly-announced knighthood from Prince Charles, who was visiting Sri Lanka. But The Times, unlike the other three quality dailies, fails to mention either that the Sri Lankan authorities cleared his name or that the Sunday Mirror published an apology:
|
I remember the apology as I read it at the time. I think the most telling point was the fact that the "story" broke the day before the Prince of Wales was due to knight him. And that not a single other paper picked up on it (The trash rags, are usually unanimous on such things).
The only question left unanswered that I can find is the "tape" the Mirror claimed to have.
I can't believe however that they would have allowed him to continue to live in the country, or that the Gov't would go ahead with the Knighthood, had there been any such proof (and if it did exist why did they apologise).