coverup

All posts tagged coverup

Westminster sex scandal: ‘Shocking’ file about historic ‘unnatural sexual behaviour’ discovered in National Archives

Published January 21, 2015 by misty534

The document, previously classified and dating back nearly 25 years, was uncovered by university lecturer Dr Chris Murphy

Main-Murphy

A ‘shocking’ file concerning past “unnatural sexual” behaviour at Westminster has been discovered among the National Archives.

The document, previously classified, was uncovered by university lecturer Dr Chris Murphy late last year in Kew, south west London.

SkySecret sex file found in Westminster
Shocking Discovery: A file about ‘unnatural sexual behaviour in Westminster’ has been uncovered

Dr Murphy told Sky News he was shocked to come across the document in November, entitled: “PREM19/588 – SECURITY.

“Allegations against former public [word missing] of unnatural sexual proclivities; security aspects 1980 Oct 27 – 1981 Mar 20.”

He told the broadcaster: “I think I did a double-take and then started wondering what the potential implications of the title, which is a little vague, could be.”

SkyDr Chris Murphy
Double Take: The document was unearthed by university lecturer Dr Chris Murphy

A Cabinet Office spokeswoman said: “In this case, the file was kept closed and retained as it contained information from the security services and advice from the Law Officers.

“These classifications are reviewed periodically.”

Andy StenningHome Secretary Theresa May
Abuse Probe: Home Secretary Theresa May set up an inquiry into child sex abuse allegations

Asked whether it would be released to the current institutional child sex abuse inquiry, the spokeswoman added: “We are clear that any files that are pertinent to the historical child sex abuse inquiry will be made available to the panel.”

Home Secretary Theresa May set up the inquiry to find out whether public bodies had neglected or covered up allegations of child sex abuse in the wake of claims paedophiles had operated in Westminster in the 1980s.

Westminster paedophile ring: MP John Mann expects tens of thousands of victims to come forward

Former Prime Minsiter Margaret Thatcher’s former press secretary, Sir Bernard Ingham, told Sky News he ‘could not recall the file’.

He confirmed that both he and Mrs Thatcher were aware of allegations against a Government minister in the early 1980s though.

Without naming the individual, Sir Bernard told the broadcaster: “I asked him about it and he denied it, so no, I didn’t do anything else. What was the alternative?”

  • By Aine Fox

EXCLUSIVE: Sordid tales were kept out of Jeremy Thorpe’s murder trial

Published December 8, 2014 by misty534

EXPLOSIVE sex claims about former Liberal Party leader Jeremy Thorpe were kept out of his trial for the attempted murder of ex-male model Norman Scott.

Jeremy-Thorpe-544447

Graphic testimony from gay men he had met in bars and on the street was never heard after Thorpe agreed to admit in court to “homosexual tendencies”.

The deal was made between the prosecution and Thorpe’s celebrated defence barrister George Carman QC and it prevented shocking and lurid details emerging during the 1979 trial, said the lawyer’s son Dominic.

He also told the Sunday Express that Thorpe, who died last week aged 85, had helped to cover up fellow Liberal MP Cyril Smith’s sexual abuse of children.

Thorpe was worried those allegations would further harm his own reputation, already in tatters over the alleged murder bid.

Mr Carman, who still has his late father’s entire trial brief, said: “What is in the prosecution evidence is a substantial amount of information from a lot of different men, which confirms that Thorpe was, to quote the phrase of the 1970s, a ‘promiscuous homosexual’.

“The relevance of that was to prove he was that way inclined because he had always denied it.

“My father struck a deal with the prosecuting barrister that none of the evidence would appear in court if Jeremy Thorpe admitted to having ‘homosexual tendencies’.

“He admitted that and there fore this whole pile of evidence was never submitted as it was deemed irrelevant.

“Some of it would even now be viewed as being pretty strong stuff.”

The trial still gripped the nation with claims of secret affairs, murder and revenge.

Thorpe, a twice-married father of one, led the Liberal Party between 1967 and 1976.

He was accused of murdering Norman Scott for threatening to uncover their alleged relationship.

He was said to have hired a hitman to kill Scott but the contract killer instead shot dead Scott’s dog, Rinka.

Days before the Old Bailey trial in May 1979, allegations that Smith was a predatory paedophile who preyed on young boys surfaced in the Rochdale Alternative Press and later Private Eye.

Mr Carman said not only had Thorpe been well aware of the allegations, he actively took steps to make sure they were stifled.

He instructed the establishment’s chief fixer, lawyer Lord Goodman, to ensure the claims were never followed up by the national press to avoid being tarred with the same brush so close to standing trial.

Mr Carman said: “Thorpe was concerned and a discussion about Cyril Smith was had.

“Although it wasn’t immediately relevant to the case if it had got wider currency and been published by the national press of the time, that would have potentially created much further prejudice against Thorpe because it would imply they’re all at it.

“Smith and Thorpe had nothing in common whatsoever and absolutely loathed each other but, of course, as is often the case in politics, they had to work together.

“Lord Goodman, who was a general fixer and worked on behalf of both Harold Wilson when he was prime minister in the early 1970s and indeed Thorpe, was instructed to stop any further reporting of this by the national press and it worked.”

Thorpe emerged from the 31-day trial victorious but his political career never recovered and he lost his North Devon seat in the 1979 general election.

He died on Thursday after a long battle with Parkinson’s disease.

James Fielding

Metropolitan Police detective’s fears of Westminster paedophile ‘cover-up’

Published November 20, 2014 by misty534

PX11056362jackie_m_3112215b

Jackie Malton says investigation into Vishal Mehrotra’s death in 1981 could have been compromised by the ‘power of politicians’ at the time

A detective who investigated the murder of a young boy more than 30 years ago has voiced fears of a “cover-up” following claims that the child died at the hands of aWestminster paedophile ring.

Jackie Malton, the inspiration behind Dame Helen Mirren’s character in the ITV series Prime Suspect, said the investigation into Vishal Mehrotra’s death in 1981 could have been compromised by the “power of politicians” at the time.

“During my time in the police there was a feeling of misuse of power,” she told The Telegraph. “There were a lot of powerful people saying, ‘Don’t you know who I am?’”

Now retired from Scotland Yard, Miss Malton was a detective sergeant when she worked on the case, which has never been solved.

Vishal, nine, was abducted as he walked home to Putney, south-west London, after watching the marriage procession of the Prince and Princess of Wales. He disappeared less than a mile away from the notorious Elm Guest House in Barnes. His bones were found in a Sussex field six months later. Last week, the Metropolitan Police announced it was investigating possible murders linked to the guesthouse.

The new inquiry was opened when an alleged victim came forward claiming to have witnessed three boys being killed, including one allegedly strangled by a Conservative MP during a depraved sex game.

Earlier this week, Vishal’s father, Vishambar Mehrotra, a retired magistrate, claimed he had recorded a mystery caller saying his son might have been taken to the Elm Guest House. He took the recording to police at the time but claimed they refused to investigate an allegation implicating “judges and politicians”.

Mr Mehrotra said it had been a huge ‘cover-up’.

Miss Malton, now aged 63 and living in Surrey, worked on Vishal’s disappearance for about four months in 1981 before being seconded to another investigation, weeks before his father’s tape was handed in. She said the culture of policing at the time meant it was possible the recording was ignored and the murder covered up due to the alleged involvement of senior figures at Westminster.

“There is clear evidence that something was happening at that guesthouse,” she said. “If nothing has been done about it in retrospect, then Mr Mehrotra is right. Either the police disbelieved it, or they covered it up one way or another.

“I do remember that the officers were highly passionate about the Mehrotra case, but for some reason we never managed to get anywhere.”

Scotland Yard opened Operation Fairbank two years ago to look into suggestions that high-profile political figures had been involved in a VIP paedophile ring and subsequent cover up.

Officers have set up a new strand of the inquiry, Operation Midland, after being passed information about the three alleged murders connected to the group.

Miss Malton, who retired from Scotland Yard as a detective chief inspector in 1997, was the model for Jane Tennison, Dame Helen Mirren’s character in Prime Suspect. She was one of just four female DCIs in her Hammersmith-based squad when Linda La Plante worked with her for six months while researching her police series about a woman detective.

Working now as a full-time TV technical adviser and addiction counsellor, she claimed police officers during the 1980s often felt pressure from above when dealing with politically sensitive cases.

“Some inquiries would come to an end when someone senior said, ‘That’s enough’,” she said. “I remember a case where there was an MP accused of cottaging and it all kind of disappeared.”

Miss Malton said she had no specific evidence that officers in the Mehrotra case were leant on by politicians to drop their inquiries, and she never worked on the investigation into the Elm Guest House. But she said the influence of Westminster was felt throughout Scotland Yard during the 1980s.

“There was also a strong sense of the power of Parliament and of politicians. It was very much a case of ‘do as you are told’, she claimed. “There was certainly a culture of disbelief among the officers, and that often didn’t help to get to the truth. But the politicians were very much in power, and the police officers’ voices could often not be heard. It’s very different now. Back then, people were nowhere near as accountable for their actions.”

Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, described the allegations as “grotesque” and echoed Mr Mehrotra’s calls for a proper investigation.

Simon Danczuk, the MP whose book exposed the former MP Cyril Smith as a serial abuser of boys, said he may raise the issue in the Commons today.

Mr Mehrotra on Wednesday said he had still not been contacted by officers investigating the alleged murders.

Bill Gardner

Government gave money to notorious Paedophile Information Exchange on the orders of Special Branch, claims Home Office whistleblower

Published November 12, 2014 by misty534
  • Former government employee says he saw evidence PIE was given grant
  • He claims the money was paid to group under orders of Special Branch
  • Insider says he thought funding was ‘inappropriate and outrageous’ but his pleas were shrugged off by his boss at the time 
  • Follows report which found that abuse ring ‘might have been covered up’

A Home Office whistleblower today repeated his claims the government department funded the notorious Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) on the orders of the police.

Former civil servant Tim Hulbert said money was transferred to the organisation on the orders of the Metropolitan Police’s Special Branch.

Mr Hulbert worked in the Voluntary Services Unit of the Home Office which approved grants to various outside organisations in the late 1970s and early 80s.

He said he went to his manager after seeing that funding was being given to PIE – the lobby group formed in the 1970s to campaign for a reduction in the age of consent – but his concerns were shrugged off.

Former Home Office employee Tim Hulbert said the department provided funding to the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), on the orders of the Metropolitan Police's Special Branch

Former Home Office employee Tim Hulbert said the department provided funding to the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), on the orders of the Metropolitan Police’s Special Branch

The retired government worker told Radio 4’s Today programme: ‘Every quarter, the list of current grants that were up for consideration for financial support would be circulated through the office and I believe that I saw a copy of that which referred to the re-funding of PIE.

‘It was an organisation that was campaigning for the reduction of the age of consent to four. I thought that was inappropriate and outrageous and for a government department to be funding it, I thought was wrong.

‘I went to see my boss and he told me, firstly, that PIE was a legitimate campaigning organisation and it did have significant links to the National Council for Civil Liberties and other organisations that were recognised.

‘Secondly, I was told that it was being funded a the request of Special Branch.’

His claims come the day after a report by NSPCC boss Peter Wanless and Richard Whittam QC, which found it was impossible to say if 114 files linked to alleged Westminster child abusers had been destroyed as part of a cover up.

Home Secretary Theresa May said of the findings: ‘It doesn’t prove or disprove the Home Office acted appropriately in the 1980s.’

She added: ‘There might have been a cover-up.’

The report failed to rule out Mr Hulbert’s claims that the Home Office directly awarded tens of thousands of pounds of public money to the PIE, noting that record keeping at the department was in disarray.

 Mr Hulbert’s comments followed claims by an investigative journalist that Home Office papers he saw – which suggested an investigation into the alleged child abuse ring was later carried out – were seized by Special Branch.

Don Hale yesterday revealed he was given a bundle of documents which included the identities of senior politicians who were actively promoting the Paedophile Information Exchange by the late Labour minister Baroness Castle.

He said police later arrived at his newspaper office, pushed him against a wall and demanded to take possession of the dossier.

His claims are now being investigated by the Metropolitan Police.

The Home Secretary said of his claims: ‘I recognise the allegations [Mr Hale] has made so my office has been in discussions with the Metropolitan Police today and the Metropolitan Police have agreed they will now look into those allegations that have been made.’

by RIchard Spillett

Home Secretary Theresa May admits it’s ”possible” VIP paedo ring was covered up

Published November 11, 2014 by misty534

NSPCC chief Peter Wanless has said that Home Office record-keeping was so shambolic it was “impossible” to discover what happened to the files

Home-Secretary-Theresa-May

A report into what happened to missing Home Office files dealing with an alleged VIP paedophile ring in the 1980s has been dismissed as a waste of time.

Even Home Secretary Theresa May, who ordered the inquiry, said she still could not say categorically there had been no cover-up operation by former members of her department.

In his long-awaited report NSPCC chief Peter Wanless said that Home Office record-keeping was so shambolic it was “impossible” to discover what happened to the files.

These included a dossier by MP Geoffrey Dickens setting out allegations of a paedophile ring linked to politicians and Buckingham Palace.

Mr Wanless said: “It is very difficult to prove anything definitive based on an imperfectly-operated paper records system at 30 years remove.

“It is, therefore, not possible to say whether files were ever removed or destroyed to cover up or hide allegations of organised or systematic child abuse.”

Peter Wanless - Chief Executive NSPCC.
Warning: Peter Wanless, chief executive of NSPCC

Campaigners and victims’ groups said the report was “meaningless”.

Rochdale MP Simon Danczuk, said: “Theresa May has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to address child abuse failings of the past. But so far all we have seen are whitewash reports.”

Peter Garsden, of the Association of Child Abuse Lawyers, added: “It seems Wanless was set up to fail. Survivors will see this as a complete waste of time.”

Hauled before the Commons, Mrs May admitted: “I cannot stand here and say that during the 1980s, the Home Office was not involved in a cover-up. There may have been a cover-up.

“That is why we have set up the inquiry into child abuse. We are determined to get to the truth.”

MENMP Simon Danczuk
Whitewash: MP Simon Danczuk

Mrs May told MPs she would be asking Mr Wanless to look further at how the police and prosecutors handled the allegations passed to them by the Home Office at the time.

She said: “I’m determined that appalling cases of child abuse should be exposed so perpetrators face justice and the vulnerable are protected.”

David Cameron was ridiculed after he tried to claim the Wanless report showed nothing had been deliberately buried. He said: “There will be lessons to be learned, but I think it is important that it says there was not a cover-up.”

When Mr Wanless was asked if he thought Mr Cameron had actually read the report, he said: “I don’t think he has.”

By Jack Blanchard

How the Establishment hid the monster in their midst – proof of how this depraved diplomat was protected by the good and the great

Published November 9, 2014 by misty534
  • Sir Peter Hayman was a respected diplomat and army officer given an MBE
  • But he hid a secret life as a member of the Paedophile Information Exchange
  • The group encouraged child abuse – but he was let off with a caution
  • Tory MP Geoffrey Dickens raised issue of Sir Peter’s abuse in Commons
  • There were strenuous attempts by Whitehall and Whitehall to stop Dickens
  • Hayman affair in spotlight amid pressure for alleged paedophile ring inquiry
  • Involves a missing dossier handed to former home secretary Leon Brittan
  • Allegedly contained child abuse allegations involving Establishment figures

Screen Shot 2014-11-09 at 16.19.09

Pillar of the Establishment: But Sir Peter Hayman broke down and wept when confronted by police

Sir Peter Hayman’s life was one decorated with worthy acronyms and exclusive memberships.

By the time of his retirement from ‘the Diplomatic’, the Stowe and Oxford-educated former Rifle Brigade officer had been a Home and Foreign Office mandarin, working closely with the intelligence services at the height of the Cold War: it has even been suggested he was a senior figure in MI6.

His final posting was as High Commissioner to Canada.

As a result of these labours he was made a Knight Commander of the Order of St Michael and St George (KCMG), Commander of the Royal Victorian Order (CVO) and an MBE.

Off duty he also belonged to the MCC and the Army and Navy private members’ club (The Rag). Like Sir Peter, both were pillars of London’s old-school-tie Establishment.

Yet unlike the MCC, there was no distinguishing neckwear at Sir Peter’s rather more discreet third ‘club’, to which he seems to have devoted most physical energy and expense as a pensioner newly returned from post-colonial duties in Ottawa.

His membership number was ‘330’ and this organisation of similarly minded if not gilded individuals was called the Paedophile Information Exchange. It had been formed almost exactly 200 years after the MCC.

PIE supported and encouraged illegal sexual relationships between adults and children. In other words, child abuse.

Sir Peter lived with his wife of 40 years in a lovely home in South Oxfordshire where, in a parallel existence, he was deputy chairman of the Conservative Association. He acted as a churchwarden’s assistant, and opened the local fete.

Everyone there thought he was marvellous. Who was to know otherwise?

That was because his official PIE literature and graphic correspondence with fellow paedophiles was by squalid necessity sent to a flat at 95 Linden Gardens, Notting Hill Gate, London, some 50 miles away.

The ex-diplomat had rented it for that purpose — as well as extra-marital sexual liaisons — under the name of Peter Henderson. The fact that the flat was almost across the road from the Soviet embassy was simply an irony. How the KGB would have loved to have made blackmail use of his peccadillo.

Then Sir Peter made a mistake. He left a packet of paedophile material in an envelope on a London bus. It was addressed to Mr Henderson at Linden Gardens in Notting Hill. A fellow passenger was curious. The package came into the possession of the police.

Soon afterwards, in November 1978, they raided the Linden  Gardens flat.

What they found was a huge trove of revolting paedophilia and other extreme pornography. Among it was a library of 45 substantial diaries in which Sir Peter had recorded in detail his sexual experiences and fantasies, the latter including sex with minors.

There was also substantial correspondence with other PIE members — 111 pages in one instance — in which they shared their otherwise secret desires and other graphic paedophile material.

Police later found that two of the dozen or so paedophiles in Sir Peter’s epistolary circle had been writing to each other about their interest in the extreme sexual torture and murder of children.

Even the hardened cops of  the Obscene Publications Squad were ‘revolted’ by the Linden Gardens haul.

When interviewed, Sir Peter — a man who had been deputy commandant of the British zone in Berlin and was later tasked to tear a strip off the Soviet ambassador to London after Moscow crushed the Prague Spring of 1968 — broke down and wept.

Decorated: Sir Peter, wearing his medals, with Lady Hayman, his wife of 40 years

He would surely be exposed and his reputation ruined. All those official laurels would be for naught.

And yet he wasn’t.

Much to the anger and disbelief of the Obscene Publications Squad he was let off with a caution. The grounds for this decision certainly seem extraordinary to contemporary eyes. The Director of Public Prosecutions deemed that as the paedophile material sent through the post by Sir Peter and his friends had not been ‘unsolicited’ nor traded for profit, no offence had taken place worthy of prosecution.

The result? Save among a few officers at Scotland Yard, Sir Peter’s reputation remained intact and might have remained so until his death in 1992 had he not been later exposed in parliament.

The Hayman affair came back into the spotlight this week, with David Cameron ordering an investigation into an alleged cover-up of a VIP paedophile ring which included leading figures in Westminster and Whitehall.

The matter was raised by campaigning MP Simon Danczuk, and centres on a dossier of child sex allegations involving senior Establishment figures, which was handed to the then Home Secretary Leon Brittan by fellow Tory MP Geoffrey Dickens in November 1983.

Lord Brittan says that he passed the documents on to Whitehall officials. But no action was taken and the Home Office has admitted that the Dickens dossier was subsequently destroyed.

The peer faces increasing pressure to fully explain both his handling of the dossier and what it contained. Mark Sedwill, the current permanent secretary at the Home Office, has been given until Monday to explain what the department did with the information the dossier contained.

For his part, Dickens was always convinced there had been a high-level cover-up of VIP paedophilia. The rough treatment he received when in March 1981 he used the legal protection of parliamentary privilege to name Sir Peter Hayman in the Commons, and ask about the security risk his paedophile activities might have posed, is certainly instructive of the Establishment attitude of the time.

In the immediate aftermath of Dickens’ outing of Hayman, the letters page of the Times newspaper gave some flavour of the ranks closing against the campaigner, whom some clearly saw as a working-class oik from a far-flung constituency in the North of England. The fact that he was exposing a member of a paedophile ring which sexually exploited children seemed incidental.

‘Until a week ago, only a few unfortunates in Huddersfield had heard of Mr Geoffrey Dickens and no one who has watched him performing his stunt can have supposed that he has one scintilla of Sir Peter Hayman’s unselfish ability,’ wrote R P T Davenport-Hines. ‘Mischievous avidity for headlines is no substitute for talent or hard work.’

Mr Davenport-Hines is now an eminent historian.

In a similar vein one Julian Fellowes, himself the son of a senior British diplomat, wrote: ‘Thoroughly revolted as I am by the Paedophiliac Society with all its professed aims, I feel I cannot be alone this week in being almost as disgusted by the spectacle of a Tory MP dangling his victim over the slavering jaws of the media.

‘The feeblest student of human nature must surely be aware of how slight the connexion between pornography and practices need be.

‘To flirt with fetishes is hardly rare in the best circles . . . now he has to have his life, public and private, more thoroughly smashed than if he had murdered his kinsman in broad daylight.

‘It is particularly depressing that Salem-like justice should be meted out by a Conservative Party (MP) . . .  their one faintly convincing battle cry has always been the importance of championing the rights of the individual against the so-called good of the faceless, heartless state.’

What of the rights of the children featured in the pornography, some might wonder.

Today the Oscar winner and Downton Abbey creator is a Tory peer — Lord Fellowes of West Stafford. He is married to a lady-in-waiting.

Prior to Dickens naming Hayman, there had also been strenuous attempts by leading figures in Westminster and Whitehall to  prevent him from doing so.

The then Attorney General Sir Michael Havers argued with him outside the Commons chamber for 20 minutes before the disclosure of Hayman’s name in written questions.

Dickens later argued: ‘I have had to consider a gentleman with a very distinguished career for which he was many times honoured, and his family.

‘But I have also to consider the parents whose children are procured, sometimes for a bag of sweets, to perform sexual acts and pose for sexual photographs.’

Sir Peter Hayman appearing at Reading Magistrates' Court charged with gross indecencySir Peter Hayman in Reading where he appeared in court charged with a sex offence

The parliamentary record Hansard shows that Liberal leader David Steel also spoke out in the House against Dickens’ use of parliamentary privilege to name the paedophile diplomat in written questions.

‘As a member of the Select Committee on Privileges I am naturally concerned that parliamentary privilege should at all times be defended,’ said Steel. ‘I submit it is difficult to defend if there is a sign on occasion it is being abused.

‘I want to draw your attention to two questions which have appeared on the Order Paper today naming a retired public servant and asking for further inquiries into his activities.’

He added: ‘I would like to suggest to you this is creating a dubious precedent of which we should be careful.’

The Times reported that the Liberals said Mr Steel was merely expressing the doubts felt by many MPs.

We know now, of course, that Mr Steel and his Liberal Party failed to recognise the paedophile activities of their own MP Cyril Smith, who is believed to have been named in the dossier Dickens later handed to Brittan. Police recently confirmed that Smith was also a visitor to the notorious Elm Guest House in South-West London, where paedophile parties were allegedly held.

At the time, Steel and the Liberals did nothing, and Smith took his secrets and good reputation to  the grave.

To shouts of ‘old school tie’ from Labour MP Christopher Price, Sir Michael Havers had to explain to the House why Hayman had not been prosecuted along with other members of PIE in a trial which had ended at the Old Bailey the previous week with the former PIE chairman Tom O’Carroll being jailed for two years for conspiracy to corrupt public morals.

Hayman’s alias of ‘Mr Henderson’ and his collection of paedophile material and diaries had been alluded to in O’Carroll’s committal hearings, but his true identity was suppressed.

(O’Carroll’s prosecution had been criticised by the National Council for Civil Liberties, to which PIE was affiliated. The NCCL’s legal officer at the time was Harriet Harman, now Deputy Labour Leader. She refuses to apologise for the NCCL’s links with PIE.)

The Hayman affair came back into the spotlight this week, amid growing pressure for an inquiry into an alleged cover-up of a paedophile ring in Westminster in the 1980s

Sir Michael explained that Hayman himself had escaped prosecution not because of ‘special treatment’, but because he had not sat on PIE’s executive committee. Dickens claimed that police investigating PIE in 1978 had been ‘absolutely staggered’ that  Hayman was not charged.

But the Establishment did then take some action — against the whistleblowers.

The DPP ordered the Metropolitan Police to carry out a leak inquiry into who had given Hayman’s name to Dickens. It was assumed — probably correctly — that the ‘culprit’ was a member of the Obscene Publications squad who had seen the diplomat’s collection at first hand.

Police quizzed Dickens for 45 minutes. He would not tell. A Tory MP even tried to table a motion to force Dickens to reveal his source.

Last night Barry Dickens, the son of Geoffrey Dickens, who died in 1995, said he was disgusted by the backlash against his father at the time of the Hayman affair.

‘I find some of these views quite shocking,’ he said. ‘To defend the odious Peter Hayman, who used his diplomatic bag to carry pictures of children, and I understand in some cases babies in prams, being abused is quite sickening.

‘Julian Fellowes has used flowery language to defend the indefensible and to praise the gutter. David Steel’s Liberal Party was giving sanctuary to the child-abusing monster Cyril Smith. If they have a shred of decency, they will retract their remarks and apologise for attacking my father who was a man of proven integrity.’

Yesterday, Lord Fellowes told the Mail: ‘My position today is exactly the same as it was 30 years ago — I abhor paedophilia in any form, but I think these matters should be decided in a court of law.’

Will we ever know the truth about Establishment paedophiles in the Eighties, and to what extent their activities were covered up?

The Mail can reveal that despite extensive inquiries over the past 20 months, no record of the Dickens dossier being passed to the Metropolitan Police in the mid-Eighties, let alone investigated, has been found by Yard detectives.

Operation Fairbank, the umbrella name for several historic child abuse inquiries relating to PIE, Elm Guest House and a children’s home in South-West London in the Seventies, has been staffed by just seven detectives  since it was launched in November 2012.

Compare this with 200 or so detectives tasked with probing alleged media crime around this time, and the 30 or so officers deployed on the post Jimmy Savile scandal inquiry, Operation Yewtree, it is not difficult to understand why sceptics believe the alleged Westminster paedophile ring which operated in the Eighties continues to be covered up.

Certainly there are grounds to suspect that PIE had established a foothold in the Home Office during this period.

A whistleblower has told police that PIE had received grants totalling £70,000 from the Home Office. This person told the Yard he witnessed a successful three-year grant renewal application for £35,000 in 1980, implying that a similar grant had been made in 1977.

PIE leader Steven Adrian Smith (who replaced the jailed Tom O’Carroll), even used a telephone number in the Home Office building as  a contact point for the child-sex-supporting organisation, while he was working there as an electrical contractor on behalf of a firm called Complete Maintenance Ltd.

According to his own account, Smith stored paperwork in cabinets at the Home Office and received full security clearance from Scotland Yard.

Smith later went on the run while facing child porn charges. He fled to Holland where he claimed asylum, on the grounds that he was part of an ‘oppressed’ minority campaigning for changes in the UK law.

He cited PIE’s long association with the NCCL. Smith won his asylum plea, but was arrested and jailed on his return to the UK in 1991.

Last night, a man in his 40s who alleges he was a victim of abuse at an institution probed by Scotland Yard, told us: ‘The Government and all its agencies need to wake up and realise that without a proper independent inquiry into historic child sex abuse, the guilty will be left in peace whilst a mass group of traumatised survivors will continue unsupported and tortured by our experiences.’

THE WOOLF INQUIRY — DESIGNED FOR WITNESS & EVIDENCE CONTAINMENT?

Published October 22, 2014 by misty534

bw79jyscyaeku6o

I wish to suggest that the ‘Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse’ set up by the Government and chaired by Fiona Woolf is designed to be — among other things — an exercise in State intelligence-gathering for nefarious purposes.

Think about it.

Whistle-blowers, witnesses, journalists, researchers, victims, survivors… all providing crucial information to the Establishment/State about:

– WHICH INDIVIDUALS know things

– WHERE these individuals who know things reside or work

– WHAT precisely these individuals/witnesses know and WHAT EVIDENCE is in their possession (how strong their evidence is)

– WHERE the original evidence is located (and how the authorities can go about seizing it)

– HOW LIKELY it is that the individuals coming forward pose a threat to the PTB (are the witnesses eloquent and likely to be believed? are they media-savvy? do they have any connections to influential people such as journalists?

– WHO ELSE these individuals have spoken to (& who else may have seen the evidence over the years)?

The Panel will receive and record witness testimonies and documentary evidence, much of which will never have seen the light of day before (because witnesses were scared or felt intimidated or powerless, etc.)

SOME OF THE INDIVIDUALS COMING FORWARD TO THE PANEL IN GOOD FAITH WILL NEVER HAVE SPOKEN ABOUT THEIR EXPERIENCES AND KNOWLEDGE OF CHILD SEX ABUSE BEFORE.

SOME OF THE INDIVIDUALS COMING FORWARD WILL BE PUTTING SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS ON RECORD FOR THE FIRST TIME, OR REVEALING THE EXISTENCE OF EVIDENCE (OR ITS LOCATION) FOR THE FIRST TIME.

Assuming that I’m correct, and one of the purposes of the Inquiry is indeed to flush out potentially damaging witnesses and evidence so that they can be ‘contained’, this Inquiry is extremely dangerous.

Indeed, if I’m right about the purpose of the Inquiry, it would be very unwise indeed — and possibly even dangerous — for anyone to have any dealings with it.

Witnesses who come forward could find themselves marked in MI5/Special Branch/Police files.

In extreme cases, people with knowledge who come forward could find themselves one day receiving veiled/coded threats, intimidations or warnings… and possibly they could even be suicided (or driven to self-harm via the application of carefully calculated external pressure by MI5/Special Branch agents).

Am I paranoid? Irrelevant.

The Security Services can and do physically harm people on the orders of the PTB. Not only individuals that they wish to silence, but sometimes persons to whom the targets are connected, i.e. by marriage or friendship (to serve as coded ‘warnings’ to the targets).

Another favoured tactic of the Security Services is tarnishing the reputations of witnesses/perceived adversaries.

If I’m right about the purpose of this Inquiry, key individuals who come forward to the Inquiry could find their identities leaked to the media, where their reputations will then be trashed OR they will be subjected to a horrendous level of press intrusion and public interest in their lives.

Other individuals who come forward could find that their employment opportunities mysteriously ‘dry up’ — or find themselves experiencing disturbing incidents or circumstances in their home lives, apparently coming out of nowhere. Money issues, health issues… you name it.

Finally, I’d like to re-iterate that I’m only putting the above forward as a hypothesis. I do not know for a fact that the Inquiry is intended to provide the PTB and Security Services with information to contain and neutralise ‘threats’.

But I would ask every whistle-blower, witness, journalist, researcher, victim and survivor to consider all possible implications VERY CAREFULLY before approaching the Woolf Inquiry or responding to any requests to appear or furnish evidence/testimony to it.

Imo, perhaps the more effective — and potentially safer — way to get information into the public domain and put pressure on the authorities is for anyone with information to broadcast it as loudly, broadly, and effectively as they can. For example, by approaching the few trusted campaigners and journalists (people like Bill Maloney, Chris Spivey) and by sending information (anonymously if necessary) to as many trusted figures in public life as possible.

KEEP MULTIPLE COPIES OF ALL EVIDENCE YOU POSSESS STORED IN DIFFERENT PLACES.

If you have important photographs, reports, lists, letters, emails, old newspaper cuttings, witness testimonies, diaries, audio recordings, video recordings… whatever… BACK THEM UP OR DUPLICATE THEM SEVERAL TIMES.

Make sure that if anything every happened to you (God forbid) … or if your house or workplace was ever subjected to a break-in or mysterious fire (God forbid) … the incriminating evidence would still exist in MULTIPLE other places.

Make sure that if the police were to arrive in the dead of night and seize your computer equipment, phone and laptop (God forbid), they would not find any evidence on there that you hadn’t already made copies of and placed securely elsewhere.

IT’S *NOT* ENOUGH SIMPLY TO HAVE EVIDENCE STORED IN YOUR COMPUTER, OR IN YOUR PAPER FILES. The Security Services can *remotely* intercept and seize or destroy whatever you may have on your computer or other electronic equipment, and whatever you send or receive via email. The Police/Security Services can also arrive at your home or property and seize everything in a heartbeat… (as Chris has recently related to us on this website).

If you have documents that you feel comfortable uploading to the Internet/social media, this is one way of ensuring that valuable information reaches the mass of the population.

Once widely available in the public domain, facts, witness testimonies and other evidence can inspire others into taking direct action: such as demonstrations and petitions. Information posted on alternative media sites and social media can also inspire journalists and researchers, prompt private prosecutions, and even put pressure on the authorities.

Just remember that, as soon as you begin posting allegations and/or claims on the Internet and/or uploading files of evidence, IT MAY NOT BE VERY LONG BEFORE YOUR NAME/IDENTITY APPEARS IN A LIST AND YOUR ONLINE & OFFLINE ACTIVITIES BECOME SUBJECT TO TARGETED SURVEILLANCE BY THE SECURITY SERVICES.

Once again, therefore, I would like to stress to anyone who has information about CSA… Please:

(a) Think long and hard before having any dealings whatsoever with the Woolf Inquiry or similar

(b) If you decide to do things independently (by contacting trusted journalists and public figures AND/OR by posting potential evidence or testimony online via social media or blogs such as Chris Spivey’s) make very sure that you back up and duplicate all evidence twice, twice more, and then twice again. DO NOT KEEP ALL YOUR EVIDENCE AT HOME, AT WORK, ON YOUR COMPUTER OR LAPTOP, OR IN ANY 1 SINGLE PLACE. DISPERSE IT WIDELY.

(c) If you know things, but the evidence is in your memory rather than in electronic or paper form, please carefully research and find at least 2 TRUSTED person to whom you can relate what you know. One could be your wife, husband, parent or child. Another might be someone like Bill Maloney or Chris Spivey. PLEASE DO THOROUGH RESEARCH BEFORE TRUSTING YOUR INFORMATION TO ANYONE, BUT PLEASE DO SHARE IT WITH A COUPLE OF PEOPLE, IN CASE THE SECURITY SERVICES EVER ‘GET TO YOU’ OR SOMETHING UNPREDICTABLE HAPPENS.

I would be interested to hear from others on this matter. Any one else think the Woolf Inquiry may be an exercise in witness & evidence containment?

I apologise for those who may find this post troubling. It is absolutely not my intention to frighten or alarm anyone unnecessarily. I just happen to know what the PTB and Security Services are capable of… hence my strong words urging that everyone with evidence or knowledge of CSA takes all possible precautions to safeguard what they know, prevent it (or themselves) from being ‘contained’), and ensure that the TRUTH GETS OUT.