Home Office

All posts tagged Home Office

Home Office under fire over missing child abuse files review

Published July 23, 2015 by misty534

Screen Shot 2015-07-23 at 16.33.25

Newly discovered government documents also relate to senior Westminster figures, including Leon Brittan

The Home Office is facing criticism over a review into the department’s handling of the 1980s Dickens dossier of paedophilia allegations.

Peter Wanless, chief executive of the NSPCC, was brought in to investigate in July after an internal Home Office review found no evidence of a dossier of suspected child abusers compiled by Conservative MP Geoffrey Dickens in the 1980s.

The internal review also found that between 1979 and 1999 the department had “lost or destroyed” 114 files relating to child abuse.

Wanless has also reportedly failed to uncover the files or the dossier and is expected to criticise the Home Office’s record-keeping and archiving when he publishes his report later today.

He is expected to agree with the department’s findings that there is no evidence to suggest the missing files had been removed or destroyed inappropriately.

The Home Office says the department did consider the allegations contained in the Dickens dossier at the time and passed on 13 “items of information” to the police and prosecutors.

However, Labour MP Simon Danczuk, who raised the issue of the missing dossier earlier this year, has complained that the timescale for the Wanless review has not allowed for more sophisticated digital tracing techniques to be used.

“That raises serious questions about the scope of the investigations and, frankly, leaves a question mark over any of its findings,” he told the Daily Telegraph.

Mark Sedwill, the department’s permanent secretary, said the review had analysed a central database containing 746,000 files from the period 1979 to 1999.

Labour has also been critical of Home Secretary Theresa May’s decision to publish the Wanless report in a written ministerial statement rather than face questions from MPs in the Commons.

“The failure by Wanless to throw any new light on the fate of the allegations by Dickens is likely to fuel the continuing row over the establishment of a national overarching inquiry into historical allegations of child sex abuse,” says The Guardian.

The Home Secretary has already apologised for the delays to the overarching inquiry after Fiona Woolf, the second chair appointed to lead the inquiry stood down over her links to Lord Brittan.

UK News

Cyril Smith ‘put pressure on BBC’ over investigating MPs

Published March 17, 2015 by misty534

Screen Shot 2015-03-17 at 14.20.43

Liberal MP Cyril Smith wrote to the BBC in 1976 asking it not to investigate the “private lives of certain MPs”.

The MP, who died in 2010 and has been accused of abusing children, wrote to the then home secretary about “filth, innuendo and stirring” by reporters.

The BBC investigation had been looking into claims of an alleged foreign-backed campaign to discredit MPs.

Former children’s minister Tim Loughton said the former Rochdale MP’s letters were “bully-boy tactics”.

“It was an abuse of position that somebody as an MP was saying, ‘You shouldn’t look at us, we’re above the law,'” he said.

‘Personal involvement’

Smith had been the subject of an investigation into the alleged abuse of children in Rochdale but the case was not known about publicly, and he was never charged.

Current Rochdale MP Simon Danczuk is due to appear before the Home Affairs Select Committee later, where he is expected to call for a new inquiry to include the activities of Smith.

Mr Danczuk recently published a book alleging more than 140 complaints had been made by victims but Smith had been left free to abuse children as young as eight.

Greater Manchester Police and Rochdale Council are carrying out two separate investigations into child abuse allegations involving the late MP.

More than 100 MPs are calling for a larger inquiry into historical claims of child abuse in schools, hospitals and care homes.



At the time the media had been investigating a claim made by Prime Minister Harold Wilson that South African secret agents had been trying to smear British MPs.

The Liberal Party was thought to be a particular target because of its outspoken opposition to South Africa’s apartheid policy.

The BBC had employed two freelance journalists, Barrie Penrose and Roger Courtiour, to look into Mr Wilson’s claims.

According to letters in the National Archives, Smith wrote to BBC director general Sir Charles Curran in September 1976 saying he was “deeply concerned about the investigative activities of the BBC”, especially relating to “the private lives of certain MPs”.

“So far as I am aware I am not one of them, and hence I write without personal involvement.”

Public interest

In another letter, Smith urged the then Home Secretary, Merlyn Rees, to ensure the BBC was not using public money for “muck-raking”.

He wrote: “Frankly, I am fed up of the filth, innuendo and stirring that has gone on for the last six months or so about MPs in all three political parties, and I really do think the time has come for something to be published, or for the thing to come to an end.”

The month before Smith wrote his letter, the BBC had ended its contract with Penrose and Courtiour, saying it did not believe it had proper control over where else they might publish their material.

It is understood Smith had not been one of the subjects of their investigation.

Sir Charles responded to Smith, saying the South African story was “a proper subject for journalistic inquiry”.

But he added: “I was not prepared to see public resources devoted to the pursuit of personal dirt, possibly for publication outside the control of the BBC.”

But Roger Courtiour said the two journalists were “totally convinced the story was in the public interest and should have been continued”.


Part of the BBC director general’s memo relating to the South African investigation

On Tuesday, the BBC said: “The documents date back nearly 40 years, so we have no additional commentary to offer, and their content appears to be self-explanatory.”

The Home Office said it would make any decisions about a further inquiry into child abuse after a number of current investigations were complete.

By Tom Bateman

Investigation into South Yorkshire Police ordered in wake of fresh allegations of child sex exploitation

Published March 13, 2015 by misty534

Screen Shot 2015-03-13 at 16.27.20

SOUTH YORKSHIRE’S Police and Crime Commissioner has ordered a full-scale inspection of the force amid accusations the force failed to listen to victims of child exploitation in Sheffield.

‘Urgent’ talks with the Home Office are under way after Dr Alan Billings said a probe similar to the one carried out by Louise Casey into Rotherham Council is needed in light of the fresh allegations came to light this week.

I now believe that a full ‘Casey-like’ county-wide inspection of South Yorkshire Police is necessary to get to an accepted understanding about the past and whether things have changed

Dr Alan Billings

The commissioner was put under pressure by a leaked police document which names more than 200 girls in Sheffield who were suspected of being sexually exploited and a list of more 320 men accused of carrying out the abuse, predominantly between 2007 and 2010.

Former police officer Tony Brookes said the force at the time focused on crimes linked to Home Office targets, including car crime and burglary.

Referencing the inquiry which uncovered revealed the abuse of 1,400 girls while authorities turned a blind eye in Rotherham, Dr Billings had today announced the need for a ‘Casey-like’ inspection.

He said: “If I am to do my job, I need to be sure that everything that can reasonably be known about the past is known. This is the first and crucial step if the force is to get itself into a better place.

“However, in the light of what has now been revealed I cannot be certain that we are at that point.

“Reluctantly, therefore, I now believe that a full ‘Casey-like’ county-wide inspection of South Yorkshire Police is necessary to get to an accepted understanding about the past and whether things have changed – which is the first step to restoring public confidence.

“I believe the only authorities that can commission such an inspection are the Police and Crime Commissioner and the Home Secretary. I met with a group of Sheffield MPs, the Chief Constable and Sheffield City Council this morning and my office is having urgent discussions with the Home Office to agree on how this inspection should proceed.”

Yorkshire Post

Child abuse report: Too many children still at risk

Published February 17, 2015 by misty534


Too many children in England are still “slipping though the net” and remain at risk of sexual abuse, a report says.

The Office of the Children’s Commissioner report found there had been “considerable” progress in some areas of tackling child exploitation.

But “at the front line much work is still needed,” said Deputy Commissioner Sue Berelowitz, who headed the inquiry.

A Home Office spokesman said it was “determined that appalling cases be exposed” but said “more must be done”.

The latest report, called “If it’s not better, it’s not the end”, follows an Office of the Children’s Commissioner (OCC) inquiry into child sexual exploitation in gangs and groups, which was launched in October 2011.

The inquiry published six reports and made 37 recommendations.

Rates of exploitation

The OCC’s follow-up report has raised concerns about the level of progress in some areas, along with the continued “under-identification” of victims.

It said it was “worrying” that the inquiry’s recommendation to make sex education a statutory part of the curriculum had not been adopted by the government.

The report also found “vastly different” reported rates of child sexual exploitation in different parts of England.

Sue Berelowitz
Young people must understand what are and are not healthy relationships, Sue Berelowitz said

In nine local authorities – all with similar demographics and deprivation levels – the rates of known exploitation varied between one victim and 65 victims per 10,000 children.

The report highlighted concerns that too many children at risk of becoming victims or who are already victims are not being identified.

Only 48% of local Safeguarding Children Boards said they had identified victims.

“There are still many parts of England where the identification of victims remains very low, despite the evidence we published that there are children in every part of England who are at risk or who are victims,” the report said.

Strategic objectives had not always filtered down to “front-line practice”, while information sharing between different agencies “remains a problem”, it added.

Sex education call

The report comes after abuse scandals in areas including Rotherham, where it was reported that 1,400 children were abused between 1997 and 2013.

“Organisations and authorities responsible for children’s safety must also not ignore the lessons from our inquiry, reinforced powerfully by findings in Rotherham and elsewhere,” said Ms Berelowitz.

“It is absolutely critical that they have in place ways of identifying the children who at risk or are already victims and ensuring their safety.”

She also called for “age-appropriate relationships and sex education” to be made a statutory part of the school curriculum.

“Young people need to understand what are and what are not healthy relationships,” she said.

Separately, the Commons Education Committee has said in a report that all state primary and secondary schools in England should have to teach sex-and-relationships education (SRE).

A Home Office spokesman said the government was “determined that appalling cases be exposed so that perpetrators face justice” and “vulnerable children and young people are protected”.

“We have a new, tougher inspection framework for children’s services and the College of Policing has introduced new guidance for police which moves the focus of investigations away from the credibility of victims on to the credibility of the allegation,” the spokesman said.

Home Secretary Theresa May has written to chief constables stressing “the highest standards must be met”, while plans to address “accountability, leadership and action” to support victims will be published shortly.

However, shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper MP said “in too many cases” children were not being listened to, victims were not being protected and abusers were not prosecuted.

BBC news

The Home Office allegedly funded a paedophile group in the 1970s. Why?

Published November 13, 2014 by misty534

Screen Shot 2014-11-13 at 12.05.04

The Home Office may have covered up historic child abuse allegations – but what of the “Paedophile Information Exchange” group that was allegedly funded by the department?

Theresa May said that she couldn’t say that the Home Office was definitely not involved in covering up historic child abuse allegations in a House of Commons debate this week.

An official inquiry, by head of the NSPCC Peter Wanless and Richard Whittam QC, had been unable to “prove or disprove” the claims that the department was involved in a cover-up. Theresa May has asked police and MI5 to carry out further reviews of how they handled allegations of child sex abuse.

At the heart of the issue are a trove of files that have gone missing.

Over a hundred files lost or destroyed

There are 114 files from the 1970s and 80s containing allegations of institutional paedophilia that have gone missing or been destroyed.

Mr Wanless said that one of the files had been destroyed as recently as 2012. This file referred the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), a pro-paedophile activist group active between 1974 and 1984.

One of their campaigns was about trying to reduce the age of consent to just 4 years old.

It’s believed that there are ten more files relating to PIE.

The Paedophile Information Exchange was supported by left-wing groups

The group got support from both the left and the right in 1970s Britain. Labour politician Harriet Harman was among young left-wingers who worked for the National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL), the left-wing group that granted “affiliated” status to PIE.

The NCCL supported PIE by campaigning on the issue of sexual consent; they submitted a response to a government plan to reform sex laws that argued “childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in with an adult result in no identifiable damage”.

The NCCL also allowed Tom O’Carroll, leader of PIE, to make a speech at their Spring conference in 1977. He later admitted and was convicted for distributing child porn images.

Members from PIE were involved in NCCL activities until the early 80s when they were expelled from the organisation. Last year, current Liberty director Shami Chakrabarti apologised for their connection, saying “it is a source of continuing disgust and horror that even the NCCL had to expel paedophiles from its ranks in 1983”.

PIE was also allegedly given money by the Home Office

The Home Office allegedly gave the Paedophile Information Exchange £70,000 of taxpayers’ money in grants between 1977 and 1980, according to a whistleblower who spoke to the Sunday People.

That’s £400,000 in today’s money.

But it’s difficult to get to the bottom of why – as the files have disappeared and some of the people involved have passed on.

What else do we know?

PIE regularly published magazines promoting paedophilia as a sexual preference rather than an abusive act.

The leader of PIE, Tom O’Carroll, wrote a book called Paedophilia: The Radical Case.

It was supported for 6 years by the National Council for Civil Liberties, which has since become Liberty.

There were 180 members, two of whom were female.

But the main things to think about here are: Did they really receive that much money? And why can’t we find out?

Anna Leech

Child abuse claims did not involve prominent politicians, report finds

Published November 11, 2014 by misty534

Screen Shot 2014-11-11 at 14.50.35

Wanless inquiry into missing Home Office files also finds no evidence they were deliberately or systematically destroyed

Specific allegations of child abuse made by the former Tory MP Geoffrey Dickens were taken seriously by Lord Brittan when he was home secretary, but they did not involve prominent politicians or celebrities, according to a new Home Office file uncovered by the Wanless inquiry.

Peter Wanless, the chief executive of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC), concludes in his inquiry report into 114 missing Home Office files relating to child abuse in the 1980s that there is no evidence that they were “deliberately or systematically removed or destroyed to cover up organised child abuse”.

Wanless says the record keeping practices inside the Home Office at the time mean it is not possible to reach a categorical conclusion but “we found nothing specific to support a concern that the Home Office had failed in any organised or deliberate way to identify or refer individual allegations of child abuse to the police”.

The home secretary, Theresa May, responded to Wanless’s review of the original Home Office internal investigation into the missing files by asking him to look further at how the police and prosecution authorities handled the child abuse allegations that were passed on to them by the Home Office at the time.

She has also asked Wanless and his co-author, Richard Whittam QC, to establish whether any of the material mentioned in the internal inquiry or in connection with the 114 missing files was passed to the security services, and if so, what action they took.

MI5 responded to the Wanless inquiry by carrying out a search of its own files but said it had not found any relevant to the review.

Wanless says that one relevant 1983 Home Office file, the “Brighton assaults” file, was found after the initial investigation had been completed. It contains correspondence between officials and ministers relating to meetings between Brittan and Dickens in 1983 and 1984, mostly prompted by a desire to respond to a horrific attack on a child in Brighton that had led to front-page headlines.

The file includes a paper setting out the case for and against banning the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) that was presented to Brittan on 31 August 1983. “He is recorded in discussion as accepting advice that, with ongoing police investigation into PIE activities, it was not right to be commenting further on banning the organisation,” reports Wanless.

It also contains a departmental briefing for Brittan for a meeting with Dickens on 24 November when he handed over two letters containing specific allegations. In addition, it contains a subsequent letter from Dickens with further enclosed cases for investigation and thanking the home secretary for his “splendid support”.

The cases were passed on to the director of public prosecutions and Dickens was subsequently told that two of the cases could form the basis for police investigations.

“There is no mention of prominent politicians or celebrities in the cases under discussion [in marked contrast to media commentary about these meetings at the time],” adds Wanless.

The inquiry also reviewed the evidence of alleged funding of PIE by the Home Office’s voluntary services unit and concludes on the balance of probabilities that it did not take place. They say they cannot dismiss entirely evidence from a whistleblower that PIE might have been funded as part of a police or security service effort to infiltrate the organisation but found no evidence to support it.

Alan Travis

Written statement to Parliament – Child sexual abuse (Woolf Inquiry)

Published October 21, 2014 by misty534

From:Home Office and The Rt Hon Theresa May MPDelivered on:21 October 2014First published:21 October 2014Part of:Reducing and preventing crime and Crime and policing

This written ministerial statement was delivered on 21 October 2014 in the House of Commons by Theresa May and in the House of Lords by Lord Bates.


Secretary of State for the Home Department (Theresa May):

Further to my statement to the House on 7 July and my written ministerial statements of 9 July and 5 September 2014, I am pleased to announce that I have appointed the panel members to the independent inquiry panel of experts, which will consider whether public bodies – and other, non-state, institutions – have taken seriously their duty of care to protect children from sexual abuse.

Sharon Evans, Ivor Frank, Dame Moira Gibb, Professor Jenny Pearce OBE, Dru Sharpling CBE and Professor Terence Stephenson, will join Graham Wilmer MBE and Barbara Hearn OBE as panel members for the Independent Panel Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. Ben Emmerson QC is counsel to the inquiry, and Professor Alexis Jay OBE will serve as an expert adviser.

I am confident that this panel, under the chairmanship of Fiona Woolf CBE, will carry out a robust and thorough inquiry, and will challenge individuals and institutions without fear or favour, in order to consider this important issue, to learn the relevant lessons, and to prevent it happening again. The panel represents a diverse range of experience, which includes social care, academia, law enforcement, health, media, the voluntary sector and those with experience of child sexual abuse.

The terms of reference have been drafted to ensure that this strong and balanced panel of independent experts can have full access to all the material it seeks, unless there is a statutory impediment to it doing so. The panel will consider matters from 1970 to the present, although this can be extended if evidence is provided that supports this, and will decide how and where to focus its efforts, in order to complete its work and make recommendations within a reasonable timeframe. The terms of reference have been finalised and a copy will be placed in the House Library. The panel will provide an update to Parliament before May next year.

Each of the panel members has written to me setting out in full any issues which might be seen to cast doubt on their impartiality. Those letters are published in full on the inquiry’s website. I am confident that they will carry out their duties to the highest standards of impartiality and integrity.

Fiona Woolf has a long and distinguished career throughout which she has demonstrated the highest standards of integrity. I am confident that she will lead the work of the panel with authority, and that under her leadership the panel will get to the truth of these issues. They will do so on behalf of victims past and present to ensure that the sexual abuse of children is never again a hidden crime, and that past failings are acknowledged, and recommendations made for further improvements to current arrangements in the light of the panel’s findings. I wish the panel every success in its important work.

The inquiry’s website can be found athttp://www.childsexualabuseinquiry.independent.gov.uk.

Child abusers in the Home Office: Amid the growing furore over a cover-up of a paedophile ring at the heart of Westminster, an expose of the true extent of the scandal

Published October 20, 2014 by misty534


  • Steven Smith was chairman of Paedophile Information Exchange
  • Ran PIE from desk in Home Office and stored child porn in cabinets
  • Barry Cutler, Secretary of PIE, also worked at Home Office in security

Deep inside the British Library, on the shelves of a ‘restricted’ section off-limits to casual visitors, lies a little-known book called The Betrayal Of Youth.

Published in 1986, with a print run of just a few hundred copies, the £7.99 paperback has the dry, unprovocative appearance of a piece of academic literature.

Peer beneath its yellowing cover, however, and you will soon discover that its contents are anything but.

The 200-page tome, which I examined this week, contains a series of essays offering what it calls: ‘Radical perspectives on Childhood Sexuality, Intergenerational Sex, and the Social Oppression of Children and Young People.’

Screen Shot 2014-10-20 at 19.03.40

This, it turns out, is a sort of code: for The Betrayal Of Youth is, in fact, a sinister — and at times downright revolting — anthology designed to convince readers that sex with children should be legalised.

The book’s editor was Warren Middleton, a prominent activist with the Paedophile Information Exchange [PIE], the notorious lobby group formed in the Seventies to campaign for the ‘rights’ of predatory sex offenders.

Its purpose was to lend a faux-academic gloss to this organisation’s repulsive belief that the age of consent ought to be abolished.

‘Why do [people] so vociferously defend children’s right to say no to sex while conveniently overlooking their equivalent right to say yes?’ was how Middleton set out this stall, in his introduction.

Warming to this theme, in the ensuing pages, was an essay by Father Michael Ingram, a Dominican priest later convicted of child rape.

‘I have always intimated that many paedophiles are genuine child-lovers,’ he declared. ‘They are affectionate and caring and have a lot to offer children.’

Also in the book was an essay by PIE activist Roger Moody entitled: How To Make Paedophilia Acceptable, followed by a screed by Beatrice Faust, a radical Australian feminist who worked closely with Germaine Greer.

‘[Paedophilia] belongs  among the sexual curios,’ argued Faust. ‘It is puzzling, but hardly a moral infection.’

Perhaps the most chilling contribution to this appalling literary enterprise could, however, be found in its final pages.

There sat a biographical essay by Steven Adrian Smith, a man who had achieved notoriety as the chairman of PIE from 1979 onwards.

Over the course of roughly a dozen pages, Smith told an extraordinary tale.

It described how he had managed, for almost four years, to secretly run the child sex organisation from a small room at the London headquarters of the Home Office, where he worked.

‘PIE did actually have an office in Westminster,’ he gloated, ‘and it was only a smirk away from the desk of the Home Secretary.’

Astonishingly, Smith revealed that, from 1979, he was able not just to gain employment at the Home Office, but also spend most of his (publicly-funded) working day discreetly running PIE affairs from his desk there.

He kept membership files (and child pornography) in his office cabinet, wrote PIE newsletters on his desk, and printed them on a department photocopier.

He even manned PIE’s telephone hotline in the room he occupied at the Home Office’s HQ in Queen Anne’s Gate.

‘I was employed by a firm of electrical contractors, Complete Maintenance Limited, to monitor a control panel of alarm systems,’ he explained.

‘The job entailed practically no work on my part, beyond attending the panel, and, in fact, I had a furnished office completely to myself seven days a week on a rotating shift basis.

‘Much of PIE’s less sensitive file material was stored in locked cabinets there, where no police raid would ever have found them.’

Smith owed this cushy existence to a classic piece of public sector incompetence.

‘Every year, my security clearance was renewed by Scotland Yard, without my connection with PIE being discovered,’ he boasted.

Indeed, it was only thanks to the inquisitive Press that Smith was ever rumbled: in 1982, acting on a tip-off, the News of the World made his existence public.

‘My security clearance was cancelled on the spot, my employers notified, and I found myself not sacked, but “rendered without employment”,’ he recalled.

So far, so scandalous. But this week, more than three decades later, Steven Smith was once more in the news.

On Monday, his long-forgotten infiltration of Whitehall — exposed, let us not forget, by the News of the World which was shut down in the phone-hacking imbroglio — was rediscovered by BBC reporters.

They cited it as further evidence that a paedophile ring operated throughout the era, at the heart of the political Establishment.

The BBC’s story came just days after the Home Office was forced to admit that 114 of its files relating to PIE are ‘missing’, presumed to have been destroyed.

They are said to include a dossier of papers detailing paedophile activity among leading MPs and public figures compiled by the late Conservative MP Geoffrey Dickens and handed to then-Home Secretary Leon Brittan in 1983.

Lord Brittan now claims he in turn passed it to civil servants and prosecutors. But its contents seem never to have been properly acted on.

Two separate public inquiries have been set up in an attempt to establish what exactly went on, at the Home Office and elsewhere.

One, by Lady Butler-Sloss, is designed to be a lengthy investigation into the handling of child-abuse allegations by a range of public institutions, including schools, care homes and the Church.

The other, by NSPCC head Peter Wanless, will focus on how the Home Office handled recent allegations of child abuse in the early Eighties. It is due to report in ten weeks’ time.

Whatever the outcome, both seem guaranteed to cover explosive ground, if events at Queen Anne’s Gate during the era are anything to go by.

For dig into Home Office history — as I have done in recent days —and you will discover that Steven Adrian Smith sits at the tip of a large and murky iceberg.

Take, for example, the question of how Smith managed to get away with running the PIE from the heart of Whitehall in the first place.

Shockingly, it seems that many in the civil service knew all about his peccadilloes, and indeed actually tolerated them — perhaps due to the misguided belief (then prevalent in liberal circles) that paedophiles were a minority deserving of protection.

As a result, the Home Office only moved to remove Smith when he began to create ugly headlines.

‘Home Office security chiefs knew all about Steven Adrian Smith’s links with PIE,’ the News of the World reported when it exposed him.

‘A Home Office spokesman said: “We’re aware of Smith’s background, and since you contacted us he has been told he’s no longer acceptable to us.

“He no longer works here. It would be true to say he would still be here if you hadn’t been in touch.” ’

Smith was not the only PIE official on the Ministry’s payroll, either.

Indeed, later in the book The Betrayal Of Youth, he revealed that the organisation’s Secretary, Barry Cutler, also worked at Queen Anne’s Gate, in the security department.

Cutler was also exposed by a Sunday newspaper soon after Smith. But so relaxed were Home Office officials about paedophilia that they did nothing to prevent either man from covering their tracks.

‘The extent of security chiefs’ knowledge of my activities did not prompt them to investigate the contents of my filing cabinets,’ wrote Smith.

‘A carload of PIE files was safely spirited from the building before it could occur to them to intervene.’

No one at the Home Office took responsibility for this scandalous oversight. It wasn’t until 1984 that Smith faced any form of justice, after being charged with child porn offences thanks to a child safety campaigner called Charles Oxley, who finally did what the authorities had spent years failing to do, and infiltrated PIE.

Yet through further Home Office incompetence, or perhaps indifference, Smith was allowed to escape to Holland, where he successfully claimed political asylum by saying he was part of a persecuted minority group.

He remained there until 1991, when he returned to the UK in the (apparent) belief that he would not be re-arrested. He was mistaken, and at the Old Bailey found himself jailed for 18 months.

nterestingly, his defence counsel was one Adrian Fulford, a Left-leaning barrister with close links to PIE, who had co-founded an organisation called Conspiracy Against Public Morals (CAPM) in the early Eighties.

The CAPM defended PIE leaders facing criminal charges as it was opposed on principle to the use of charges of conspiracy to corrupt public morals.

Fulford, who attended meetings with PIE chairman Tom O’Carroll, later co-founded the Campaign for Homosexual Equality (CHE) which collaborated with high-profile paedophile and PIE activist Barry Cutler.

Cutler sat on the board of the Campaign for Homosexual Equality (serving for years alongside Labour minister Chris Smith) until 2011, when he was convicted of being part of a child pornography ring.

These days, Sir Adrian Fulford is Lord Justice Fulford, a senior Appeal Court judge who as a Privy Counsellor advises the Queen.

When his links to PIE were revealed by the Mail on Sunday early this year, Sir Adrian apologised and said: ‘On reflection, the NCCL [National Council for Civil Liberties] gay rights committee should never have allowed members of PIE to attend any of its meetings — I am very sorry for what happened.’

He underwent a disciplinary investigation by the judiciary’s self-regulator, the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office.

The JCIO announced last month that it had ‘fully exonerated’ Lord Justice Fulford of misconduct, but the full findings of its disciplinary investigation have not been published.

This fact sparked criticism from the influential legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg, who argued that ‘nothing less’ than full disclosure would convince the public that the self-regulating judiciary were not ‘looking after their own’.

Back at the Home Office, further institutional failures became even more evident in November 1983, when a whistleblower revealed that an employee at Queen Anne’s Gate had been caught two years earlier receiving parcels containing child pornography.

One package, containing 12 obscene letters and 57 photos and projector slides, was addressed to the civil servant and discovered in his pigeon hole.

But rather than call in the police, mandarins decided to ‘keep it in the family’ by mounting an internal investigation.

Screen Shot 2014-10-20 at 19.13.53

Baroness Elizabeth Butler-Sloss who has been charged with undertaking one investigation into how institutions handled child-abuse allegations

No action was taken, he was allowed to keep his job, and the affair was kept secret because civil servants believed, according to a newspaper, that ‘the confidentiality of the recipient [of the illegal child pornography] must be upheld’.

At the same time as reaching this shameful decision, Home Office bosses decided to commission an internal report on the age of consent.

The staff chosen to carry out this delicate exercise were a pair of Left-leaning criminologists called Ron Walmsley and Karen White.

In keeping with their liberal principles, the duo’s booklet, Sexual Offences, Consent And Sentencing, argued that the age of consent should be lowered to 14 — and 12 in some cases — and penalties for incest reduced.

One chapter said that many girls reach puberty before their tenth birthday and may not only want sex but initiate it themselves.

This line of thinking was music to the ears of the PIE, whose founder Tom O’Carroll swiftly praised Walmsley and White in his sexual ‘manifesto’, a book called Paedophilia, The Radical Case.

Advancing PIE’s vile agenda is bad enough. But perhaps the most damaging charge recently levelled against the Home Office for what happened during the Seventies is that it also helped to finance it.

This extraordinary claim was first made last year by Tim Hulbert, a retired civil servant, who in 1979 worked for its Voluntary Services Unit, which distributed grants to non-profit-making organisations.

During the first year of the Thatcher administration, Mr Hulbert says he was shocked to discover an application for a renewal of around £30,000 of funding for PIE.

He alerted his boss, Clifford Hindley, but was told in a ‘frank exchange’ to drop things.

‘Hindley gave me three reasons,’ Mr Hulbert says. ‘One, PIE was recognised as a legitimate campaigning organisation. Two, this was a renewal of an existing grant.

‘Three, that PIE was being funded at the request of Special Branch, who found it politically useful to keep an eye on paedophiles.’

Tim Hulbert was duly silenced.  He went on to have a successful career in public life, rising to head of social services at Bedfordshire County Council, before retiring in the Nineties.

In 2013, however, amid growing rumours of a network of paedophiles in high places, he passed on details to the Labour MP Tom Watson.

Shortly afterwards, his claims (but not his identity) became public. And at this point, things became murkier still.

Firstly, it emerged that the Home Office’s Clifford Hindley, who died in 2006, had for much of his life had an obsessive, academic interest in gay relationships between men and boys — and may even have been a PIE member.

Secondly, the Home Office announced a formal inquiry into Mr Hulbert’s claims. But — in a typical example of Whitehall’s culture of secrecy and unaccountability — insisted the identity of the man carrying out the inquiry remain secret.

Even MPs have been prevented from knowing who exactly he is, learning only that he works at the HMRC.

The veil of secrecy surrounding his identity suggests he may be one of many security service officers seconded to HMRC.

The Home Office will not formally comment on this matter. But if the man is indeed a spy, then his appointment to investigate this scandal — which, remember, revolves around suggestions that the security services were behind the public funding of PIE — would represent a terrible conflict of interest.

Either way, the man leading the inquiry promptly approached Hulbert for evidence. But according to friends, ‘did so in such a way as to make Tim feel threatened’.

Hulbert was told, for example, that he should consider having a lawyer with him when talking to the inquiry, which according to friends ‘left him thinking he might face disciplinary action if he said the wrong thing’.

Hulbert also sought assurances that he would not be prosecuted for accidentally breaking the Official Secrets Act while testifying. But no such assurance was forthcoming, so he decided to give his initial evidence in writing.

After carefully filing his submission, he then expected the inquiry leader (whose identity is known to the Mail) to contact him confirming receipt and asking follow-up questions.

No such contact was made. And despite a string of calls and messages from Hulbert, all of which went unanswered, the two men never actually spoke.

Nothing happened for several months. Then, on Monday the Home Office decided suddenly to publish the investigation.

Its report described Tim Hulbert’s evidence as ‘hazy’ and ‘vague’ and claimed there was no documentary evidence of payments to PIE (ignoring the fact that such documents could be among the 114 ‘missing’ files).

All of which seemed unconvincing, given that the author of the report had never bothered to cross-examine Mr Hulbert.

‘Tim is very angry,’ says a friend. ‘He has run investigations and internal inquiries, and if someone had handed him that report, he would have thought it was a bad joke.

‘As to being called vague, Tim says he’s as clear about his recollection of that meeting in 1979 as if it happened yesterday.’

Mr Hulbert, who came forward and identified himself this week, hopes to be allowed to give evidence to the Wanless inquiry as it investigates whether the Home Office failed to act on claims of child sex abuse in the dossier handed over in the Eighties.

But given his previous experience, Mr Hulbert can be forgiven for wondering if the Establishment really wants to get to the bottom of this affair.

‘From a political point of view, my evidence is incredibly embarrassing and dangerous, and I believe the Home Office is now interested only in burying this once and for all,’ he says.

If history has taught us anything, it is that tolerating and promoting the paedophile agenda — not to mention covering it up — can have awful consequences.

In 2011, former Home Office official and PIE member Steven Smith, who changed his name to Steven Freeman, appeared at the Old Bailey alongside his old literary collaborator Warren Middleton — editor of The Betrayal Of Youth — who had changed his name to John Parratt.

The pair were found guilty of orchestrating a massive child pornography ring whose members shared thousands of images of abuse along with computer games in which players had to rape as many young boys as possible.

So large was the collection of ‘vile and disgusting’ child pornography found at Smith’s home, the court heard, that it was ‘among the worst’ officers had ever seen.

Smith remains in prison. Middleton, meanwhile, has been released and has been allowed to take up residence at a block of council flats in Putney, South-West London.

He refused to talk when I visited this week.

Within half a mile of his new home are four primary schools, three nursery schools and two playgrounds.

A sobering reminder, perhaps, of the degree to which the authorities are either unwilling, or unable, to protect the public from the former members of the Paedophile Information Exchange who still live in their midst.

Written statement to Parliament – Child sexual abuse (Global Alliance commitment)

Published October 20, 2014 by misty534


This written ministerial statement was laid on 20 October 2014 in the House of Commons by Mike Penning and in the House of Lords by Lord Bates

Minister of State for Policing and Criminal Justice (Mike Penning):

The Global Alliance consists of 54 countries around the world who have committed themselves to:

  • enhance efforts to identify victims and ensuring that they receive the necessary assistance, support and protection
  • enhance efforts to investigate cases of child sexual abuse online and to identify and prosecute offenders
  • increase children’s awareness of online risks
  • reduce the availability of child sexual abuse images online and the re-victimisation of children

At a recent Global Alliance meeting in Washington, it was agreed to continue progress by:

  • enabling law enforcement among Global Alliance countries to gain timely access to electronic information and evidence held by internet service providers and other repositories of electronic information that is material to the investigation and prosecution of child sexual abuse offences through central authorities and other legally authorised channels, so that no nation becomes a safe haven for such information
  • facilitating prompt and comprehensive exchange among law enforcement of information and evidence pertinent to child sexual abuse offences featuring trans-border offence conduct, victims, co-conspirators, or evidence repositories
  • enabling internet service providers and other repositories of electronic information to provide information pertinent to the identification, apprehension, and ultimate prosecution of online child sexual abuse offenders to law enforcement pursuant to legal process in a manner and time frame consistent with reasonable investigative and prosecutorial demands;
  • augmenting existing, collaborative and trans-border efforts to identify and rescue victims of online child sexual abuse

It was important to update and assure the House that the government is committed to addressing the trans-border obstacles to identify and rescue victims of exploitation, and to identify and prosecute offenders. To facilitate continued progress, continued international cooperation is key to delivering real results. In December, the prime minister will hold an international summit in London to drive further progress in tackling these horrific crimes.

The fight to eradicate the online exploitation of children is far from complete, but the government will continue working closely with others around the world to maintain momentum.