How much evidence is there of long term high level UK paedophile ring?

[Barking_Mad]

Interesting how Hague gave Portillo the shadow chancellor position when he was leader of the opposition.

Portillo said a few days ago he thought there should be a full enquiry :-D

 

[kenny g]

Weird collection Kenny. But no, i haven't been drinking. If you think the first point is wrong then crack on with saying so and why.

Fair enough. I'm throwing in the towel for the night. We need to get some kind of evidence map for all of this. There is a freeware software that can be used to get a decent over view of investigations as complex as this. If anyone can dig it out , let us know.

 

[Prole]

Wales child abuse inquiry in 2000 wrongly said Tory accused was dead

Waterhouse report into scandal has major discrepancies with recent Newsnight allegations against living ex-politician

David Leigh
The Guardian, Tuesday 6 November 2012 21.40 GMT

Bryn Estyn children’s home
The Waterhouse report raised the possibility that the Tory named by a former resident of Bryn Estyn children’s home, pictured, had been confused with a family member with the same surname. Photograph: Don McPhee for the Guardian

Discrepancies have been identified between the testimony given to the Waterhouse inquiry into an alleged paedophile ring in north Wales during the 1970s and 1980s, and last week's TV claims about a living Conservative politician that have led to a new inquiry being announced.

The senior Tory alleged to have sexually abused young men was said to be dead when the report was published in 2000, but the ex-politician is still alive today.

A second, supposedly corroborative, witness was considered by Waterhouse to be talking about a completely different individual.

And the report raised the possibility that the Tory named by a former resident of Bryn Estyn children's home had been confused with a family member with the same surname. A relative of the Tory lives in the same north Wales area as the home.

Steve Messham, who gave an on-camera interview to BBC Newsnight on Friday, was identified only as "Witness B" when he testified to Waterhouse in the retired judge's heavily-sanitised report into an epidemic of sexual abuse in north Wales children's homes. Waterhouse called the alleged Tory abuser "X".

Waterhouse accepted that Messham had been repeatedly abused and psychologically damaged but concluded that Messham's evidence on "Mr X" was inconclusive. He said: "He has been described also as manipulative and there are many matters on which he is particularly vulnerable in cross-examination.

"X has the surname of a well known and large non-Welsh family and he is said to be dead now."

Wales child abuse inquiry in 2000 wrongly said Tory accused was dead | Society | The Guardian

BBC - Historic Marchwiel Hall on the market for £2.5m

 

[elbows]

Fair enough. I'm throwing in the towel for the night. We need to get some kind of evidence map for all of this. There is a freeware software that can be used to get a decent over view of investigations as complex as this. If anyone can dig it out , let us know.

To be honest if you did that at this point then it would probably end up as a much simpler picture than the meanderings of this thread and the media over recent weeks would suggest.

By this I mean that apart from a completely separate allegation from a former child actor who likes his conspiracy theories these days, everything we've heard so far goes straight back to the north wales stuff. I dont think we know how many victims gave tory-related evidence to Jillings at the time, but up until a couple of days ago the recent stuff in the media was pretty much from one victim, or people who had read the Jillings report. As of writing this I think I've now seen four victims speak to the media (I just saw another one on the BBC news) but perhaps only two of them are speaking first-hand about tories, its not entirely clear at this point. We've used the later Waterhouse report to explore some of the detail, but its confusing in places.

Until more emerges from that, its only the old Scallywag stuff that build further on the north wales stuff, throwing three or four more political names into the picture by linking it to events in London. The media havent gone down this route yet, and for all I know they may not do so.

Meanwhile on the carefree dot-joining internet sites, these things are joined by a bunch of historical examples, which we tend to know about because they were actually prosecuted at the time, or at least caused scandals. But they also throw in a few more names for good measure without actually getting into detail about what exactly they are alleged to have done, victims, etc. Add a couple of strange deaths. Then add some stuff about operation Ore, which are probably based on newspaper reports about 'several Labour figures' but never went further than that in the mainstream as far as I know. And then a few bits and bobs that may be sponsored by homophobia or antisemitism for all we know.

And of course the various disturbing establishment angles revolving around Savile himself. So far this leads to plenty of WTF moments, a bunch of people we probably think the police should talk to, and at least one civil servant who may have been involved with Savile's Broadmoor appointment and got in trouble later for non-Savile sex crimes.

 

[elbows]

Oh in that summary I missed some of the other lines of inquiry that Tom Watson has been getting at recently, eg Peter Righton.

 

[Kaka Tim]

Well its just one instance of WTF after another. I pretty much dont know who or why or what to believe on this anymore. Whats interesting is how the media are playing this very straight - just reporting the stories. I dont think I've seen one comment piece on this, or anyone in the MSM writing an article that paints an overall picutre of what this is all about.

(edited to add - actually the gruan has an editiorial on this http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/06/child-abuse-committees-cruelty-editorial which does a great job of tip-toeing around the elephant in the room and keeping as bland as possible)

But we are essentailly talking about parts of the caresystem being used as a child-brothel for the rich and powerful with the police, judicary and political establishement, at best, turning a blind eye at worst actively facilitating it.

The surface calm surely hides furious activity going on below the surface within media organisations, the civil service and the government.

The revelations about peter morrison is big news - this was someone who was very close to thatcher and instantly raises the question about who knew about his activities. That is harldly going to put the story to bed. This is something the you would expect the media go apeshit over - but its wierd how its being mentioned almost in passing.

If we are seeing what we may be seeing than at least there may be several wealthy well connected men who thought they were untouchable who are sleeping far less easily in their beds.

Also - if the police and judiciary dont take action and the evidence continues to leak out - and is further fuled by wild speculation - then polular anger might start to make itself felt against those being accuesed - and agaisnt those seen as protecting them.

A powder keg?

 

[Wilf]

Whats interesting is how the media are playing this very straight - just reporting the stories. I dont think I've seen one comment piece on this, or anyone in the MSM writing an article that paints an overall picutre of what this is all about.

I was about to be a cheeky cunt and ask if anyone would do 2 paragraphs on were this is up to (I've not really followed much since the Savile phase)! But yeah, the absence of overview pieces and extrapolations are odd. Obvious legal anxieties, but as you say the reporting does seem pretty formal.

Also - if the police and judiciary dont take action and the evidence continues to leak out - and is further fuled by wild speculation - then polular anger might start to make itself felt against those being accuesed - and agaisnt those seen as protecting them.

A powder keg

Hope it will blow up and take every last rapist cunt but, maybe it's just my natural pessimism on these things, I doubt it. In particular, I suspect the timetables of the different enquiries will be important, with it all coming out in bits and pieces. Tom Watson seems keen to avoid that with his interventions today - but also a letter he's just done to Cameron.
http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/

Whether he or one of the survivors does some sort of public naming, outside of parliament, might ultimately be what it takes to push the whole thing on. Not impossible, but unlikely.

 

[discokermit]

Oh in that summary I missed some of the other lines of inquiry that Tom Watson has been getting at recently, eg Peter Righton.

there's also links from broadmoor/krays/pimping for tory and labour politicians that might be considered.

 

[Badger Kitten]

A bloody brilliant, incredibly sad comment piece from one well placed to comment

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/06/inquiries-fail-abused-children

 

[elbows]

Those waiting for the Independent and journalist Roger Dobson to revisit the story need wait no longer. But it does not add much to the picture to be honest.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/a-nightmare-without-end-8290187.html

​

The Jillings report had been expected to provide an overview and answer some of these questions, but it had been suppressed. The Independent and The Independent on Sunday gained access to some of the recommendations, and eventually were given unrestricted access to one of the numbered copies.​

Its contents were explosive: "It is the opinion of the panel that extensive and widespread abuse has occurred within Clwyd residential establishments for children and young people. Our findings show that time and again, the response to indications that children may have been abused has been too little and too late." It condemned professionals: "There has been a conflict of interest between safeguarding professional positions versus the safety of children and young people. The interests of children have almost invariably been sacrificed.​

"It is clear that in a significant number of cases the lives of young people who have been through the care system in Clwyd have been severely disrupted and disturbed. "​

​

Clwyd Council was concerned enough to raise questions about a paedophile ring with the Chief Constable, and one of the internal reports, which was obtained by The Independent at the time, raised the issue, too: "There remain worrying current instances of conviction and prosecution for sexual offences of persons who are known to have worked together in child care establishments both in the county [Clwyd] and in other parts of the North-west," it said. "These suggest that abuse could have been happening unabated for many years and, that there could be operating a league or ring of paedophiles."
And were prominent public figures involved? Allegations and rumours of abuse of children in care in North Wales have been rife for many years, and leading politicians are consistently alleged to be involved. Some have been named on the internet – repeatedly so, in recent days.

​

Should we take them seriously? As a journalist who was deeply involved in the story for some time, I saw the allegations as being sincerely held, and they have persisted. But to publish them would have needed solid evidence. Sadly, the very nature of sexual abuse of this kind means that such solid evidence was and is very hard to come by.​

Yet, despite two tribunals, 10 or so court cases, more than a dozen reports, and several internal inquires, there remain unanswered questions about exactly what happened in and around those children's home in North Wales over two decades.​

Jillings, too, had encountered talk of the involvement of public figures. His report said he was unable to tackle some issues because of the lack of a mandate, adding: "This includes the suggestion that public figures may have been involved in the abuse of young people in Clwyd."​

​

Q Shouldn't there have been an inquiry at the time?
A There were several: 12 internal council reports; an inquiry for the Welsh Office, which concluded that a full judicial inquiry would not be in the public interest; the 300-page Jillings report, prepared for Clwyd council in 1996 but never published; and a £20m judicial inquiry under Sir Ronald Waterhouse QC, which reported in 2000.

​

 

[Prole]

and Eileen is pointing us here (and Islington can't be ignored with the present focus on N Wales and is probably what Tom Watson meant with his accusations of another cover-up): http://www.lizdavies.net/cpa/cpa-jersey.htm which includes this:

In one of Islington's offices in reports written over a period of 18 months 61 children were named as possible victims of organised network abuse. Liaison with other professionals led to the names of a large number of children being considered as having possible links or connections. However both Islington police and Scotland Yard reported insufficient evidence to support these allegations of network or ritual abuse. This view was also expressed by SSI led by Herbert Laming. The allegations were investigated but not substantiated.

I know what I witnessed, I know the I heard the children's accounts I know what adult survivors told me and I know I didn't make anything up. Why should I invent child abuse? I was a professional being paid to protect children and that was the work I was doing.

When this Inquiry was published I was working with police all over the country to investigate the connections between Islington and other networks. Laming had certainly received my dossier of evidence. This inquiry was plain lies. It was a lie to say that the allegations had been investigated. I will never forget when, in the midst of a murder investigation, the morning when I walked into the office and the assistant director of social services said 'you wont have any police to work with you now on that case. The officer has been discredited.' DCI Laverick hadn't been discredited at all but all the enquiries were closed down and I was left to use civil proceedings to protect the children as best I could.

So of course allegations won't be substantiated if investigations are closed. But there was plenty of work we had completed through excellent joint working by all local professional agencies with the assistance of protective people in the community and the questions remain whose interest was it in to deny these most serious crimes against children? Why was it so important to them? Why did those of us doing the job that we were being paid to do get threatened or attempts made to discredit us? Who are the people pulling these secret strings and what interests do they have to protect?

Islington, North Wales and other large inquiries did expose the involvement of high profile people in child abuse. You may remember the MP who was going to name 52 high profile names in the House of Commons linked with North Wales enquiry but he didn't do it. The Scotland Yard team (who were supposed to have denied to the Inquiry that the abuse was happening) were quoted in the Sunday Times as saying that Islington was the largest child sex abuse network they had dealt with and that wealthy businessmen were involved.

and further on:

One manager of an Islington home, Nick Rabet, was never properly investigated by Islington and went on to abuse 300 children in Thailand. He committed suicide but came from Jersey originally. I don't know yet if there are links between the investigations.

Some information I heard at that time remains on my mind. One girl spoke to me of her and her sister being sold from Islington to a millionaire and the parties that took place there when older children from care homes were gathered at their mansion and these returned each month but younger children were not seen again. A children's home manager who disclosed corroborative evidence to me about this was sacked and the whole situation was never investigated.

Sickening abhorrent foul criminal stench - it all has to be exposed.

 

[elbows]

A bloody brilliant, incredibly sad comment piece from one well placed to comment

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/06/inquiries-fail-abused-children

Thats the third great article I've seen from her recently (mentioned others a couple of days ago)

The end is interesting: (edit - this is rather made obsolete by the much greater detail Prole just posted above)

The child protection whistleblower who contacted the MP Tom Watson last month did so because he was once in a team of just the kind needed now. I was first in contact with his team and wrote about it 19 years ago, before it was abruptly closed down by orders from on high. It was a brilliant prototype, a joint police/social services investigation into the ring around childcare guru Peter Righton. It produced establishment names and revealed an alleged linked cover-up by Labour – let us never forget paedophilia is a cross-party crime – and was shut down as a result. Not one of the implicated men was prosecuted.

 

[elbows]

I would like to talk more about the Guardian article that brings up the possibility of confusion over the name, but cant see a way to discuss it properly at the moment. The alternative family member I have in mind so far has a very low profile in terms of whats ever been said about them on the net, but just enough nuggets to make me groan in horror.

 

[BigTom]

Tweets from Sonia Poulton this morning:

Sonia Poulton @SoniaPoulton

Talked with care home abuse victim. Used to be taken out by social workers to please MP. Victim was nowhere near Wales. #Countrywide

https://twitter.com/SoniaPoulton/status/266090574950572032

and yesterday

Were you at a care home in Sunderland during the seventies, either as a worker (any capacity) or a child? If so, please get in touch

https://twitter.com/SoniaPoulton/status/265893374232502272

Obviously no idea if the two are connected but seems likely (or at least possible). Anything about Sunderland come up at all yet? I don't remember anything.

But we are essentailly talking about parts of the caresystem being used as a child-brothel for the rich and powerful with the police, judicary and political establishement, at best, turning a blind eye at worst actively facilitating it.

this

 

[Vintage Paw]

It's really easy to imagine a situation where nothing in depth comes of this. Morrison becomes the sacrificial lamb, other names are discredited, or also dead or already convicted, or are social workers, care home workers, etc. The care system gets dragged over the coals, but any meaningful investigation into the way power is wielded by these people never happens.

I hope that's wrong. But it seems likely.

 

[Prole]

^^ Sunderland:

Silencing a scandal – the story of Colin Smart
The Guardian
Published April 1998 One comment... »

This is a story we are not supposed to tell. It is about a man named Colin Smart, a mild-mannered, rather bookish character who spent his working life in local government looking after children, and who rose in the early 1990s to become the Director of Social Services for the city of Sunderland.

One of the few things which has always been certain about this story is that while Colin Smart was doing that job, he came across something that worried him a great deal. We know, too, that this was something to do with the abuse of children, that he made a fuss about it and that somehow, in the midst of that fuss, he ended up taking early retirement. For the most part, the rest has never been revealed.

Colin Smart, of course, knows the whole story. However, he is not allowed to tell it, because shortly after he retired, his former employers at Sunderland City Council took him to the High Court where, under threat of losing his pension and paying out a fortune in damages, he signed an undertaking never to speak publicly about what he knew. Being an honourable man – and also a frightened one – he has kept to that undertaking.

Nevertheless, with the help of others who have been involved, we have been able to piece together most of what happened. It is an alarming tale, about a man who thought he saw signs of a scandal, who was moved to expose it and to rescue its child victims and who was then frustrated and obstructed at every turn until finally he was stripped of his power and silenced. It is, in other words, the anatomy of a cover-up. And that is the first clue.

Cover-up has become part of the story of child abuse, particularly in the children’s homes which were swept by a wave of rape and assault during the last three decades. Over and over again, somewhere in the midst of this wave, a lonely figure would appear, yelling for help, only to be ignored or submerged by the powers that should have reached out a hand.

Nick Davies — Silencing a scandal – the story of Colin Smart

 

[ViolentPanda]

I think what we're going to see is a real test of the MSM's metal. No doubt there will be lots of journalists doing some very serious digging around and uncovering of various stories which could blow everything wide open. The question is how far are they prepared to go to sever the heads of the political classes? How much pressure will they come under not to run stories and will editors have the courage to name and shame what they uncover or already know?

As I've made clear in previous post on this subject (other Savile threads esp.), it's not about editorial courage, it's about whether the papers' lawyers will clear a story, and whether the owner (corporate or individual) interferes. An example I gave on a thread was that stories about the late Terry Nutkins liking mid-teen girls were doing the rounds back in the mid-eighties, but because the evidence was testimony from young women who hadn't reported being abused to the police, the lawyers spiked the story, as because the paper had no physical evidence, Nutkins could have sued them for libel. As it's hard to estimate damages and costs in a libel case, most papers are averse to going to court, and keep schtumm instead.

To them this isn't just about 'the truth', it's potentially about driving a massive wedge into the widening gap that already exists between the people and their government. They really could not have a subject that unites so many peoples views on all sides of the political spectrum. The views of the Daily Mail readers are going to be as near as much identical as those of say, Guardian readers. 'Divide and rule' isn't an option.

The papers aren't interested in political action. Most of them are perfectly happy with the status quo, as long as it continues to provide them with fodder that they can spin to suit their readerships' prejudices.

If im being optimistic id say their 'news management' wont keep a lid on this one, if im being pessimistic id say they will limit it to a few sacrificial lambs that will satisfy the general public's need to be told 'the truth'. History tells us that the perhaps later is likely, but given everything else that has gone on over the last few years it might just be the straw that breaks the camels back.

While it's to be hoped that a "critical mass" of abuse scandals and revelations about Establishment participants is reached, bear n mind the forces ranged against "the truth". I'm not just talking about "the security services", "the Establishment" and well-placed perverts, I'm talking about, for example, the municipal insurers (whom I've mentioned in previous posts and threads on the subject too) who put a chokehold on local authorities investigating abuse claims way back from the '80s on.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Interesting how Hague gave Portillo the shadow chancellor position when he was leader of the opposition.

Hmmm, let me guess. Members of The Sacred Band giving each other jobs?

Tenuous, Kenny.

 

[Barking_Mad]

It was all a witch hunt...

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Secret-Bryn-Estyn-Making/dp/0951592246

 

[elbows]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...t-be-fully-investigated-says-Theresa-May.html

The senior Tory accused of child abuse has strenuously denied the allegations. He told The Daily Telegraph on Monday that he has only once visited Wrexham in North Wales, where the abuse took place.
He said: “Some guy said I was in the habit of taking young men from Wrexham in my Rolls-Royce.
“But I have only been to Wrexham once and I didn’t visit the children’s home, I made a speech to the constituency. I was with an official at all times. I never had a Rolls Royce.
“When the inquiry was taking place I hired a lawyer to watch it in case there was any mention of my name. The point is that it is totally without any grounds whatsoever.”

Has anybody seen anything further on the net that explores the possibility that the wrong member of the extended family has been identified? Last time I checked twitter hadnt really picked up on it.

 

[Brixton Hatter]

John Jillings has just been interviewed on radio 4. He says he didn't hear the names of senior tory politicians (the ones which are circulating semi-publicly at the moment) at the time of his enquiry. Didn't catch all the detail. Should be on iplayer shortly.

 

[Wilf]

Factual summary of the North Wales investigations here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/nov/06/wales-child-abuse-scandal-questions

It's useful for people like me who aren't up to speed.

 

[little_legs]

I would like to talk more about the Guardian article that brings up the possibility of confusion over the name, but cant see a way to discuss it properly at the moment. The alternative family member I have in mind so far has a very low profile in terms of whats ever been said about them on the net, but just enough nuggets to make me groan in horror.

2 articles here mention some Lord and his son, both dead though

 

[happie chappie]

This is a quite interesting satire:

http://tompride.wordpress.com/2012/...lly-admits-to-chip-abuse-during-thatcher-era/

As it says, it relates entirely to the good Lord's self-professed liking for egg and chips and nothing more. (Mods, please feel free to remove should you deem it appropriate).

 

[elbows]

John Jillings has just been interviewed on radio 4. He says he didn't hear the names of senior tory politicians (the ones which are circulating semi-publicly at the moment) at the time of his enquiry. Didn't catch all the detail. Should be on iplayer shortly.

Cheers. There is a bbc story based on the interview, including audio from Jillings and Messham. If anything it only adds to the confusion and Messham really doesnt help matters. That independent article I posted last night is better.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20234776

 

[Dan U]

Mr Icke has named a particular person on his website but it appears to be incredibly slow and i can't access the actual articles.

he also seems to be calling out Mr Hague as well.

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

It was all a witch hunt...

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Secret-Bryn-Estyn-Making/dp/0951592246

interesting reviews

 

[free spirit]

for those not wanting to trawl the article, the quote potentially relevant to savile is



I've just found email addresses for 2 of the journos listed as co-writers, to see if either of them are in a position to confirm if this was referring to savile or not.

I've had a reply, but they unfortunately couldn't actually find the article I'd linked to. Hopefully I'll know the ID of the person referred to in the article tomorrow though.

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

Things getting unpleasant

https://twitter.com/smessham

 

[elbows]

Channel 4 news had Rod Richards on tonight, continuing the Peter Morrison angle. He said again that he had seen Peter Morrison named in a report, and that he thinks it was the Jillings report. He also says that the civil service/government had a copy and he doesnt have any particular reason to think this copy would have been destroyed. However he didnt seem to think he saw another political name in the report, which doesnt match what that Daily Mail article had him saying in late October. These inconsistencies are doing my head in.