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

[yardbird]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22212131

 

[brogdale]

Hello, hello, hello....

http://davidhencke.wordpress.com/20...nquiry-into-ipcc-over-richmond-abuse-scandal/

Operation Fernbridge – the criminal investigation into a paedophile ring centred round the London borough of Richmond and the shady Elm Guest House – is now turning to the role of Independent Police Complaints Commission over the whole affair.
As reported by my excellent colleague for Exaro News, Mark Conrad,(see http://www.exaronews.com/articles/4936/met-investigates-police-watchdog-over-richmond-paedo-ring) in an amazing turn of events the Met Police is now investigating the role of the police investigators.
The turn of events is extraordinary. A former local government employee at Richmond and GMB trade unionist put a complaint into the police some 20 years after the police raid on the Elm Guest House. The police while taking down the details did not appear to investigate.
So he complained to the IPCC who also appear to have dismissed the inquiry.He then used the appeal process to complain about the IPCC who again dismissed it.
To be fair most of the complaint concentrated on yet another hushed up Richmond scandal – the physical abuse of elderly people at another care home – but there is a clear mention of child abuse in the first complaint to the police.
Now 30 years later ( and one has to be careful not to prejudice a future trial) there is enough evidence to justify the arrest of two people in connection with the child sexual abuse inquiry, it logically follows that the police certainly did not do their job and the IPCC appear to have been cavalier about doing theirs.
What is emerging is that the Conservative and Liberal run leafy borough of Richmond – which made the careers of three Liberal Democrat peers, Lord Razzall, Baroness Tonge and Baroness Hamwee – was behind the net curtains not a very savoury place. And it is clear that the authorities and the complaints procedure were found wanting. Watch out for more damaging revelations to come on Richmond once Exaro has fully investigated them.

also today...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/apr/23/man-held-child-abuse-allegations

A man has been arrested over historic child abuse alleged to have taken place in north Wales.
The man was held in Ipswich, Suffolk, on Tuesday morning over "a number of serious sexual offences against a number of individuals", the Serious Organised Crime Agency said. He is being taken to a police station in north Wales where he will be interviewed over recent allegations of historic abuse.
The man is the first person to be arrested under Operation Pallial, launched in November, which focuses on allegations of abuse in children's homes in north Wales in the 1970s and 80s.
A report on the progress of the investigation is due to be published on Monday. In December officers revealed they had received information from 105 potential victims.
A high court judge, Mrs Justice Macur, has been appointed to carry out a separate review of the Waterhouse inquiry, which was set up in 2000 to look at alleged abuse. It focused on claims at homes in the former council areas of Gwynedd and Clwyd since 1974. Recently potential victims have said the inquiry examined only a fraction of the abuse that took place.
The judge is looking at whether specific allegations were not investigated and urged alleged victims and all other interested parties to give further evidence.

 

[brogdale]

An interesting discussion has taken place in the comments section under Hencke's latest blog story:-

1. Some time ago your name was associated with a story about the imminent arrest of a former cabinet minister on child sex charges. No such arrest has been reported. Can you shed any light on this?
   Anne - April 23, 2013 at 2:18 pm | Reply
   Reply
   • 
     
     hi anne,
     you are quite right. The investigation is taking more time as more information and new leads come to light.
     david
     davidhencke - April 23, 2013 at 2:58 pm | Reply
     Reply
2. 
   
   [...] reblogged from David Hencke [...]
   Investigators under investigation: Met Police inquiry into IPCC over Richmond abuse scandal | Tell About Abuse - April 23, 2013 at 4:33 pm | Reply
   Reply
3. 
   
   Yes, but are you still stating that the arrest of a former cabinet minister will be forthcoming?
   chilternsman - April 23, 2013 at 7:50 pm | Reply
   Reply
   • 
     
     yes as far as I am aware the Met Police are still working on it.
     davidhencke - April 23, 2013 at 8:18 pm | Reply
     Reply
     • 
       
       Thanks. Any idea on timeline and do you know if change at the top of investigation has effected things in any way?
       chilternsman - April 23, 2013 at 8:22 pm
       
     • 
       
       no, but I knew they had to build up a cast iron case. Must say we are puzzled about Spindler’s move at such a crucial time in all the investigations.
       davidhencke - April 23, 2013 at 8:27 pm

hmmm

 

[butchersapron]

North Wales child abuse: more than 140 people say they were victims

More than 140 people have told police they were the victims of abuse at 18 children's homes across north Wales over a span of three decades.

The complainants, almost all men who were aged between seven and 19 at the time of the alleged offences, have identified 84 people as responsible for attacks said to have taken place between 1963 and 1992.

Sixteen of the 84 alleged perpetrators have been named more than once, according to North Wales police, and six are believed still to be alive. One suspect has been arrested to date.

The scale of the alleged abuse was revealed on Monday in a National Crime Agency report on the progress of Operation Pallial, the criminal investigation ordered into north Wales care homes by David Cameron at the height of the sex abuse scandal last November.

At a press conference in north Wales on Monday, detectives said the alleged offences ranged from serious physical assaults to rape.

They said that most of the 140 alleged victims had described a "clear element of grooming with a serious abuse of trust and dereliction of duty of care".

...

Police said 75 of the 84 people suspected of abuse were male. Police expect to make more arrests within weeks as Operation Pallial enters "phase two", with detectives building evidence against key suspects

 

[elbows]

In the cases where the accused are deceased, I wonder if they are going to tell us about them.

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

Bill Roach now arrested

 

[elbows]

Sorry for being a moaning git but can we put the celebrities with no links to the major non-media institutions of our country in one of the other threads? I'll go and look for the right one now as I seem to remember one wher I posted a story about the absolutely idiotic things Roach said about victims not so long ago, which will now gain an added dimension.

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

Sorry for being a moaning git but can we put the celebrities with no links to the major non-media institutions of our country in one of the other threads? I'll go and look for the right one now as I seem to remember one wher I posted a story about the absolutely idiotic things Roach said about victims not so long ago, which will now gain an added dimension.

It's a bit like Atos threads, so many of them, never sure where to post

 

[elbows]

Oh I had missed the latest press story about the Elm Guest House.As usual I'm not going to quote the whole article and am likely missing out some sentences that are also of interest:

Elm Guest House abuse scandal: "Paedo police ignored 16-year-old victim"​

Claims of a cover-up are strengthened after detectives "ignored vital evidence" over alleged VIP paedo ring​

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/elm-guest-house-abuse-scandal-1857494#ixzz2SAoMXuEf ​

A boy who complained about sexual abuse by a VIP paedophile ring with alleged links to the political establishment was ignored after he spoke out.

The 16-year-old, who lived in a South West London care home, said he was attacked at the notorious Elm Guest House nearby.

And despite evidence backing his claim from a second boy, detectives failed to act, Exaro the investigative website and the Sunday People can reveal.

Files held by Richmond Council show its then director of social services, Louis Minster, twice called up the file on the second boy.

He was interviewed at the age of 16 by a social worker and a Metropolitan Police detective chief inspector in 1983, a year after a raid on Elm Guest House.

Exaro showed the record to Terry Earland, Richmond’s then director of children’s services. He said it was “pretty unusual” for the head of social services to pull a file on a boy after he had left the council’s care. Louis Minster declined to comment.

A “referral form” archived by Richmond council reveals the social worker’s account of the interview with the second boy. The document says: “X was interviewed by the police in my presence and made a formal statement. No further action required.” In January, the Metropolitan Police Service paedophile unit mounted a criminal investigation into allegations that boys in care were sexually abused between 1977 and 1983 – initially at Grafton Close and then at Elm Guest House in Barnes.

Just for clarity the cover-up they are referring to is from the time of the original investigation, not a fresh coverup happening now.​

 

[free spirit]

North Wales child abuse: more than 140 people say they were victims

as most of those accused seem to be dead, the most useful thing that could come out of this IMO would be for some detailed analysis to be done of the positions of those people that led to them having access to the boys, and if / how they are interlinked, and how they managed to keep this covered up for so long.

Or to put it another way, I'd like to see what some of the victims have publicly called for, an investigation into whether there were significant freemason links with those abusers, and if / how those links were used to enable this abuse, and facilitate a several decade long cover up of it, until most of those involved had died.

There's enough bits and pieces of freemason links, and longstanding rumours of them, plus the accusations of some of those abused to at least warrant a proper investigation into those links IMO - personally I'd probably be happier to see this being done by an academic, or independent group similar to the hillsborough panel, as I'd just not trust any official inquiry into it, and as most are dead, there's not really much point to the legal side of things.

 

[UhOhSeven]

Sorry, but gratuitous mention of Freemasons sets off my loony alarm.

 

[free spirit]

Sorry, but gratuitous mention of Freemasons sets off my loony alarm.

I'm not talking massive international conspiracy, but there are significant links in north wales just with the abusers who're already on the record, and that area of north wales was a hot bed of freemasonary activity in the period in which these abuses were taking place.

As a starting point, one of the key people who seems to have been involved in all this was the son of the guy who was the head of the freemasons in North Wales for several decades, was a member of the north wales police authority etc.

I'm really not a frequent conspiracy theorist type, and don't use those websites etc, it's just in this case there actually does seem to be a fair chance there's at least some truth to the rumours, and it's at least worthy of investigation as per several of the victims requests.

this has been discussed earlier in the thread, eg.

Post war periods experienced an acceleration in that growth. During the Province´s long history three Provincial Grand Masters served for conspicuously longer periods than most, firstly Sir Watkin Williams Wynn, Bt., M.P. 1852 to 1885; Sir Herbert Lloyd Watkin Williams Wynn, Bt. C.B., T.D., 1914 to 1945 and Lloyd, 5th Baron Kenyon, C.B.E., D.L., 1958 to 1990.
Under their respective periods of leaderships 16, 24 and 38 Lodges were consecrated. Prior to his assuming the leadership of the Province Lord Kenyon consecrated a further 8 Lodges as Deputy Provincial Grand Master.
At the time of writing there are 113 active Lodges in the Province together with 36 Royal Arch Chapters but with another pause in the growth of Lodge numbers.​

[source - north wales freemasons website]
the number of lodges in North wales grew by 50% between 1958-90 vs no new lodges since 1991

ViolentPanda said: ↑

So, one admission of membership. many tens of thousands to go!​

you see that Lord Kenyan in the quote above, listed as being the Provincial Grand Master of North Wales?

that's the same Lord Kenyan who's son Thomas Kenyan who died of Aids in 1993 and is alleged to have been the son of a Lord referred to in the Nick Davies article in the first post of this thread. It's also alleged in this article and this book that he was also a member of the North Wales Police Authority, which I think included through the 70s and 80s.

So the Provincial Grand Master's son is implicated in involvement in all this, yet it's apparently not something worth discussing on this thread.

That article also alleges that Sir Walter Stansfield, the former Deputy Chief Constable of Denbigh Police Force (prior to it being amalgamated into north wales police), and then Chief Constable of Derbyshire police was an active mason... along with a fair few other allegations that are hard to substantiate, but they claim to have evidence of.

 

[UhOhSeven]

All that stuff in your blue box is supposition held together with spiderwebs and sealing wax. The word 'flimsy' seems inadequate here.

 

[butchersapron]

Sorry, but gratuitous mention of Freemasons sets off my loony alarm.

Do you consider the testimony of the alleged abused that mentioned freemasons as "gratuitous"

 

[UhOhSeven]

I've clearly missed this. It's a long thread and I'm not fully up to date. Could you provide a link please?

 

[butchersapron]

I've clearly missed this. It's a long thread and I'm not fully up to date. Could you provide a link please?

(note, before you be silly and say that it doesn't prove it, it's not supposed to, it's supposed to indicate that the abused have testified that the abuse cover up was carried out by masons)

 

[UhOhSeven]

Yes, I remember seeing that when C4 News first broadcast it.

It's all smoke and no fire. The two interviewees talk about Masons in a suspicion-holding way, but there aren't any concrete allegations -- or even any generalised allegations. The closest anyone comes to pointing the proverbial finger is when Brereton says that there ought to be an investigation into possible Masonic connections -- but he doesn't give a reason.

Don't get me wrong, I don't personally doubt that the funny handshake brigade can be a social nuisance of the first magnitude, when they're not doing charity work, but your link doesn't back up your suggestions of victims implicating freemasons.

 

[butchersapron]

Yes, I remember seeing that when C4 News first broadcast it.

It's all smoke and no fire. The two interviewees talk about Masons in a suspicion-holding way, but there aren't any concrete allegations -- or even any generalised allegations. The closest anyone comes to pointing the proverbial finger is when Brereton says that there ought to be an investigation into possible Masonic connections -- but he doesn't give a reason.

Don't get me wrong, I don't personally doubt that the funny handshake brigade can be a social nuisance of the first magnitude, when they're not doing charity work, but your link doesn't back up your suggestions of victims implicating freemasons.

Apart from the victim in the video clearly and publicly implicating masons. Maybe you need to have another look?

 

[UhOhSeven]

He says that a large number of the names he has on his list are Freemasons.

He doesn't say he was abused by Freemasons, and nor does he make any specific or even general accusations.

He simply says what I have stated.

And there's no way of knowing (a) whether his list is accurate or (b) how many of those on his list are guilty of abuse.

And that's just for starters.

Like I said: much smoke, no fire.

 

[butchersapron]

His accuracy is irrelevant - i warned you not to do this - that his testimony involves masons is beyond doubt.

For starters? Well what else do you want to get wrong? Bring on the rest. What more have you been holding back on? Let's hear it.

 

[UhOhSeven]

In #1904 you referred to: "testimony of the alleged abused that mentioned freemasons"

That seems to have boiled down to one glancing reference in a TV interview, involving third parties, unspecified offences (well actually no offences), and a list that may or may not be accurate (with regard to Freemasonry or child abuse).

I'm going to be polite here, and say that you're building castles in the air.

 

[butchersapron]

In #1904 you referred to: "testimony of the alleged abused that mentioned freemasons"

That seems to have boiled down to one glancing reference in a TV interview, involving third parties, unspecified offences (well actually no offences), and a list that may or may not be accurate (with regard to Freemasonry or child abuse).

I'm going to be polite here, and say that you're building castles in the air.

I did, and you challenged me to produce any. I did. I didn't say that it was the entirety of their testimony. Not that you've even yet understood what been offered. A Victim, with access to testimony of many others says that that they say masons were involved. He says a lot of the abusers were masons. This equals, in your world: "He doesn't say he was abused by Freemasons". He said that many others were.

 

[butchersapron]

In #1904 you referred to: "testimony of the alleged abused that mentioned freemasons"

That seems to have boiled down to one glancing reference in a TV interview, involving third parties, unspecified offences (well actually no offences), and a list that may or may not be accurate (with regard to Freemasonry or child abuse).

I'm going to be polite here, and say that you're building castles in the air.

You are not the one being polite here.

 

[UhOhSeven]

I did, and you challenged me to produce any. I did. I didn't say that it was the entirety of their testimony. Not that you've even yet understood what been offered. A Victim, with access to testimony of many others says that that they say masons were involved. He says a lot of the abusers were masons. This equals, in your world: "He doesn't say he was abused by Freemasons". He said that many others were.

He didn't say that at all. What he said was that a lot of people on his list were Freemasons.

We don't know how accurate that list is, or how accurate his claims of masonry are, or ... well... anything much.

This is a very long way from: "There's enough bits and pieces of freemason links, and longstanding rumours of them, plus the accusations of some of those abused to at least warrant a proper investigation into those links IMO", which is what free spirit said in #1900 and which is what I was originally responding to.

 

[butchersapron]

He didn't say that at all. What he said was that a lot of people on his list were Freemasons.

We don't know how accurate that list is, or how accurate his claims of masonry are, or ... well... anything much.

This is a very long way from: "There's enough bits and pieces of freemason links, and longstanding rumours of them, plus the accusations of some of those abused to at least warrant a proper investigation into those links IMO", which is what free spirit said in #1900 and which is what I was originally responding to.

His list is of people who were abused/abusers. Many of them were masons. That's exactly what he says.

It's a long way from you asking for a link from a victim mentioning masons to being given one then this denial. You asked for a victim mentioning masons, you got one. Why can't you deal with it?

 

[UhOhSeven]

What I originally said was: "Sorry, but gratuitous mention of Freemasons sets off my loony alarm."

I see no reason to revise that opinion, which I voiced in response to freespirit's exaggerated claims (as outlined).

Unless you are going to start providing evidence for freespirit's claims, which I doubt.

 

[butchersapron]

What I originally said was: "Sorry, but gratuitous mention of Freemasons sets off my loony alarm."

I see no reason to revise that opinion, which I voiced in response to freespirit's exaggerated claims (as outlined).

Unless you are going to start providing evidence for freespirit's claims, which I doubt.

It's almost like you said something afterwards, almost like you supported, then when challenged ,that the idea of all mentions of the masons was "gratuitous" - whilst denying the victims had ever suggested any such thing.

 

[UhOhSeven]

Almost ... but not quite.

I'm getting a bit tired of this.

If you have solid accusations against Freemasons, named or not, let's be having them.

 

[butchersapron]

Almost ... but not quite.

I'm getting a bit tired of this.

If you have solid accusations against Freemasons, named or not, let's be having them.

Don't have to. If you want to deny that the abused have named the mason as abusers...oh you just did that.

 

[UhOhSeven]

One abused man claims that he has a list of people, some of whom are Masons.

No more than that.

Again: This is a very long way from: "There's enough bits and pieces of freemason links, and longstanding rumours of them, plus the accusations of some of those abused to at least warrant a proper investigation into those links IMO", which is what free spirit said in #1900 and which is what I was originally responding to.