[L2] Lewisham Council Obstruction of FOI Request

The FOI request was simple, and it was made on 6 Jun 2016.

Over a year later Lewisham Council have failed to comply with their duty under the FOI Act to supply the information requested.

They have offered a number of exemptions, excuses, numerous broken deadlines, even given unlawful excuses not covered under the FOI Act, and delayed and delayed and delayed and failed to reply a number of times.

Eventually after 8 months I was forced to make a complaint to the Monitoring Officer.  The Monitoring Officer has the specific duty to ensure the county council, its officers, and its elected councillors, maintain the highest standards in all they do [11]

However this monitoring officer failed to do her job, she failed to do her duty, she failed to answer nearly every question I asked her, she even went on holiday when she said she would reply. She failed to ensure the Council answer as required to do so by the FOI Act. She has failed to ensure an internal review of the FOI is carried out as required to do.

Unfortunately regulators such as ICO are slow to act and rogue Councils know this and take advantage of it to delay. I have started upon that route, but that is likely to take another two years and there are many steps on that route and the ICO itself claims to be short of staff and is already slow completing the very first step.

One course accessible to me and one of the most powerful is to name and shame.

  • Kath Nicholson is the monitoring officer. It is her duty to ensure the Council maintain the highest standards in all they do.
  • It is Kath Nicholson who has failed to do her duty as monitoring officer to ensure the Council maintain high standards and reply substantively within a year to a FOI request with the information.
  • It is Kath Nicholson who has failed to even maintain a legal standard, never mind maintain the highest standards for herself and nor ensuring the council’s officers maintain highest standards
  • Kath Nicholson it seems has set a slovenly, illegal standard and been as awkward as possible.
  • Kath Nicholson even actively refused to send the reply to one part of the FOI to the public WDTK website, she maintains she will only send it my personal email, which was given to her in the process of making the complaint and not anything to do with the FOI itself.

The highest standard Kath or the lowest?

                                                                    Kath Nicholson

Kath Nicholson, supposed Monitoring Officer, refuses to answer how Lewisham’s records are filed.

Kath Nicholson, supposed Monitoring Officer, refuses to say whether there is a digitised index.

Kath Nicholson, supposed Monitoring Officer refuses to say whether the records are stored in house or via an external agency where a fee has to be paid.

Kath Nicholson, supposed Monitoring Officer, refuses to explain what was meant by an odd phrase “to retrieve this information would require manual checks on all such individuals”

Kath Nicholson, supposed Monitoring Officer, refuses to do an internal review on the council claim that the 160 page “After Leeways” Report cannot be found in 18 hours despite the fact it is the duty of the Council to do.

Kath Nicholson, supposed Monitoring Officer, refuses to do an internal review on the council claim that they cannot find a Review of the Child Services from 1990 within 18 hours despite the fact it is the duty of the Council to do so.

Kath Nicholson, supposed Monitoring Officer, illegally refuses to send a copy of the Chief Executives report to the WDTK website. This was the same report that the Council unlawfully claimed was Confidential and would not be released. they clearly do not want it available to the public.

Kath Nicholson, supposed Monitoring Officer, refuses to say whether the Elizabeth Lawson “1 year on Report” was not done or it was done but lost, and refuses to do an internal review into this.

Kath Nicholson, supposed Monitoring Officer, refuses to confirm what documents they hold.

Kath Nicholson, supposed Monitoring Officer refuses to answer what the legal reason was to refuse the “Chief Executives Report” or admit that there were no legitimate reasons for refusal.

Kath Nicholson, supposed Monitoring Officer refuses to process a formal complaint about the staff involved in the delay of the FOI request and the failure of the Council to answer my requests for internal reviews and further information.

Kath Nicholson, supposed Monitoring Officer, refuses to internally review the whole request some 5 months after it was requested. It appears as though staff have been told not even to acknowledge my correspondence on this request.

*By “refuses” I mean she has not done so after repeated requests, and therefore this is a de facto refusal.

I have good reason to believe that there was widespread child sexual abuse in Lewisham Council, that was covered up at the time.

The actions of Lewisham Council and Kath Nicholson in particular are without doubt deliberately still delaying and covering up.

Perhaps Lewisham Council are using this time to find and shred or destroy or “lose” documents that will incriminate Lewisham Council. Perhaps they are taking steps to reduce their financial liability. That would explain why they feel they can deliberately and openly flout their public and legal duty yet are supposed to be public servants.

Have Kath Nicholson and Lewisham Council gone rogue? Are corporate interests a higher priority than public duty?

Is Kath Nicholson’s job as head of Law in conflict with her job as Monitoring Officer. Quite clearly she is not carrying out her duties properly as Monitoring Officer. Why? Does the Council support her refusal to carry out her legal duty?

Are the Council refusing to do their public duties and acting on some interpretation of their corporate ones?

Is the Council paying people to cover up child sexual abuse?

That is a reasonable explanation that fits the facts.

How sick are the people involved who actively or passively cover up the rape of children? What are their motives? What do they get in return?

A much abbreviated history of the  FOI correspondence with links follows, the full saga can be checked here [1]

2016 Jun 6 [1]

Please could you send me a copy of
1. The dossier “After Leeways, Challenges, Changes and Achievements” published by the London Borough of Lewisham on March 19th 1987
2. The minutes of the Social Services Committee 23rd July 1985
3. Review of Childrens Residential Services believed to be July 1984
4. Chief Executives Inquiry Report, subsequent to Leeways believed to be February 1986
5. Minutes of the Report to Council on 5 March 1986 (This should contain discussion of Chief Execs Inquiry Report)
6. Report of the Elizabeth Lawsons Independent Panel 1 year on from Leeways Report

2016 Sept 26 Answer (paraphrased)   [1a]

  1. “After Leeways, Challenges, Changes and Achievements”. Refused as it is not recorded in a readily accessible form, too much time and money Section 12(1)  [1a]
  2. Social Services Committee 23rd July 1985 Minutes provided see [1b]
  3. Review of Childrens Residential Services believed to be July 1984  – refused not recorded in a readily accessible form – too much time and money Section 12(1)
  4. Chief Executives Inquiry Report – Refused Confidential [No legal reason given]
  5. Minutes of the Report to Council on 5 March 1986 (This should contain
    discussion of Chief Execs Inquiry Report) There are no records of a meeting on the date you quote.
  6. Elizabeth Lawsons Independent Panel 1 year on from Leeways Report – Information not held

2016 Oct 1 [1c] My reply

1. “After Leeways, Challenges, Changes and Achievements” dossier is apparently approximately 160 pages and was the main Lewisham response to the Inquiry into the horrific situation of Lewisham Council having a child abuser in charge of its childrens home who had abused several children. It should from the size be relatively easy to find within your files.

To help me understand could you explain how are Lewishams records from this time filed or catalogued, whether there is a digitised index and also whether Lewishams records are stored in house or via an external agency where a fee has to be paid for searching?
I do not understand what you mean by “individuals” in this sentence “To retrieve this information would require manual checks on all such individuals. “ Could you explain?

2. Thankyou for those minutes

3. Review of child services not able to be found. This was a major revamp only 30 years ago. Is this not able to be found easily within the time limit?

4. “Chief Executives Inquiry Report, subsequent to Leeways believed to be February 1986 This information is deemed confidential, and will not be released”
Could you give the exemption Lewisham is claiming under the FOI Act? I also enclose a link to a document which gives some more detail as to the Report for your information.

5. Minutes of Report to Council 5 March 1986
This is link to a page 19 that has been supplied to me https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2016/10/0… I believe it to be from the “After Leeways Report” but I could be mistaken. It describes this Report to Council. I wonder whether it would be possible to find it with this help. Is it also possible to identify the other 3 monthly progress reports and the meetings that they were supplied to? I realise this maybe taken as a new request.

6. Report of the Elizabeth Lawsons Independent Panel 1 year on from Leeways Report. Did this Report happen or has it been lost?

2017 Jan 23 [1d] My Reply 

You replied to my request of 1 Oct 2016 “Thank you for your recent request. Your request is being considered and you will receive a response within the statutory timescale of 20 working days, subject to the application of any exemptions/exceptions”
I received a response to part of the request on 4 Oct, but a substantial part has not been replied to.

Nor have I received even a reply to my subsequent emails. If I do not receive a reply I will therefore be forced to put in a complaint against you.

Please tell me who the head of Freedom of Information Department is?
Please could you tell me who the Lewisham Council Monitoring Officer is presently?
Please could you tell me why I have not received a reply to my FOI of 1 Oct 2016 nor subsequent emails?
Please answer my requests as Lewisham Council is required to by law.
I gather that my next stage is to ask for an internal review. If I do not receive reply to my requests by 5pm on 25th Jan 2017, please take this a request for Internal Review [1d]

No further progress has been made on the FOI since Jan 23 despite several requests.

Summary of FOI

The Council

  • provided one set of minutes
  • refused two large reports that they claimed would take over 18  hours each to find
  • refused another report on “confidentiality”,  ie  grounds with no legality in FOI
  • maintained one meeting I requested a report for did not happen to which I gave them  information that it did, i heard nothing more
  • claimed not to hold another report
  • have refused to answer any questions or requests about this since

How would they know they did not hold one report yet they claim it would take them 18 hours to search for another?

Summary of Requests Outstanding

1 “After Leeways, Challenges, Changes and Achievements” dossier is apparently approximately 160 pages and was the main Lewisham response to the Inquiry into the horrific situation of Lewisham Council having a child abuser in charge of its childrens home who had abused several children. It should from the size be relatively easy to find within your files. To help me understand could you explain how are Lewishams records from this time filed or catalogued, whether there is a digitised index and also whether Lewishams records are stored in house or via an external agency where a fee has to be paid for searching?
I do not understand what you mean by “individuals” in this sentence “To retrieve this information would require manual checks on all such individuals. “ Could you explain?

2 Review of child services not able to be found. This was a major revamp only 30 years ago. Is this not able to be found easily within the time limit?

3 “Chief Executives Inquiry Report, subsequent to Leeways believed to be February 1986 This information is deemed confidential, and will not be released”
Could you give the exemption Lewisham is claiming under the FOI Act? I also enclose a link to a document which gives some more detail as to the Report for your information.

[Report still not been provided to this site as requested. Attachments been sent to private email, which I do not wish to open as they may be insecure, whereas on this site it is secure and public and where I requested it and where it is Lewisham’s duty to provide it.]

4 Minutes of Report to Council 5 March 1986
This is link to a page 19 that has been supplied to me https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2016/10/0… I believe it to be from the “After Leeways Report” but I could be mistaken. It describes this Report to Council. I wonder whether it would be possible to find it with this help. Is it also possible to identify the other 3 monthly progress reports and the meetings that they were supplied to? I realise this maybe taken as a new request.

5 Report of the Elizabeth Lawsons Independent Panel 1 year on from Leeways Report. Did this Report happen or has it been lost?

6. Internal review on why all information requested has not been provided or questions even addressed.

Kath Nicholson appears to be the central figure in Lewisham as to why the legitimate FOI request is not being processed lawfully or any information is being released nor given about any aspect of the request including an acknowledgment of questions referring to it [16]

It could be seen as worrying that Kath Nicholson has said –

“as local authority lawyers, we are working with politicians and so have to be politically astute, too. My job is to help them do what they want to do. In more than 30 years [in local government], I’ve only said “You can’t do that” once or twice.” [13]

It is also worrying that she admits that her department is not overseeing child protection cases safely –

“The department has 103 live child protection cases being handled by just eight solicitors. ‘An individual solicitor can safely handle between 10 and 12 cases, except my staff are doing adult protection work too,’ says Nicholson. ‘Cases can be hugely complicated, particularly where there are six or seven children in the family.’” [13]

Most worrying is that Kath Nicholson is not doing her job properly as Monitoring Officer, which has widespread repercussions throughout the Council and Lewisham.

The truth about what is child sexual abuse happened in Lewisham Councils “care” is not being revealed because she is not doing that job properly. Perhaps she is helping politicians do what they want rather than do what her Monitoring Officer job is? Perhaps there is a conflict between being Head of Law and Monitoring Officer?

Kath Nicholson, Lewisham Council – Shame on you

Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. These links are generally UK based.

  • The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers.
  • National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups.
  • One in Four [C]
  • Havoca [D].
  • Useful post on Triggers [E]  from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog.
  • Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G]  and Meditation [H] may be useful.
  • Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma  [J]
  • Survivors UK for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men [K]
  • Voicing CSA group [L] helps arrange survivors meetings in your area
  • A Prescription for me blog Various emotional support links [M]
  • ShatterBoys -“Male Survivors Of Childhood Sexual Abuse Inspiring change, Through Shared Experience Whilst Building Connections…Together We Can Heal” [N]

Links

[1] 2016 Jun 6 WDTK FOI to Lewisham Council Leeways Childs Home, 17 Edward Rd, Bromley https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/leeways_childs_home_17_edward_rd#outgoing-549340

[1a] 2016 Sept 26 answer https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/leeways_childs_home_17_edward_rd#incoming-872834

[1b] 1985 Jul 23 Meeting of Social Services Committee 17 pages https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/338492/response/872834/attach/3/Leeways.pdf

[1c] 2016 Oct 1 Q https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/leeways_childs_home_17_edward_rd#outgoing-584348

[1d] 2017 Jan 23 Q https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/leeways_childs_home_17_edward_rd#outgoing-616147

[1e] 2017 Jun 1 Second request https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/leeways_childs_home_17_edward_rd#outgoing-654591

[2] 2016 Oct 1 Cathy Fox Blog  Lewisham Council Chief Executives Inquiry Leeways Childrens Home https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2016/10/01/lewisham-council-chief-executives-inquiry-leeways-childrens-home/

[3] 2014 Nov 24 cathy fox blog Lewisham Leeways Report and Social Services Minutes July 1985 https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2014/11/24/lewisham-leeways-report-and-social-services-minutes-july-1985/

[4] 2014 Jan 21 cathy fox blog Council Response to Leeways Report https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2014/01/21/council-response-to-leeways-report/

[5] 2013 Nov 12 cathy fox blog The Leeways Inquiry Report into Sexual Abuse https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2013/11/12/the-leeways-inquiry-report-into-sexual-abuse/

[6] 2016 Jan 24 cathy fox blog Paedophilia around Piccadilly Part 5 1980s and Operation Circus https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2016/01/24/paedophilia-around-piccadilly-part-5-1980s-and-operation-circus/

[7] 2014 Sept 16 Cathy Fox Blog Paedophilia around Piccadilly Part 3 -Timeline of a Child Rapist 2 – Roger Gleaves https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2014/09/16/paedophilia-around-piccadilly-part-3-profile-of-a-paedophile-roger-gleaves/

[8] 2015 May 6 cathy fox blog Paedophilia around Piccadilly Part 4 Playland Trial and Cover up https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/05/06/paedophilia-around-piccadilly-part-4-playland-trial-and-cover-up/

[9] pic 2

[11] Local Government and Housing Act Section 5  http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/42/section/5

[12] Lewisham Senior Managers https://www.lewisham.gov.uk/mayorandcouncil/aboutthecouncil/how-council-is-run/council-structure/Pages/senior-managers.aspx

Kath Nicholson Head of Law Kath has overall responsibility for legal advice to and representation of the Council. It also includes the duties of the Council’s statutory monitoring officer and responsibility for the management of European and national parliamentary and local elections. She manages approximately 50 staff.

Kath is a solicitor with over 34 years’ experience in the public and private sector and holds an MBA in Public Sector Management.

[13] 2013 Oct 14 Law Gazette People Kath Nicholson https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/people/kath-nicholson/5038115.articlehttp://archive.is/HhG3L

leader of a team of 27 fee-earners dealing with child protection, governance, employment, property, litigation and all the other issues that a large inner-city local authority generates. She also found time to co-author a book, A Guide to the Local Government Act 1999, with Trowers & Hamlin partner Helen Randall.

‘As lawyers, we all have to be the goalkeeper who can also take penalties,’ Nicholson tells the Gazette. ‘We have to be proactive while getting the balance right – because nobody wants an overly conservative lawyer. The big difference is that as local authority lawyers, we are working with politicians and so have to be politically astute, too. My job is to help them do what they want to do. In more than 30 years [in local government], I’ve only said “You can’t do that” once or twice.

The pressure is certainly intense. The department has 103 live child protection cases being handled by just eight solicitors. ‘An individual solicitor can safely handle between 10 and 12 cases, except my staff are doing adult protection work too,’ says Nicholson. ‘Cases can be hugely complicated, particularly where there are six or seven children in the family.’

The problem is not confined to child protection, Nicholson adds. Lewisham’s education team is now down to one solicitor, yet more than 90 schools need legal advice on how to become academies. The employment team, moreover, comprises just two solicitors to handle the affairs of thousands of staff. Employment claims commonly arise from the downsizing policies of the council and have included a Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) case that went as far as the Court of Justice of the European Union in Luxembourg and this country’s Supreme Court.

[14] Foulston http://archive.is/HKFoQ

[15] 1985 Dec 10 WDTK Special Meeting of Social Services Ctte Minutes  https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/184669/response/473239/attach/3/Leeways%20response%2010%2012%2085.pdf

[16] 2017 Jun 14 WDTK https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/leeways_childs_home_17_edward_rd#outgoing-658043

 

Posted in cathy fox blog, Child Abuse, Child sexual abuse, Childrens home, Freedom of Information Request, Lewisham, London, Operation Circus, pedophile | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

BBC v Rochdale Borough Council High Court 24 Nov 2005

This is relevant to the 1990 Rochdale “satanic abuse” case, see 2017 Jun 16 Cathy Fox Blog Two articles on “Ritual Abuse” by Richard Scorer  [1]

There had been an injunction so that no one could identify the social workers involved, in order that the children were not identified.

The children were now grown up and were aggrieved about the separation from their parents and wanted to be able to tell their stories. Therefore the injunction preventing naming the social workers was therefore challenged by the BBC so that the programme could be broadcast.

The injunction was lifted.

Redaction

Some court reports have had victims names redacted and some assault details redacted.

This is a difficult balance –  normally I would think that  I should not “censor” details but on consultation with various people I have taken the decision to redact. This is mainly to protect victims, their friends and relatives from unnecessary detail and to stop the gratification of those who seek salacious details.

In addition to the obvious “victims redaction” to protect victims details, there may also be “assault redaction” across most of the spectrum of abuse. The assaults are left in the charges, but mainly redacted when repeated with reference to the individual. I have also redacted unnecessary detail of assaults.

Redaction may obscure sometimes the legal reason for the appeal, but should make no large difference to the vital information for researchers that these documents contain. That vital information is mainly names of the perpetrators, past addresses, institutions where assaults occurred, the actual charges the perpetrators faced, and dates – on which newspapers are pathetically inaccurate and this information enables the links between people and places and abuse at various times to be ascertained.

Some transcripts may have been subject to automatic reading software and whilst effort has been made to correct these, the text should not be regarded as definitive.  Common mistakes in reprinting here are that quotation marks are sometimes not correct, replaced by odd symbols.

If you think that the balance is not correct or that a particular redaction needs reconsideration, please say.

This appeal is unredacted by cathy fox blog

Index of Newspaper and Journal articles on this blog [1]

Index of Court Appeals on this blog [2]

[2005] EWHC 2862 (Fam)

Case Nos: WG 18, 19, 21, 24 and 28 of 1990

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

24th November 2005

Mr Justice Ryder

Between The British Broadcasting Company

v. 1. Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council

v. 2. ‘X’

v. 3. ‘Y’

Mr Adam Wolanski (instructed by the BBC Litigation Department) for the BBC

Mr Anthony Hayden QC and Ms Yvonne Coppel (instructed by the Borough Solicitor) for Rochdale MBC and X

Ms Jane Walker (instructed by Thompsons Solicitors, Manchester) for Y

Hearing dates: 12th and 13th September 2005

JUDGMENT

Mr Justice Ryder:

1. On the 7th March 1991 Mr Justice Douglas Brown gave judgment in open court in wardship proceedings concerning 20 children from 6 families, known as ‘the Rochdale satanic abuse case’. The judgment is reported as Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council v. A [1991] 2 FLR 192 . All bar 4 of the children were returned to or remained in the care of their families and the allegations of satanic and ritual abuse were found not to have been made out. Injunctions were made to protect the identities of the children concerned.

2. It is the protection afforded by those injunctions that forms the background to these renewed proceedings. The key issue before this court is whether continuing protection should be afforded to two social workers, X and Y, whose identities were not revealed in the open court judgment that concluded the original proceedings.

3. The terms of the injunctions that continue in force (as distinct from the protections this court has put in place with the agreement of the parties pending decisions being made in these proceedings) are as follows:

“Any person whether by himself or by his servants or agents or otherwise howsoever or in the case of a company by its directors, officers, servants or agents or otherwise howsoever (is restrained) from 

1) publishing in any newspaper or broadcasting in any sound or television broadcast or by means of any cable programme service or by satellite any picture being or including a picture of the several minors whose names are set out in the schedule hereto or any particulars or pictures calculated to lead to the identification of the minors as being or as having been wards of this court or

2) causing or procuring any publication or broadcast of the type defined in paragraph (1) above or

3) soliciting any information relating to the said minors (other than information in the public domain) from —

a. the said minors or any of them

b. any natural person who has had the care of the minors since the minors became wards of court

c. the staff or pupils of any school which the said minors attend or have attended

d. the staff or inmates of any institution or children’s home at which the said minors reside or have resided…”

4. In respect of one of the families the non solicitation clause was drawn wider to include relatives, carers and parents.

5. On the 22nd May 2005 the BBC applied for an order that would have the effect of permitting the disclosure of evidence given in the original proceedings to the BBC, the solicitation of information relating to those proceedings and disclosure to the general public of the identities of X and Y, the social workers who were granted anonymity by Douglas Brown J.

6. The purpose of the BBC’s application is to facilitate the production of a documentary that the court has been told the BBC intended to broadcast later this year.

7. The local authority and the two social workers concerned have agreed with the BBC and the representatives of the former wards the disclosure of materials to the former wards, its use by the BBC and the relaxation of the prohibition against solicitation of information from the former wards among others. That involved a detailed consideration by the local authority of the materials that existed against the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998. The court was able to assist the parties to reach agreement by the appointment of a clinical assessor whose instruction was to consider whether harm was likely to be caused to the data protection subjects by the disclosure requested.

8. At the end of the process there remain only two issues a) whether the two social workers can be named in the documentary and b) whether video footage which includes the images of the social workers as well as the children can be broadcast. The extent of the disclosure that has been agreed, evidenced by detailed orders that have been agreed by the parties and approved by the court, is such that the former wards and the BBC have been able to see and read almost all of the materials that were used in the proceedings. That which has been excluded can fairly be characterised by the description that it is intimate family business that may not have been known between generations and which is not relevant to the applications now before the court.

9. On the 16th August 2005 Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council issued an application on their own behalf and on behalf of one of the two social workers for an injunction restraining the BBC from publication of the names of both social workers or any material that might lead to their identification on the grounds that the social workers and their families would be harmed personally and professionally and it would not be in the public interest. On the 1st September 2005 an application was made on behalf of the other social worker in identical terms. Although one social worker had the advantage of representation through solicitors appointed by her union, the other was afforded the same protection through the local authority’s legal department.

10. I have had the benefit of hearing detailed submissions on behalf of the BBC, the local authority and both social workers. I am very grateful to leading and junior counsel for the benefit of their skill and industry. I have also taken steps to hear representations from the former wards. They are separately represented by solicitors who protect their interests in particular as to their discussions and agreements with the BBC and the separate civil compensation proceedings that have been instituted against the local authority.

11. I record the fact that each of the relevant adults concerned have come to binding agreements with the BBC about the use of their confidential information and I am satisfied that these protections need not be further investigated by this court in these proceedings. There are former wards and other adults who were concerned in the proceedings whose confidential information is not to be revealed and I am satisfied that their interests have likewise been protected.

12. I have considered detailed written evidence filed on behalf of the BBC, the local authority, both social workers and their respective employers. Opportunities were provided to call and examine that evidence but by a proper and proportionate use of the court’s permission to file evidence in reply, no examination proved to be necessary. I have not been asked to hear oral evidence and credibility is not in issue.

13. There is a relevant part of the judgment of the 7th March 1991 that is not to be found in the case report but which can be read in the transcript of the original proceedings. There the learned judge gave the following reason for the two social workers being granted anonymity:

“I do not give their names, because to do so could well lead to the identification of these children”

14. All of the professionals directly involved with the children with the exception of X and Y were named in public. The anonymity ruling was coincident with the purpose and detailed terms of the injunctions made at the end of the proceedings although it should be noted that an anonymity direction was not included in any order and hence was neither brought to the attention of any person who was not present in court nor, in particular, any media organisation.

15. In fact neither social worker played any further part in the lives of any of the children or their families and both left the employment of the local authority for other social care bodies. They remain in employments that are unconnected with the former wards and the court has been told, and it is not in issue, that both have had successful careers in the social care professions where their activities have positively benefited their professional colleagues and the vulnerable adults and children they have assisted.

16. By the time the BBC made its application to this court, the purpose of the original injunctions had been achieved in that the former wards were no longer children and save as to the specific agreements that have been come to, they are adults who wish to be identified. It is not suggested that any of the former wards are incapacitated in law and accordingly this court’s role in respect of the maintenance and/or enforcement of their anonymity must of necessity be limited. Indeed, where there is no evidence that the adults concerned lack the capacity to give consent, absent other arguments, the court must permit them to be identified. A failure to do so would be an unjustified interference with their Article 8 and 10 rights: Re Roddy (A Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) [2003] EWHC 2927 (Fam), [2004] 2 FLR 949 per Munby J. at paragraphs [37], [56] and [59] and E v. Channel Four, News International Ltd and St Helens Borough Council [2005] EWHC 1144 per Munby J. at paragraphs [48] to [52].

17. If the former wards can be identified, then it is certainly arguable that the ancillary protection afforded to the social workers falls away. Although the injunctions were expressed to continue in force until further order, the former wards have made clear and informed decisions upon advice to waive their privacy. Accordingly, no-one has sought in these proceedings to argue from first principles whether the wardship orders should continue to survive the majority i.e. the adulthood of those they protected, although undoubtedly the wardship court did extend its protection beyond the age of majority where a public interest was identified that required it: see Re Manda (Wardship: Disclosure of Evidence) [1993] 1 FLR 205 CA per Sir John Megaw at 219.

18. It is in this context that cross applications were made on behalf of the social workers and the local authority for an injunction granting the two social workers privacy in any circumstances. As the BBC pointed out, the terms of the protection asked for would grant X and Y total privacy i.e. anonymity in all circumstances: a protection so far only afforded by the courts in exceptional circumstances to, for example, Mary Bell, Robert Thompson and Jon Venables and Maxine Carr.

19. It is not in issue that there is a legitimate public interest in the subject matter of the case. In the opening paragraph of the 1991 judgment Douglas Brown J. said:

“I am giving this part of the judgment in open court because I am of the view that this case gives rise to areas of genuine public concern and that it has implications not only for wardship proceedings but for proceedings taken under the Children Act 1989…”

20. Whether the outcomes are positive for the children concerned and for society generally of our child care procedures, law and practice is a matter for genuine public debate and interest, now as it was in 1991. I respectfully agree with Munby J. in Re B (A Child) (Disclosure) [2004] 2 FLR 142 at 181 paragraphs [99] and [103] where he says:

“The workings of the family justice system and, very importantly, the views about the system of…(those)…caught up in it are … matters of public interest which can and should be discussed publicly”

“We cannot afford to proceed on the blinkered assumption that there have been no miscarriages of justice in the family justice system. This is something that has to be addressed with honesty and candour if the family justice system is not to suffer further loss of public confidence. Open and public debate in the media is essential.”

The Facts Relied Upon:

21. What are the other facts upon which these applications rest?

22. The criticisms made by Douglas Brown J. that relate to the social workers and other professionals were serious and went to the heart of good child protection procedures and practices at the time. They are set out in full in his judgment and need not be repeated here.

23. What should be remembered, however, is that the learned Judge also found that:

“… the local authority employees I have been concerned with are decent people. They are not heartless or ruthless. They acted throughout with the best interests of these children in mind as they saw them. Nevertheless mistakes were made and it is greatly to their credit that most of them have been acknowledged.”

24. The BBC wish to illustrate the criticisms made in judgment by use of the video footage that exists, where that is practicable and appropriate. That would involve revealing clips of the social workers, albeit from 15 years ago and the use of the transcripts of their interviews. It should be noted that provided their identity is not revealed neither the local authority nor the social workers oppose the use of the videos or the transcribed material.

25. For the BBC it is said that:

1. There remains a strong public interest in examining the criticisms made by Douglas Brown J. in the context of a) contemporaneous national influences and child care practice, b) the lessons learned i.e. the changes that have occurred in child care law and practice and c) the effect upon the families and children concerned;

2. The former wards are now adults, they wish to talk about their experiences and that provides a unique opportunity to listen to their recollection of events, their experiences then and to date and their comments on the decisions made on their behalf by adults: parents and professionals alike;

3. The documentary would be a rare opportunity to discuss the then prevalent child care practices and best practice in the context of the circumstances that were their origin i.e. the recommendations of the Cleveland Inquiry, and subsequent case law;

4. The producers would also wish to discuss current child care concerns, for example cot death cases and allegations of fabricated illness and child protection examples that can be identified from the reports of recent legal proceedings, for example unfounded allegations of ‘black magic’ in the Western Isles and convictions concerning so called witchcraft practices in a discrete community in London;

5. The obscuring of the identities of the social workers is a slow technical process and unless permission is given to name them at a relatively early stage of the production schedule, two versions of the programme would have to be produced, one naming them and one preserving their anonymity: that is expensive and the latter course is in any event more difficult to sustain for interviewers and families alike;

6. An account which anonymises and obscures the identities of the social workers would be disembodied i.e. it would tend to lessen the cogency of the public interest questions that are being discussed and detract from the news value of the broadcast. It is to be noted that this is not the same as the argument accepted by Munby J. in F v. Newsquest and Others [2004] EWHC 762 (Fam) at paragraph [98] that ‘one should be able to put a face to a name’: a judgment that was in fact based upon the compelling public interest in being able to identify a convicted paedophile so as to be able to protect one’s children;

7. The BBC has no intention of identifying the families, addresses, occupations or employers of X and Y and to that extent, if their Article 8 rights are engaged, the interference will be minimal and only in accordance with the ordinary principle that there is no confidentiality in the identity of a witness.

26. X and Y say that:

1. Social workers as public servants working in a confidential environment should be protected by a cloak of anonymity save where there has been dishonesty or bad faith;

2. They support open public debate and do not oppose the making of the documentary;

3. They left the local authority’s employment as a matter of personal choice not in consequence of the judgment and have both in their different ways gone on to considerable professional success elsewhere;

4. Their professional competence has not been called into question since the judgment;

5. Their Article 8 rights are engaged and having regard to the nature and extent of the agreed disclosure the maintenance of their anonymity is a proportionate restraint whereas the publication of their identities would add so little of value that it would be a disproportionate interference;

6. They both fear:

a) A negative impact on their professional standing with colleagues and families with whom they now work;

b) A negative impact on future career prospects (I deliberately do not enlarge on this issue because it would tend to identify the social workers present professional activities and the BBC has undertaken not to reveal their present employments but I stress that I have considered the detail of that which is set out in the affidavits that have been sworn);

c) The possibility of an unfair or inaccurate portrayal of them including by any failure to consider the actions of others with whom it is asserted they acted at the time (e.g. management representatives);

d) Intrusive media interest;

e) Harassment and/or behaviour from others towards themselves or their families that they would regard as threatening;

f) A seriously detrimental emotional impact (described as enormous) upon their closest relatives, including children who do not know of their past involvement with this case and parents who are elderly.

27. What are the legal principles that I should apply?

The Identification of Witnesses:

28. As a matter of general principle there is nothing in the absence of an order to the contrary to prevent the identification of a witness who has given evidence in a case, including a witness in proceedings concerning the welfare of children. Section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 does not prevent the identification of witnesses: X v Dempster [1999] 1 FLR 894 per Wilson J. at 901 and per Munby J. in Re B supra at paragraphs [76] and [82].

29. The breadth of what may be revealed is often misunderstood and, if I may say so, reference to the summary in Re B at paragraph [82] is a useful starting point as a description of the ‘automatic restrictions’. Historically, the court has authorised disclosure beyond these restrictions and/or imposed additional restrictions in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. Although the principles to be applied to this application have been re-cast in the language of the Human Rights Act 1989, the principles upon which the inherent jurisdiction was exercised are still a helpful description of factors and interests: see, for example, the summary set out in Re B at paragraphs [83] to [86].

30. This is not the place to examine or re-examine the nature and extent of the privacy that does attach to family proceedings and the distinctions that can be ascertained in the language of the case law relating to private law and public law proceedings. It is sufficient to record for this application that in general, the legitimacy of our rules of court and the practice of holding family proceedings in private is rationalised in the context of human rights jurisprudence as follows:

“in order to protect the privacy of the child and parties and to avoid prejudicing the interests of justice. To enable the deciding judge to gain as full and accurate a picture as possible of the advantages and disadvantages of the various residence and contact options open to the child, it is essential that the parents and other witnesses feel able to express themselves candidly on highly personal issues without fear of public curiosity or comment …”

see B v. United Kingdom, P v. United Kingdom (2002) 34 EHRR 529 , [2001] 2 FLR 261 at paragraphs [38] and [46].

31. That in itself is but an example of the balance of interests and rights that are in play and is merely a re-statement of the classic exposition of the reasons for privacy in wardship proceedings: Scott v. Scott [1913] AC 417 per Lord Shaw of Dunfermline at 482:

“The three exceptions which are acknowledged to the application of the rule prescribing the publicity of courts of justice are first in suits affecting wards; secondly in lunacy proceedings; and thirdly where secrecy … is of the essence of the cause. The first two of these cases, my Lords, depend upon the familiar principle that the jurisdiction over wards and lunatics is exercised by the judges representing His Majesty as parens patriae. The affairs are truly private affairs; the transactions are transactions truly intra familiam; and it has long been recognised that an appeal for the protection of the court in the case of such persons does not involve the consequence of placing in the light of publicity their truly domestic affairs …But I desire to add this further observation with regard to all these cases, my Lords, that, when respect has thus been paid to the object of the suit, the rule of publicity may be resumed. I know of no principle which would entitle a court to compel a ward to remain silent for life in regard to judicial proceedings which occurred during his tutelage…”

32. The fact that witnesses may be named illustrates the fact that the general practice of affording privacy in children cases does not extend to preserving the privacy of expert witnesses involved in the proceedings. The privacy of the expert participants is not always and may not generally be necessary to achieve the object of the proceedings.

33. Section 12 of the AJA 1960 does prevent publication of the evidence of witnesses, including expert witnesses, in such proceedings. However, in relation to such evidence it is well established that there cannot be an expectation that it will remain confidential in all circumstances: In Re Manda supra per Balcombe LJ at 215 and Re X (Disclosure of Information) [2001] 2 FLR 440 per Munby J. at paragraph [24].

34. In these proceedings, the court’s judgment on the evidence was published as were all but two of the names of the professional witnesses. The continuing public interest in open debate about the issues in the case has been reflected both by the voluntary disclosure of the materials used in the proceedings that has been agreed between the parties and the court’s approval of the same in response to the BBC’s application. All that remains is the question whether the identities of X and Y should remain unknown and barred from publication.

35. It is acknowledged that there may be cases where the identity of experts needs to be withheld because there are concerns, supported by evidence, that identification will have a negative impact upon the administration of justice, see for example Re B supra where an issue arose about the identification of doctors who had given evidence. The doctors, in support of their attempt to retain anonymity, provided evidence of a “continuing and massive backlash in the United Kingdom against child protection, which uses as a strategy the promulgation of disinformation and vilification of certain doctors through sensational and convincing media campaigns” which had contributed to a “drain on the pool of doctors willing to do child protection work”: see paragraph [88].

36. Munby J. considered that there was on the particular facts of Re B “an especially acute and difficult dilemma” given the public interest in further publicity of Family Division proceedings. He acknowledged that there may be “a powerful public interest in a discredited expert being identified; in the other case, there might be a powerful public interest in the public vindication of an expert who had been unjustifiably and unjustly attacked.”

37. He concluded that despite the general principle to the contrary, the doctors should retain their anonymity. Importantly, however, he emphasised that his concern was not primarily for the interests of the individual doctors in the case and the impact upon them of identification, but the public interest in ensuring that everything possible is done to address the problem of “the already inadequate number of experts willing to assist the courts in vitally important child protection cases”: see paragraph [130]. The doctors did not assert their Article 8 rights and accordingly there was no balance that involved Article 8 of the Convention.

38. Likewise, there is a public interest in encouraging frankness which is essential in cases involving the welfare of children. That includes promoting rather than deterring witnesses including professional witnesses from giving evidence. It should be noted that this interest is usually characterised as a need to preserve confidential sources and information rather than as an incident of any right to personal confidentiality or anonymity in the professional witness who relays that material to the court, though the various aspects of confidentiality will have greater or lesser weight on the facts of each case: see Munby J. in Re X supra at paragraph [24]. Such witnesses are not entitled to assume that their evidence will remain confidential in all circumstances nor that their identity will normally be protected for this purpose: see the analysis of Balcombe LJ in Re Manda supra at 211 to 215. The submission that social workers among others can expect that the ‘confidentiality of their identities’ will be respected unless there has been dishonesty or bad faith is not a correct statement of the law and has not been for some time, if it ever was.

39. This court has not received any direct evidence touching on the arguments of frankness, deterrence or the availability of child protection professionals, although strong submissions have been made to that effect. Despite this, I take notice of the fact that there is a continuing shortage of social care professionals, particularly in child protection and that there have been and are campaigns against them which can have a serious effect upon an individual’s private life. Further, there is a public interest in encouraging social workers and others to engage in this difficult work. Great weight is placed on this by the local authority and by X and Y, and although I should take these factors into account and I do, no-one suggests that they are the determinant or predominant factual issues in this case.

The Application to Restrain:

40. Since the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998 the proper approach to applications concerning media reports in relation to children is for the court to identify the various rights that are engaged and then to conduct the necessary balancing exercise between the competing rights, considering the proportionality of the potential interference with each right independently.

41. In Re S (FC) (A Child) [2004] UKHL 47 , [2005] 1 FLR 591 HL Lord Steyn set out four propositions relying upon the opinions of the House of Lords in Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22 , [2004] 2 AC 457 :

1. Neither Article (8 nor 10) as such has precedence over the other

2. Where values under the two Articles are in conflict, an intense focus on the comparative importance of the specific rights being claimed in the individual case is necessary

3. The justifications for interfering with or restricting each right must be taken into account

4. The proportionality test must be applied to each”.

42. The interaction between Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention is at the heart of the key issue in these proceedings. In essence the BBC asserts the right of the community as a whole to freedom of expression as do the former wards and both the social workers and the former wards assert their right to respect for their private and family life. Different constructions of the public interest are relied upon but all adopt the principle set out in Campbell v MGN Ltd supra as described and analysed in the context of family proceedings by the President in A Local Authority v. W, L, W, T and R [2005] EWHC 1564 (Fam), in particular at paragraph [53], namely the presumptive parity of Articles 8 and 10.

43. The public interest in open justice is important to the analysis and to the ultimate balance the court must conduct but it is not determinative of the outcome i.e. there is no presumptive priority to be afforded to Article 10. In any event, the balance to be conducted will necessarily be different (because of the different issues and factors involved) where the proceedings are a species of family justice rather than criminal justice: see the analysis of the President in A Local Authority v. W & Ors supra.

The Rights Engaged:

44. Article 8 of the Convention provides that:

“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence

2. There shall be no interference by any public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”

45. The former wards seek to assert their rights under Articles 8 and 10 to publish information about the proceedings to the BBC and others by telling their story. X and Y seek to assert their rights under Article 8 to keep their private life confidential by retaining their anonymity.

46. That the former wards’ Article 8 rights are engaged was recognised by Munby J. in Re Roddy (A Child) (Identification: Restriction on Publication) [2003] EWHC 2927 (Fam), [2004] 1 FCR 481 where he said at paragraph [36]:

“Article 8 … embraces both the right to maintain one’s privacy and, if this is what one prefers, not merely the right to waive that privacy but also the right to share what would otherwise be private with others or, indeed, with the world at large. So the right to communicate one’s story to one’s fellow beings is protected not merely by Art 10 but also by Art 8”

47. In the context of this case, Article 8 protects the right to establish, maintain and develop relationships with other human beings, see Botta v. Italy (1998) 26 EHRR 241 at paragraph [32] and Bensaid v. United Kingdom (2001) 33 EHRR 208 at paragraph [47]. The Article 8 protection also extends, among other factors, to a person’s name, identity and business or professional relationships, see Niemietz v. Germany (1992) 16 EHRR 97 at paragraph [29] and Peck v. United Kingdom (2003) 36 EHRR 41 at paragraph [57]:

“…private life is a broad term not susceptible of exhaustive definition. The court has already held that elements such as gender identification, name, sexual orientation and sexual life are important elements of the personal sphere protected by Article 8. The Article also protects a right to identity and personal development and the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings and the outside world and it may include activities of a professional or business nature. There is, therefore, a zone of interaction of a person with others, even in a public context, which may fall within the scope of ‘private life’…”

48. Family life is a question of fact but the existence of a close personal relationship between adults and their children or as between adults and their own parents will of necessity be capable of being construed as family life: see, for example, K v. United Kingdom (1986) 50 DR 199 , 207 E Comm HR.

49. So far as X and Y are concerned, they each rely upon the fact that there is privacy in their identities as an aspect of their private (including professional) and family life quite apart from their identification as witnesses in a particular case. Once their identities are recognised as private (sometimes referred to as the ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’ threshold) the court must balance their interest in keeping their identities private against the countervailing interest of the recipient in publishing the same. Private individuals are not normally identified without their agreement but there are circumstances where the media are justified in revealing private information without consent: Campbell v. MGN Ltd supra per Baroness Hale of Richmond at 495G paragraphs [134] to [140].

50. Article 10 of the Convention provides that:

“1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers…

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society…for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary”

51. The exceptions to the Article 10 right of freedom of expression must be “narrowly interpreted and the necessity for any restrictions must be convincingly established”. What is necessary “implies the existence of a pressing social need”. There must be proper evidence to justify any interference with the Article 10 right. The dangers inherent in restraint call for “the most careful scrutiny by the court”: The Observer and The Guardian v. UK (1991) 14 EHRR 153 at paragraphs [59] to [60] and Kelly v BBC [2001] 1 FLR 197 per Munby J. at 212 B and 229.

52. It is not, as was suggested by one of the social workers, for the BBC to satisfy the court that there is a public interest in publication.

53. That the court needs to be convinced of a pressing social need for restrictions upon freedom of expression is given statutory effect by sections 12(3) and 12(4) of the 1998 Act.

54. Section 12(3) HRA 1998 applies to these proceedings because the court is considering “whether to grant any relief which, if granted, might affect the exercise of the convention right to freedom of expression”. It provides that the court should not grant interim relief:

“so as to restrain publication before trial unless…satisfied that the applicant is likely to establish that publication should not be allowed”

55. In Cream Holdings v Banerjee [2004] UKHL 44 , [2005] 1 AC 253 the House of Lords made clear that “the general approach should be that courts will be exceedingly slow to make interim restraint orders where the applicant has not satisfied the court he will probably (i.e. “more likely than not”) succeed at the trial.

56. Section 12(4) provides that:

“The court must have particular regard to the importance of the Convention right to freedom of expression and, where the proceedings relate to material which the respondent claims, or which appears to the court, to be journalistic, literary or artistic material (or to conduct connected with such material), to

(a) the extent to which —

(i) the material has, or is about to, become available to the public; or

(ii) it is, or would be, in the public interest for the material to be published”

57. In this case, the Article 10 rights of the former wards and the BBC are engaged and the statutory imperatives apply.

58. Article 6 (1) provides that:

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations … everyone is entitled to a fair … hearing within a reasonable time by an independent tribunal established by law.”

“Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice”

59. In addition to the public interest in the former wards and the BBC in the publication of details of the events of 1990/1991, there is a strong public interest in maintaining the confidence of the public at large in the courts. Article 6 is intended, among other things, to promote confidence in the judicial process. This is a point that has repeatedly been stressed by the Strasbourg court. In Prager and Oberschlick v Austria (1996) 21 EHRR 1 at paragraph [34] the court said:

“Regard must … be had to the special role of the judiciary in society. As the guarantor of justice, a fundamental value in a law-governed State, it must enjoy public confidence if it is to be successful in carrying out its duties.”

60. An important means by which such confidence is achieved and maintained is through permitting proper scrutiny of court proceedings. In Axen v Germany (1984) 6 EHRR 195 at paragraph [25] the court said:

“The public character of proceedings before the judicial bodies referred to in Article 6(1) protects litigants against the administration of justice in secret with no public scrutiny; it is also one of the means whereby confidence in the courts, superior and inferior, can be maintained. By rendering the administration of justice visible, publicity contributes to the achievement of the aim of Article 6 (l), namely a fair trial, the guarantee of which is one of the fundamental principles of any democratic society, within the meaning of the Convention.”

61. I recognise that there are clear distinctions to be drawn between the administration of criminal justice and family justice, but just as there are differences, so there are certain minimum protections and expectations that ought to be common both.

62. Reflecting this, particularly against the background of frequently expressed concerns about secrecy in the Family Division, there is increasing recognition of the need to permit greater openness in family cases. See, for example, the comments of Munby J. in Re B at [98] and Wall LJ. in Re H (Children) [2005] EWCA Civ 1325 at paragraphs [26] and [29] to [32].

63. Set alongside the general principles, what comparative examples are there of the discretionary exercise I am asked to perform? It is said by the BBC, and I agree, that this is not a case, by comparison with Thompson and Venables v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Ors [2001] 1 FLR 791 CA (the Jamie Bulger murderers), in which a privacy injunction is sought on the grounds of unique notoriety, widespread public interest or evidence of a serious threat to life such that Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention are engaged, involving rights which, if they were engaged, would not be capable of derogation.

64. In fact there is an element of fear expressed in the evidence of the social workers but in my judgement that falls within the description given by Thorpe LJ in Re W (Care Proceedings: Witness Anonymity) [2002] EWCA Civ 1626 , [2003] 1 FLR 329 at paragraph [13] where he commented in the different but comparable context of a plea for anonymity within proceedings that:

“social workers up and down the country, day in day out, are on the receiving end of threats of violence and sometimes actual violence from adults who are engaged in bitterly contested public law cases…social workers must regard this as a professional hazard”

“cases in which the court will afford anonymity to a professional social work witness will be highly exceptional”.

65. Neither is this a case like Campbell v MGN Ltd supra (where Naomi Campbell sought an injunction restraining publication of information about her attendance at Narcotics Anonymous meetings) in which an injunction is sought on the basis of the confidential nature of the information intended to be published. There is nothing confidential to the social workers about the fact that they were the subject of criticism in an open court judgment in 1991. Their only confidentiality then identified by the court was that attaching to the proceedings so as to protect the children concerned. Their only confidentiality now is their privacy i.e. the integrity of their professional and family lives as distinct from their identities as witnesses.

66. The injunction is sought on the basis of a feared detrimental impact upon X and Y, and their family members, as a result of the publication. The BBC submits that, in accordance with the principles set out above and the examples in the case law to which I have been directed, an injunction should only be granted to protect identification in an exceptional case. This is a short hand for the careful balancing exercise that is to be performed and I prefer to conduct that exercise without any preconception as to the result.

The Balance:

67. What are the rights and interests that I accept on the facts and that are accordingly engaged?

1. Having regard to Articles 6 and 8, the interests of a child will always be the major or at least a very important factor sufficient to justify a curtain of privacy or anonymity to protect the child thereby ensuring that the court’s primary object is satisfied, which is to secure that justice is done;

2. When the protected child achieves adulthood and is not incompetent he or she is entitled to decide what is in his or her own interest;

3. As adults, the former wards seek to assert their rights under Articles 8 and 10 to tell their story;

4. The BBC assert the rights of the media and others to receive from the former wards the information about the proceedings and to broadcast that story unless there is a pressing social need convincingly established for a restraint upon their Article 10 rights;

5. X and Y seek to assert their Article 8 rights to preserve the confidentiality of their identity and thereby protect their professional and family relationships;

6. There is a public interest in the confidentiality and privacy of family proceedings so as to encourage witnesses to participate and be frank and thereby to assist the court to achieve its primary object but there can be no expectation that that confidentiality will remain in all circumstances or for all time;

7. There is no necessary confidentiality in the identities of X and Y as witnesses. Where anonymity is granted in order to protect a child, that anonymity will not be necessary when the purpose of the proceedings is achieved unless there is a separate legitimate aim and lawful reason for its imposition;

8. There is a public interest in promoting the administration of justice in maintaining the authority of the judiciary and the confidence of the public in the family courts by open and public debate in the media;

9. The subject matter of the proceedings was of high public interest and remains so;

10. That high interest will not be reflected by a requirement that a published analysis be presented in a disembodied form so that it is less cogent or newsworthy;

68. In fairness to X and Y, it is necessary to examine in a little more detail the effect that they assert will be the consequence of the interference with their Article 8 rights by any publication of their identities. It should be noted that the arguments are and necessarily have to be presented as risks rather than facts to be found i.e. they are assertions which I have had to assess against a factual background that is not disputed by cross examination. It is said that:

1. Their career prospects including any academic studies will be prejudiced: there is a slight possibility of this but they have not been to date despite the fact that their employers have been aware of their involvement in this case as the anonymous social workers criticized in judgment by Douglas Brown J.;

2. There will be prejudice to their professional standing within the agencies for whom they now work, among colleagues, clients and with other agencies: this is a possibility with implications for the proper workings of child protection processes, but the court must be hesitant to protect someone’s identity so as to prevent justified public comment in the media of criticisms made in an open court judgment. Further, there is little or nothing to support the assertion that the activities of the agencies for whom X and Y now work will be damaged and even less that the interests of any vulnerable client would be prejudiced;

3. There will be harassment and intrusion from the activities of the media and worse from persons whose activities may be threatening: again this is possible in that it happened in 1991. Pressure groups can utilise information of this kind to great personal and professional detriment and their activities can be pursued almost unchecked. The actual impact on individuals can be much greater than the theoretical balance might suggest. The contrary argument is that with the passage of time there will be less intrusive interest and that in any event improper or illegal activity can be remedied or protected against without recourse to Article 10 restrictions;

4. There will be a prejudicial effect upon X and Y’s family: again that is a possible but certainly not a necessary consequence of publication. In any event the BBC offers and guarantees to protect from disclosure the names of family members, their whereabouts and employments. If and in so far as it is asserted that other media organizations will be less responsible in their reporting that can be protected against by a much narrower and proportionate restraint than that asked for;

5. There will be an unfair or inaccurate portrayal of X and Y and their respective roles: there is no evidence that this will happen and it is a matter for X and Y whether they take part in the public debate that they support, but any restraint that tends to make the documentary one sided will only hinder fair and accurate reporting by depriving the programme makers of part of the context.

69. There is no longer any interest of a particular child or children generally in retaining the anonymity of X and Y. The justification for the original anonymity ruling no longer exists.

70. The evidence served in support of the applications of the local authority and X and Y does not in my judgment convincingly establish a pressing social need for the restraint asked for. That restraint would in my judgement be a disproportionate interference with the Article 10 right. In the short hand, it does not establish an exceptional case for an interference with Article 10. Publication of the identities of X and Y will be an interference with X and Y’s Article 8 rights but one that is in pursuit of a legitimate aim, namely informed and open discussion in the media of the public interest issues relating to the proceedings and family proceedings generally. In my judgment that interference would be proportionate.

71. The Article 10 rights of the BBC and the former wards, and the public interest, reinforced by Article 6, in enabling public scrutiny of court proceedings and family justice, should on the facts of this case prevail over the Article 8 rights of the applicants.

72. Accordingly, I dismiss the applications of the local authority and X and Y for an injunction to restrain the BBC from publication of the identities of X and Y. I will hear further submissions upon whether there should be any relief to protect X and Y in the limited manner suggested above, namely to reflect the guarantees offered by the BBC.

The Effect of Delay on X and Y:

73. An issue of principle was raised on behalf of X and Y that their reasonable expectation of privacy cannot now be overturned without significant prejudice to them to the extent that so long after the original balance was conducted by Douglas Brown J. they cannot now get a fair hearing. It is said that this court cannot do justice to the balance because of the delay since the original hearing so that these proceedings are unfair: see H v. France (1989) 12 EHRR 74 at paragraph [58].

74. It is true that in 1991 X and Y were confronted with a difficult case in a markedly different professional environment to today. In 1991 the court’s judgment was that the interests of the children demanded that X and Y’s identity be withheld, and X and Y now say that that deprived them of the protection of explaining themselves in public. Whether they would have chosen to be named then had they been given a choice is impossible to know but it is true that the passage of time has allowed them to build careers and to pursue their professional and personal lives.

75. A balance was struck in 1991 and this court has been vigilant not to try and re-cast that balance in order to make its decision on these applications, it has simply relied upon the words used by the learned judge. Further, and as I have observed, that balance does not on the facts of this case persist in perpetuity. There is a separate balance to be conducted today.

76. There is in my judgement no delay in the determination of the civil rights and obligations of X and Y. There were separate balances to be performed then and now and the passage of time is not accurately characterised as delay. There is no procedural unfairness in the hearing of the applications before this court and there has been no difficulty, asserted or actual, in receiving evidence and argument and conducting the balance. If anything, the preliminary point goes to the existence and strength of the evidence that X and Y have relied upon in support of their argument that a) they have Article 8 rights to respect for their privacy and b) those rights have been breached in ways that are disproportionate. I have taken account of that evidence and the arguments in the balance I have undertaken.

Index of Newspaper and Journal articles on this blog [1]

Index of Court Appeals on this blog [2]

Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. These links are generally UK based.

  • The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers.
  • National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups.
  • One in Four [C]
  • Havoca [D].
  • Useful post on Triggers [E]  from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog.
  • Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G]  and Meditation [H] may be useful.
  • Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma  [J]
  • Survivors UK for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men [K]
  • Voicing CSA group [L] helps arrange survivors meetings in your area
  • A Prescription for me blog Various emotional support links [M]
  • ShatterBoys -“Male Survivors Of Childhood Sexual Abuse Inspiring change, Through Shared Experience Whilst Building Connections…Together We Can Heal” [N]

Links

[1] 2017 Jun 16 Cathy Fox Blog Two articles on “Ritual Abuse” by Richard Scorer  https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/06/16/two-articles-on-ritual-abuse-by-richard-scorer/

Posted in BBC, cathy fox blog, Child Abuse, Child sexual abuse, Falsely accused, set up, framed, Lancashire, Manchester, North West, Ritual abuse, Rochdale | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

British Intelligence bought information about US Child Abusers

Quality independent media site “Disobedient Media” has received information in response to their Freedom of Information request.

102 pages from the New York State Select Committee On Crime from 1982 have been released [2]

The evidence was given to the New York State Select Committee on Crime, its causes, control and effect on society, in the matter of  “A Public Hearing to consider the Boy Prostitution and Pornography”

Senators Ralph Marino, Abraham Bernstein, Howard Babbush, Owen Johnson, as well as Jeremiah McKenna and Lilli Scott were on the Committee.

Witnesses describe children, probably way in excess of 400, being trafficked round a circuit which encompassed Houston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, New Orleans, New York, D.C., and Florida, spending a few weeks in each location.

The circuit included bars, burlesque houses, pornographic movie joints where abusers rang up between cities to arrange a child and paid by credit card. This was linked to organised crime or Mafia. One prominent figure mentioned  in connection with pornography was Michael Zaffarano.

Detectives from Washington DC, Carl Shoffler and Anne Fisher gave evidence and described the network. However the part I will concentrate on for this post is evidence given by Dale Smith. He was an investigator for the Select Committee on Crime and research analyst in 1978 and 1979 investigating juvenile prostitution and pornography in New York [p44]

Smith states that there were two 2 male “call service operations” in Washington, called Friendly Models and Stables. Call Service Operations is the euphemistic term they use to describe prostitution arranged over the phone. The prostitution of children was mixed in with this.

Stables was a male homosexual call service linked to another locally and two in New York. Arlington Police raided Friendly Models and obtained a warrant for the search and arrest of Stables operation [p56].

Robert Koehler was an accountant of several call service operations in Washington. Koehler said that details of sexual proclivities of abusers were sold to agents of foreign Intelligence [p58]

Johnathan Christopher Reynolds III, call service operator of Brians Boys and Fantasies Unlimited in Alexandria, Virginia. He admitted that information was sold to British and Israeli Intelligence [p59]

 “A Public Hearing to consider the Boy Prostitution and Pornography” Report page 59

So British intelligence, presumably MI6, knew of the sexual abuse of children, of the prostitution of children and did nothing to help. In fact, the opposite. They took advantage of children’s suffering and bought information about the sexual habits of the abusers.

Of course that is exactly what their colleagues in the Security services do in the UK. They are steeped in this aberrant behaviour which they see as normal or convince themselves it is somehow in the national interest or or national security, both terms used to obfuscate. Sickos.

They obtain the abusers information, not to bring them to justice, but to control, by blackmail, the child abusers who are often in powerful positions. Blackmail is just another crime to add to the intelligence services long list.

The children and the people that the intelligence services are supposed to protect are the very people they abuse. We get abused and left with child abusers as politicians in power. The intelligence services, stuffed full of people with abnormal, psychopathic behaviours however are realistically immune from prosecution and the law due to inadequate safeguards over the behaviour of intelligence services.

If the security services are not actually running the child abuse networks, then they are neck deep in them.

It was noted in this US Report that the “law appears to have had little effect in controlling the traffic in child flesh”. Paul Abrams, juvenile service call operator pleaded guilty to a felony charge of prostitution and received probation. Justice system appeared disinterested. That I would venture was because the judges are subjected to the same blackmail by the recidivist “intelligence” agencies.

This situation outlined in the report in 1980 has “developed” in the US until there is now a whole criminal swamp comprising the deep state, politicians and organised crime. They run ratlines of sex trafficking, child trafficking, legal drugs, illegal drugs, organ harvesting, money, weapons, oil, information and anything they can make a commodity. See #AwanBrothers

Democracy is an illusion.

The UK is not far behind. In UK Swamp plc are the deep state, intelligence agencies, banks especially HSBC,  police, judges, politicians. Symptoms are weapons sales to terrorists, prostitution and rape of children, corruption, two faced politicians who continue to harm the people they are supposed to represent.

The question is what are we going to do about it and when?

 

The full article from Disobedient media follows.

2017 Jun 16 Disobedient Media Disobedient Media Releases FOIA On East Coast Trafficking Networks [1] 

Disobedient Media today releases 102 pages from the New York State Select Committee On Crime. The document describes an investigation into child pornography and human trafficking by two detectives from the Washington D.C. Metropolitan Police. The findings were presented to officials on July 26, 1982.

Detectives found that organized crime did play a role in the distribution of child pornography, but that the day-to-day activity in regards to child prostitution appeared to be run by a group of collectors who would, “trade material and trade male prostitutes back and forth.” The investigation revealed that young male and female minors were being transported between California and D.C. along a route known as the “California Connection.” The route was part of a circuit which encompassed Houston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, New Orleans, New York, D.C., and Florida. According to detectives, clients could call a phone number in Houston from Washington and have a young boy delivered directly to their location. These purchases were incredibly streamlined and could even be made with credit cards which were charged to front companies under various guises such as photography studios, book stores, models, and model agencies.

Minors were also prostituted out of bars. In some cases, there would be as many as 50 to 75 minors at a single bar. Detectives found that minors were from different sections of the country and were generally runaways, some leaving from various organizations they had been placed into by the state. The investigation also noted that the younger children would be placed on narcotics in order to keep them under control, and were told not to talk to the police, and that if they did, they would receive bodily harm or be killed.

One of the key figures in the investigation was William Oates, who ran pornographic film and burlesque houses out of D.C., Pittsburgh, and New York which catered to male homosexual clientele and had live stage performances by dancers who doubled as prostitutes. Another subject of the investigation was Paul Abrams, who ran a call service out of New York, which included male prostitutes and children. Abrams was later arrested and pled guilty to prostitution, but received only probation for his involvement in the felony offense.

Detectives also stated that these call services would supplement their income by selling information on the sexual proclivities of their clients to agents of British, Israeli, and Soviet intelligence services. Intelligence agencies have a documented history of seeking sexual blackmail to exert control over public figures and government assets.

According to investigators, anti-human trafficking efforts were hampered by lack of funding and almost no support from the federal government. Additionally, trafficking victims would often be unwilling to return home and face judgmental scrutiny from their local communities.

The investigation’s content sheds new light on the nexus between human trafficking, organized crime and government agencies.

The document can be found in a searchable format here.

Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. These links are generally UK based.

  • The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers.
  • National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups.
  • One in Four [C]
  • Havoca [D].
  • Useful post on Triggers [E]  from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog.
  • Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G]  and Meditation [H] may be useful.
  • Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma  [J]
  • Survivors UK for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men [K]
  • Voicing CSA group [L] helps arrange survivors meetings in your area
  • A Prescription for me blog Various emotional support links [M]
  • ShatterBoys -“Male Survivors Of Childhood Sexual Abuse Inspiring change, Through Shared Experience Whilst Building Connections…Together We Can Heal” [N]

Links

[1] 2017 Jun 16 Disobedient Media Disobedient Media Releases FOIA On East Coast Trafficking Networks http://disobedientmedia.com/2017/06/disobedient-media-releases-foia-on-east-coast-trafficking-networks/

[2] Disobedient Media FOI release  http://live.disobedientmedia.com/documents/ny-sex-trafficking.pdf

[3] http://thegoldwater.com/news/3842-Nationwide-Child-Sex-Trafficking-FOIA-Exposed

Other notes

Smith assisted NYPD in arrest of juvenile call service operator called Paul Abrams. He pleaded guilty to a felony charge of prostitution and received probation.

1982 updates bar on upper EastSide called Dallas 53rd St near 2nd Avenue, and Follies Theatre 48th West side near Minnesota Strip, live sex shows with underage kids

owner William Oates in Pittsburgh also had Best of Both Worlds

Posted in #OpDeathEaters, cathy fox blog, Child Abuse, Child sexual abuse, Child trafficking, Controlling Prostitution, Criminal Cabal of People in Power, Trafficking, US of America Child Abuse | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Two articles on “Ritual Abuse” by Richard Scorer

This blog has always tackled cases alleging ritual sexual abuse, see ritual abuse category [14] This has included in UK, several court appeals and newspaper articles on Broxtowe and Esther W’s book about the Orkney abuse [14]

Whilst ritual abuse undoubtedly exists, equally it must be acknowledged some alleged cases prove not to be so.  A few hours of research does not mean a definitive answer but claims of Rochdale 1990 being of satanic abuse appear to be misplaced. The more information out in the public arena, the better (an area IICSA is conspicuously failing on).

My thanks to Richard Scorer allowing me to publish these two articles authored by him.   The first is relevant to what is known as the Rochdale “satanic abuse” case of 1990.

To put that in context, I will describe some background.

Wikipedia states

“In 1990 there was a case in Rochdale which around twenty children were removed from their homes by social services who alleged the existence of SRA after discovering ‘Satanic indicators’. No evidence was found of Satanic apparatus, and charges were dismissed when a court ruled the allegations were untrue. The children who were removed from their homes sued the city council in 2006 for compensation and an apology” [8]

I have not seen any of the 1990 news coverage apart from these small clippings on the SAFF website  [7]

A 7 year old boy was taken into care in Feb 1990, after he told social workers that he had been dreaming of ghosts. 20 or 21 children were taken from their parents in May 1990 [9].

I am not too sure what happened but I think there was an investigation for a few months. Wardship proceedings went to court in 1991 but the judge rejected the evidence and said proper assessments had not been done.

The Director of Social Services Gordon Littlemore resigned and I presume by then some of the  children were caught up in the child care system.  Children were relocated away from their parents from between 3 months and 10 years.

Some of the children, having grown up, had already contacted solicitors. Richard Scorer was a partner with Pannone and Partners by the time of his first article in July 2004, he was acting on behalf of 12 children who claimed the local council had caused psychological damage to the children. As they owed the children a duty of care they claimed the local authority were negligent in doing so.

 2004 July Local Authority Negligence: Claims for damages arising from the Rochdale “Satanic Abuse” Cases by Richard Scorer. [1a]

 

There was still an injunction however that needed to be overcome before the children could speak out about the case [13]

The injunction was overturned [see 2017 Jun 18 BBC v Rochdale Borough Council High Court 24 Nov 2005 [16] ] and on 11 January 2006 BBC 1 aired a programme When Satan came to Town: The Real Story. [3] [I cannot find a copy of the programme- if anyone knows of one, please write in comments]

This inevitably led to much publicity.

  • 2006 Jan 9 BBC When Satan came to town [4] 
  • 2006 Jan 11 BBC Lost years of ‘satanic panic’ children [2]
  • 2006 Jan 12 Guardian ‘Satanic abuse’ case families sue council for negligence [9]
  • 2006 Jan 20 Community Care TV REVIEW – When Satan Came to Town [6]
  • Other links are at the end of article

Rochdale Council  settled the claims out of court in or around 2007.

The second article that Richard has kindly sent me is 2016 Oct Richard Scorer Child Abuse linked to Accusations of Possession and Witchcraft

This is relevant to Victoria Climbie, [see Victoria Climbie Report [15]]  and cases involving “witchcraft” and cultural cases of evil possession.

Richard Scorer is now Head of Abuse Law at Slater Gordon UK. Twitter @Richard_Scorer

Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. These links are generally UK based.

  • The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers.
  • National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups.
  • One in Four [C]
  • Havoca [D].
  • Useful post on Triggers [E]  from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog.
  • Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G]  and Meditation [H] may be useful.
  • Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma  [J]
  • Survivors UK for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men [K]
  • Voicing CSA group [L] helps arrange survivors meetings in your area
  • A Prescription for me blog Various emotional support links [M]
  • ShatterBoys -“Male Survivors Of Childhood Sexual Abuse Inspiring change, Through Shared Experience Whilst Building Connections…Together We Can Heal” [N]

Links

[1a] 2004 July ChildRight (published by the Children’s Legal Centre at the University of Essex)  Local Authority Negligence: Claims for damages arising from the Rochdale “Satanic Abuse” Cases by Richard Scorer.

[1b] 2006 Oct Richard Scorer ChildRight (published by the Children’s Legal Centre at the University of Essex) Child Abuse linked to Accusations of Possession and Witchcraft https://cathyfox.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/scanned-from-a-slater-and-gordon-xerox-mfd-2-searchable.pdf

[2] 2006 Jan 11 BBC Lost years of ‘satanic panic’ children http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/real_story/4602302.stm

[3] 2006 Jan 11 BBC When Satan came to Town: The Real Story – BBC ONE on Wednesday 11 January at 2100 GMT  Link?

[4] 2006 Jan 9 BBC When Satan came to town http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/real_story/4595158.stm

[5] 2006 Invision Board When Satan came to town Discussion Board http://z14.invisionfree.com/Unity_Injustice/index.php?showtopic=308

[6] 2006 Jan 20 Community Care TV REVIEW – When Satan Came to Town http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2006/01/20/tv-review-when-satan-came-to-town/

[7] 1990 Sept SAFF ROCHDALE CASE BLUNDERS EXPLODE SATANIC ABUSE MYTH http://saff.nfshost.com/rochdale.htm

[8] Archived 2016 Jun 17 Wikipedia List of satanic ritual abuse allegations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_satanic_ritual_abuse_allegations#Rochdale archive http://archive.is/SvD16

[9] 2006 Jan 12 Guardian ‘Satanic abuse’ case families sue council for negligence https://www.theguardian.com/society/2006/jan/12/childrensservices.uknews

[10] c2005  Religious Tolerance ROCHDALE, UK SATANIC RITUAL ABUSE CASE http://www.religioustolerance.org/ra_roch.htm

[11]   2006 Jan 13 Manchester Evening News Satanic abuse scandal kids to sue http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/satanic-abuse-scandal-kids-to-sue-1016012

[12] 2006 Diane Vera The Langley estate / Rochdale Council case (1990) http://theisticsatanism.com/asp/old/Rochdale.html

[13] 2006 Jan 12 religion News blog BBC wins removed children ruling http://www.religionnewsblog.com/13246/BBC-wins-removed-children-ruling

[14] Cathy Fox Blog Ritual Abuse category https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/category/ritual-abuse/page/3/

[15] Victoria Climbie Report of Serious Case Review https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmhealth/570/570.pdf

[16] 2017 Jun 18 BBC v Rochdale Borough Council High Court 24 Nov 2005 https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/06/18/bbc-v-rochdale-borough-council-high-court-24-nov-2005/

Posted in cathy fox blog, Cheshire, Child Abuse, Child sexual abuse, London, Manchester, Ritual abuse, Rochdale | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments

GRENFELL TOWER FIRE

Heartfelt sympathy to all victims and their families. No one in authority can say they were not warned. Below is the post from Greenfell Action Group. We must learn all the lessons from this tragedy, and implement them.

Grenfell Action Group

Watching breaking news about the Grenfell Tower fire catastrophe. Too soon (5am) to even guess at numbers of casualties and fatalities. Our heartfelt and sincere condolences to all who have perished, to the injured, to those who are bereaved or are still searching for missing loved ones.

Regular readers of this blog will know that we have posted numerous warnings in recent years about the very poor fire safety standards at Grenfell Tower and elsewhere in RBKC.

ALL OUR WARNINGS FELL ON DEAF EARS and we predicted that a catastrophe like this was inevitable and just a matter of time. Below is a list of links to previous blogs we posted on this site trying to warn the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, who own this property, and the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation who supposedly manage all social housing in RBKC on the Council’s behalf:

https://grenfellactiongroup.wordpress.com/2013/01/28/fire-safety-scandal-at-lancaster-west/

https://grenfellactiongroup.wordpress.com/2016/11/20/kctmo-playing-with-fire/

View original post 8 more words

Posted in Child Abuse | 1 Comment

Quest for Justice for Survivors from Bethany Homes, Ireland

Derek Leinster has done a massive amount to bring attention to the Bethany Homes.

The problem he has had is that Bethany Homes was Protestant mother and baby home in a Catholic Country with a Government and Church which disgracefully wanted to distance themselves from almost any responsibility whatsoever.

The 2015 Baby & Mother Commission is the first time that Protestants will have been included in any of the Irish State Inquiry’s, in the history of the state. All the 6 state Inquiries since 1970 included only Catholic Homes and Institutions.

Derek has written two books on his childhood to bring attention to the plight of survivors in  Bethany Homes

2005 Derek Leinster  Hannah’s Shame: True Life Story [4] 

2008 Derek Leinster – Destiny Unknown [3]

The government has always tried to say that the Bethany Home was a private B & M home and did not come under the state redress scheme. The redress scheme was originally designed to compensate victims with least fuss.

Various excuses have been made. The said there were no records – this was proved wrong It took Derek 14 years to get his records. They said it was not regulated by the state  – this was proved wrong, they said it was a mother and baby home and not covered yet other mother and baby homes were included under the redress scheme.

The difference was the Indemnity Agreement –  18 religious orders paid into the redress scheme and were given indemnity, with the government picking up all future abuse claims – but full details about the amounts paid in and out are opaque.  This scheme seems to be in favour of the religious institutions and what happened to the children and institutions who did not have a religious lobby?

The survivors have had to fight every step of the way after suffering abuse whilst under the care of the state. Shameful. There was neglect and the state knew about it.

This programme from RTE outlined the problems. HT to D from Operation Greenlight database [6] for video

2013 May 13 Broadcast RTE News Prime Time Needleblog Video Channel RTE Bethany – The home the State forgot [2] 

 

In 2016 Derek Leinster was forced to go to the European Court of Human Rights, 23 years after he first started campaigning for recognition. As he has not been able to get the protection of the Irish Courts, he hopes EHCR will set out where the Irish State is wrong. The case is still ongoing.

Bethany Homes also exported children to Fegans Homes for boys. One was in England at Stony Stratford in Buckinghamshire, now near Milton Keynes, which further exported the children to work on farms in Canada. Child migration so that the children could be used as slave labour.

227 children and babies from Bethany Home in unmarked pauper graves in Mount Jemore whose lives were cut short.

Derek also passed on these personal records he has now managed to obtain, including finding out he was illegally adopted [See Appendix 1]

There are also emails, which show how reluctant the authorities were to release anything [see Appendix 3] [HT to Daedulus for redaction]

My apologies that for several reasons the article does not do proper justice to how hard Derek has worked to expose the abuse at Bethany Homes, how bad the abuse was and the subsequent unfairness that they faced in trying to bring attention to the abuse. However it was better to get something published than wait longer.

Appendix 1

Appendix 2

Appendix 3

er

  hg

  

Appendix 4

The Bethany Home  Case

  1 start in 1993  & set  this  Group up  19 88  The Bethany Survivors Group 98
We are  the old’s  & are the only  one to have the Foi Recourds  & not  just  hear say   as Chruch of Ireland   we  are   just 1%   & what has happen  to   us over the last  17 years  could not happen in any  State  in UK  or European  Country
Irish Minister For Education was also  part of the 2002 Redress  ,  but  they never understood , the 2002 Redress Act 4 1. or any of the the 1908 Act’s that was  for the protection of  , Children  or there  act’s & Just went along with  what even a  Snr  Civil Servants put to them & was not strong enough   to do the right thing  , it  was no good    , one saying that there home  had  come under  the  1908 act. , we had to prove it  ,  not  with hear say , but with the Foi Doc.s
         The State set up  the 1999  Commission
          The  State up the    2002  Act 4  1, Redress
        The Irish State has had 6 Enquiry  since 19 70   , But they only  cover Catholic Home’s & Institution
         The 2015  Baby & Mother Commission is the  first  time  that Protestant  will have  been included in  any   of the Irish State  enquiry ‘s , in the history of the  State
it was a  fast track way to give justice to survivors that going to court could not get
 A  Home or Institution a to get on the list of , Homes it would have to come under  , A State  Inspection  A Children  Home  A Place Of Education  Or  Be Regulated   By the State
The Bethany  Home  did ,
New  Minister’s &  new  groups &  new  Survivors  , never  got up to speed on this they  should
    No   Survivors  can  win this in any ,  Court   unless   they come under  the 2002 redress
But   when  you have been on this   for over 17  years   you  get it &  now     the  , Legal teams  are getting it
           I have all way’s   just want   the  2002 redress  act,  that was given  to all of the others  130 odd homes & institution  that  got it , with out  having the  right  paper work
         But Snr  Civil Servants have all ways  said that there was  no records , they can not say that any more as i have   got the right  paper work , & that  is what make’s the   Protestant Bethany Home  Differenly  , it is  not just  hear say ,
   We only want what  others  have got  with out proof  that  we have got & not just  hear say
   227 Baby & Chrildren   in Un Mark Paupe Graves in Mount Jemore
 The Government has all way’s  want   to ,call the Bethany Home , a  B& M. Home  & have all way’s  said  that it was a  Privately run   Protestant  home & did not come  under the State ,
it took me  14 years  to get the records that they said   did not exist  , that prove   that the Bethany Home was a Maternity  Hop’s  Baby & Mother Home   a Chrildren  Home A Jail  a   Place of Detention  for people under 17 years .   No Home that  went on the list  of homes for Redress in 2002  was  covered    by all of  1908 act as the Bethany Home was. It wasnt about the name of a home it was always about what was set out by the government. The criteria to qualify to be on the list of homes the home had to be educational, a place of looking after children,or inspected by the state , under the 1908 act or regulated by the state.  the Protestant Bethany  was
We now have documents that the State said didn’t exist, to  qualify for the 2002 Redress, state inspections were carried out, and also for nursed out children came under the state inspection. It was also regulated by the state and  i was one of them ,  we have sent  the State the documents over the years. They may tell you it was not to do with being Catholic but you can see Mary Lou (sinn Fein TD) making historical speeches in the Dail, that it was sectarian. Joe Costell (TD for Labour) who also was on our  case and who was on it since 2002 and a few others who all knew that it was outrageous that the Bethany Home was not included.
There is no good the Government saying it wasn’t to do with being Protestant, there was no home went on the Redress who was as qualified to go on as the Bethany Home. You would have a job to find 3 TD’s in the Dail who were Protestants. No minority group of less than 1% of the population could be treated like the Bethany Home has been treated in the last 17years, in any country in Europe or UK. That is why a Solicitor and 2 Barristers have made a submission on my behalf to take my case to the ECHR, so the Government can say what it wants and they can call the Bethany Home what they want, but what they cannot do anymore say there were no records, and cannot say they didn’t treat the Bethany Home differently as i have the documents to prove what i am saying. No one must forget here is that the 2002 Redress act 4.1 is what the state set out for all homes and institutions had to comply with, there are a good many homes that didn’t, but ours did thats what the argument is.  The Church of Ireland also  can not say it is  not  me Gov there The Church of Ireland  Archbishop of Dublin   open  it  in  1922 & there  Clergy ,  was on  the  committee that ran the  it ,   There  Archbishop also  done a   deal with  the then   Minister   Boland in 19 45    to  have  the Bethany Home   a Detention  centre   for  people unded 17   years , but the same people are now saying now the Bethany Home is just a name , Sorry to  people like us it is a lot  more , & when  you see the  Memorial  for  227  Chrildren  in  un mark pauper  graves

Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. These links are generally UK based.

  • The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers.
  • National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups.
  • One in Four [C]
  • Havoca [D].
  • Useful post on Triggers [E]  from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog.
  • Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G]  and Meditation [H] may be useful.
  • Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma  [J]
  • Survivors UK for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men [K]
  • Voicing CSA group [L] helps arrange survivors meetings in your area
  • A Prescription for me blog Various emotional support links [M]
  • ShatterBoys -“Male Survivors Of Childhood Sexual Abuse Inspiring change, Through Shared Experience Whilst Building Connections…Together We Can Heal” [N]

Links

[1] 2016 Aug 1 Irish Journal  Bethany Home survivor takes first step in bringing case to human rights court http://www.thejournal.ie/bethany-home-court-of-human-rights-2900109-Aug2016/

[2] 2013 May 13 Broadcast RTE News Prime Time
Needleblog Video Channel RTE Bethany – The home the State forgot https://youtu.be/mLvsWFJdy0g

[3] 2008 Dec 1 Amazon Derek Leinster – Destiny Unknown Paperback – 1 Dec 2008 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Destiny-Derek-Leinster/dp/0955145716/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1496260156&sr=8-1&keywords=derek+leinster

[4] 2005 Sep 30 Amazon Derek Leinster  Hannah’s Shame: True Life Story Paperback – 30 Sep 2005 https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/cka/Hannahs-Shame-True-Life-Story-Derek-Leinster/0955145708/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1496260156&sr=8-2&keywords=derek+leinster

[5] Derek Leinster website http://www.derekleinster.com

[6] Operation Greenlight database  https://theneedleblog.wordpress.com/operation-greenlight/

Posted in cathy fox blog, Child Abuse, Child sexual abuse, Childrens home, Church abuse, Eire Ireland, Justice System | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

Andrew Ashman aka Andrearles Manashay

Andrew Ashman is a convicted sex offender [1] . He downloaded 775 images of sickening sexual images of children. He was placed on the sex offenders’ register for 10 years and banned from creating false identities and aliases as well as ever working with children. He is also a conman.

He has also been recently exposed by the Sunday Post for trolling the mother of a missing child Exposed: The ‘spiteful’ trolls aiming online abuse at distraught family of missing Corrie [9]

This post is just to alert others to him and his various pseudonyms and his partner Amy Wilson and hers. Some names he goes under are Andrew Ashman aka Drew Ashman aka Andrearles Manashay aka Dr.andrearlesmanashay

I first came across him a couple of years ago under the name Andrearles Manashay when he reposted my blogs, mainly about abuse at Forde Park if I recall correctly.

I began to be suspicious as his claims did not seem to add up. He was “making enquiries and undertaking research” and posting requests for “information in order that further data could be gathered and verified with a view to getting justice for the victims/ survivors”. He also claimed to be a qualified investigator for New Chapter Investigations.

My worry at the time, was that he was using my research to give him credibility and information to con survivors into researching their cases to rip them off. I had no idea at that stage he was a registered offender.

I asked him to stop reblogging my blogs, as, if he was running a related business he was using my blogs to make money,  and my creative commons copyright only enables them to be used to non financial gain.

I also contacted the Forde Park survivors who were aware of him, suspicious, and had reported him to police.

He was jailed for failing to tell police of his aliases in contravention of his sex offender conditions. His blog post moaning about me was his last before he got locked up [10] Bizarrely he had also complained in a blog about the survivors who posted comments about him being dodgy and to give his company a wide berth. [11]

He is out now from prison and causing trouble. His MO is to approach people in a vulnerable position eg survivors or a mother with a missing child and offer to help them for money. This is pretty sick.

If they reject him he lashes out at them on social media. His partner Amy Lou Ashman aka Litdamy aka Amy Wilson does the same.

There are a host of links below to various aliases and businesses he has, so that interested people can search though. The research was not mine and thanks to Janine Murrell for the hard work.

Paradox Investigations is another cover for him.

Links

[1] 2015 Jun 18 Devon Live http://www.devonlive.com/private-eye-jailed-using-false-hide-sleazy-past/story-26723167-detail/story.html

[2] Twitter Drew Ashman @productions512 https://twitter.com/productions512?lang=en archive http://archive.is/2Rrpp

[3] Linked In Drew Ashman https://www.linkedin.com/in/drew-ashman-6429ba75/?ppe=1

[3a] snippet in files [4] Linked In Andrearles Manashay  https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrearles-manashay-387711a5/

[5] https://512researchinvestigation.wordpress.com

[6] partner sent on saturday, even when she knew the article was coming out Amy Lou Lou Ashman SAT 16:10 Amy Lou Lou Ashman Amy i really do not know who the hell you think you are a big exposure ??? for what??? Amy Lou Lou Ashman Amy Whats the matter cat got your tongue???? Your pathetic !!! Seen by Amy Lou Lou Ashman at Saturday 16:36 SAT 18:29 You accepted their request.

[7] https://twitter.com/AAshman15 Amy Lou Ashman

[8] https://twitter.com/Drewscapegoat

[9] 2017 May 14 Sunday Post Exposed: The ‘spiteful’ trolls aiming online abuse at distraught family of missing Corrie https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/the-spiteful-trolls-aiming-online-abuse-at-distraught-family-of-missing-corrieexposed/ archive http://archive.is/5uGDj

[10] https://web.archive.org/web/20161003091840/https://andrearlesmanashay.wordpress.com/2015/03/28/cathy-fox-blogs/

[11] 2015 Mar 5 Andrearlesmanashay blog Why keep Abuse in Local Authority Establishments Hidden?? https://andrearlesmanashay.wordpress.com/category/forde-park-abuse-enquiry/

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/821849536528257025   TWITTER TWEET

SCREENSHOTS OF BEING OUTED OVER DEAKON WILKINS https://imgur.com/gallery/Fuj0f

AMY DENYING SHE IS CONNECTED TO A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE POSTED

Yes i have been in the same position even had a random newspaper article posted that I was supposedly connected to. The Mod that caused the problem for me has gone I’m pleased to say.

Theories are fine and dandy but also labouring a point that is absolutely ridiculous is pointless and the Mods ought to consider that. If everyone puts their point and their theory and we all discuss those points fairly and give reasons in a polite and adult fashion we should be OK and anyone posting vile allegations or using abusive language should be booted off at once.

I agree there is no sign of any crime having been committed that has any concrete evidence to back it up, but nonetheless there is every reason to look at everyone’s point of view because I have to say there have been some amazing points made here that I may not have considered.

Whilst fun comments are sometimes amusing these threads need to be kept fair, polite and focused IMHO

Just in case anyone is wondering I am not a weirdo, not a sock puppet and not a bot I have an opinion based on what I see here and i feel it fair that I should ask questions and make points heard as much as any other member

THE ARTICLE SHE IS ON THREAD WITH THE NEWS ARTICLE SHE IS REFERRING TO

https://www.reddit.com/r/ChasingCorrieMckeague/comments/5u2xfc/private_investigator/?st=izcu1zb5&sh=93449320

PROOF AMY LOU ASHMAN IS LITDAMY 

http://imgur.com/a/Kogq6    https://www.reddit.com/r/ChasingCorrieMckeague/comments/5tf1jg/a_new_blog_opinion_only/?st=izcu8k6s&sh=7ada8538

PROOF AMY/LITDAMY IS ENGAGED TO ANDREW CHARLES ASHMAN

http://imgur.com/a/KnGXd

ANDREW CHARLES ASHMAN/DREWASHMAN/ANDREARLESMANASHAY

http://www.northdevonjournal.co.uk/private-investigator-jailed-creating-false/story-26728018-detail/story.html

SOME OF THEIR FAKE BLOGS/SITES/ETC

https://twitter.com/NewchapterEXP

https://newchapterinvestigations.wordpress.com/2015/04/28/determined-to-expose-the-truth-ongoing-enquiries/

https://twitter.com/ParadoxUK14

https://paradoxmediaandfilmproductionuk.wordpress.com/

http://imgur.com/a/9gZ8V

https://www.linkedin.com/in/drew-ashman-6429ba75/

https://twitter.com/productions512

[[[ AN ARCHIVE OF AMYS COMMENTS INCASE SHE DELETES THEM ]]

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
https://imgur.com/gallery/Fuj0f SCREENSHOT OF HOW SHE LIED ABOUT DEAKON WILKINS CASE
 
 
 

[[[ ANDREW ASHMAN ALIASES  ]]]

https://twitter.com/Drewscapegoat    ( THIS IS THE MOST RECENT ONE , AND ALSO USED DAILY )

https://theukdatabase.com/2015/06/18/andrew-ashman-paignton/

http://www.agentsfortruth.co.uk/choosing-the-right-private-investigator/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/drew-ashman-6429ba75/

https://twitter.com/productions512 ( ANOTHER LAST NAME FOR AMY , BUT POSSIBLE TYPO ) (ALSO SARAH PAYNES MOTHER IS A FOLLOWER , NO DOUBT UNAWARE OF WHO HE IS )

https://andrearlesmanashay.wordpress.com/

andrearlesmanashayphd@gmail.com ( PHD ?? )

https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrearles-manashay-387711a5/ ( amanda is amy )
*past employment , secret services . { 2007 / 2011 }*
*masters degree in criminology MA 1:1 with honours*

thelastdetective@unseen.is

drewcproducer67@hushmail.me

newchapterinvestigations@outlook.com
Dr.andrearlesmanashay@europemail.com

> [[[AMY’S ALIASES ]]]

amanda.ameliamanashay@consultant.com

THIS IS THE MOST RECENT IVE FOUND OF AMY . nothing said about her qualifications in criminology}https://www.etsy.com/uk/people/Creationsbymoonchild

https://www.linkedin.com/in/amy-lou-ashman-6b297a129/ ( different job and qualifications again )

https://twitter.com/Amy_Ashman14

http://www.twiit.club/u/aashman15   {JUST ANOTHER TWITTER , BUT WITH A BETTER LAYOUT}

https://twitter.com/ParadoxUK14

https://www.linkedin.com/in/amy-lou-wilson-53923293/

[[ FAKE INVESTIGATIONS / COMPANYS /BLOGS ]]

This is just a link to a screenshot, that someone had uploaded to her blog. That’s all it i could find on it, but i thought I would add it

http://mother-4-justice.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/suspect }}

https://paradoxmediaandfilmproductionuk.wordpress.com/

https://512researchinvestigation.wordpress.com/

https://512researchinvestigation.wordpress.com/2014/01/21/miscarriages-of-justices-must-cease/

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/new-chapter-investigations-uk-andrearles-manashay-5965967761862598657

https://twitter.com/newchapterexp?lang=en-gb

https://www.facebook.com/groups/paganwiccanpeace/permalink/663588403722435/

https://www.facebook.com/pg/MoonwolfJoinery/about/?ref=page_internal (this one im not sure about , its them but i have a feeling its fake with pictures they find on the internet 
 
http://www.freeindex.co.uk/searchresults.htm?k=moonwolf { 3 different companys but all the same people )
 
 

4 } Link to facebook pages they ran at some point https://www.facebook.com/groups/antibullyindocumentary/

                                                                                 https://www.facebook.com/groups/coldunsolvedcriminalcasereviews/
 
   6 } just a couple of unneeded opinions  https://twitter.com/AAshman15/status/825751242118926336 
 
                                                                 https://twitter.com/Drewscapegoat/status/815544993058344960  
 
 
   7] screenshots of messages i had with her on facebook under a fake profile i set up 
                                                                                                            http://imgur.com/yJdRMZn
                                                                                                                                       http://imgur.com/a/waF0E
                                                                                                                                       http://imgur.com/a/JHufb

HIS ANDREARLES MANASHAY, LINKEDIN PROFILE, WHO CLAIMS TO WORK WITH DREW ASH/ASHMAN

HE CLAIMS TO OF WORKED FOR THE SECRET SERVICE ON THIS PROFILE AND THE MET
 
 
more links
 
HE THEN HAS LISTED MERLIN INVESTIGATIONS, AS PREVIOUS EMPLOYMENT. HE WAS ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR TO A FAYE DIAL 

Assistant Consultant

Company NameMerlin Investigations

Dates EmployedSep 2001 – May 2005

Employment Duration3 yrs 9 mos

Associate Director to Faye Dial mainly in a researcher capacity, though spent a good few evenings undertaking covert surveillance with Faye or our colleague Kirsty. I came to learn a great deal about the legal process, courts, and how to handle members of the public from all walks of life

THE BOTTOM 2 LINKS ARE SOMEONE WHO I THINK HE COULD POSSIBLY BE, BUT IVE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO PROVE IT, BUT I CONNECTED THEM TO CRISTOBELL BLOGGER. ID ALREADY THOUGHT THAT THEY WERE HIM WHEN THIS COMMENT WAS POSTED BY THE SAME USER ON REDDIT. HE WAS THE 1ST TO REPLY TO HER . NOT PROOF AS SUCH, BUT IT DID CONVINCE ME A TAD MORE
 
 

 

 CORRIE MCKEAGUE VANISHED

Post  Litdamy on Tue Feb 07, 2017 12:50 am

Hey everyone I am new here and been messed around on Reddit since Nicola got a colleague on there to be an admin

I believe that he is AWOl and not dead at all, I do not believe in the April pregnancy and I have studied so many smoke screens that N and Uncle T have put up I am satisfied he is AWOL and N knows it.

Time the ppers told the truth and exposed this whole affair

Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. These links are generally UK based.

  • The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers.
  • National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups.
  • One in Four [C]
  • Havoca [D].
  • Useful post on Triggers [E]  from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog.
  • Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G]  and Meditation [H] may be useful.
  • Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma  [J]
  • Survivors UK for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men [K]
  • Voicing CSA group [L] helps arrange survivors meetings in your area
  • A Prescription for me blog Various emotional support links [M]
  • ShatterBoys -“Male Survivors Of Childhood Sexual Abuse Inspiring change, Through Shared Experience Whilst Building Connections…Together We Can Heal” [N]
Posted in cathy fox blog, Child Abuse, Child sexual abuse, Childrens home, Devon, pedophile, South West | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Peter Hofschroer, Whistleblower, Extradition Hearing RCJ 14th June

Peter Hofschroer is a whistleblower who has been denied due process to hide a crime network involving the North Yorkshire Police and York Social Services.

I have written several articles about him and the plight of whistleblowers here [1]

Supporters are meeting at 10 am on Wed 14 June at the Royal Courts of Justice

Here is a post from the Grandma Barbara website. Not all parts have copied over properly so check on that site for full working page [2]

Grandma Barbara website Alert! Whistle Blower In Danger! Boots On Ground Needed [2]

This is an URGENT APPEAL for us all to unite at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, UK, on Wednesday 14 June, 2017 to show our support for a well-loved British man, military historian and author, Peter Hofschroer.

(Court Room and time to be confirmed nearer the time. Please keep checking back.)

and keep checking the government website here:

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/court-lists/list-cause-rcj#COA-Criminal
for details and updates of the exact time time for the appeal hearing in the xxxxxxxx v Hofschroer case

 

Friends and supporters of the acclaimed author and historian and his mother, Barbara (aka Grandma B), are asked to attend his appeal against extradition to Austria. He has been unlawfully sectioned under mental health legislation in Austria by a single judge who has never met him, and WITHOUT A MEDICAL EXAMINATION. They want to incarcerate him forever in a mental institution and force him to take psychiatric drugs because he has been speaking out publicly about public corruption in York and North Yorkshire (place that he refers to as “Savile Country”), and other places. Please see details here: http://www.grandmabarbara.co.uk/
It is no surprise that North Yorkshire Police and the others have been desperate to silence him (at huge cost to the public purse).

 

THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH HIM! HE IS A BRILLIANT INTELLECTUAL!
It is important that the authorities know that the hearing is being witnessed by the public. Stop the star chambers in the UK. Stop them from taking SECRET ACTION against this wonderful kind and loving son of Barbara Hofschroer.


PLEASE HELP STOP A TERRIBLE INJUSTICE FROM TAKING PLACE!
It also is known that his beloved 87 year old, wheelchair-bound Mum is grieving for him, thanks to York Social Services and the Court of Protection. She wants desperately to be reunited with with Peter, her loving son. Please don’t let her end her days without Peter, who had been caring for her every need, 24/7, until disaster struck. She is incarcerated, against her will, in Haxby Hall, Yorkshire. She would surely enjoy cards and letters of support from you.
See the Grandma B Blog: http://www.grandmabarbara.co.uk/
Please do your utmost to get AT LEAST 700 people to Royal Courts Of Justice. Use Facebook, Twitter, and everything you can to get the word out.

TUBES

https://tfl.gov.uk/maps?Input=The+Royal+Courts+Of+Justice&InputGeolocation=51.512942%2c-0.113614

BUSES

https://tfl.gov.uk/bus/stop/490011757P/the-royal-courts-of-justice?lineId=76

MAP

 

 


He has been persecuted across three national borders.

This is serious. Peter is a BRITISH-born man who should not be extradited from his homeland, especially on trumped up ‘firearms’ charges over possession of harmless antique firearms that he used for historical re-enactment in battles.

PLEASE SHOW YOUR SUPPORT IN FULL FORCE JUNE 14, 2017
BY QUIETLY AND PEACEFULLY SITTING IN THE PUBLIC GALLERY TO WITNESS THE EVENTS.

Peter Hofschroer Historian

Peter Hofschröer is AN  historian who specialises in the Napoleonic Wars.
Written works: The Hanoverian Army of the Napoleonic Wars · Prussian Cavalry of the Napoleonic Wars (1): 1792 1807 Education: King’s College London

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Peter-Hofschr%C3%B6er/e/B001H6UMD6

The Grandma B Story.

https://player.vimeo.com/video/84524221

Sonia Poulton interviews Barbara and Peter Hofschroer on Police and Social Worker Corruption from Peter Hofschröer on Vimeo.

Barbara Hofschröer’s case is a horrifying story of how North Yorkshire Police and the City of York Council have conspired to defraud her of her house and possessions. They unlawfully evicted her from it five years ago while she has on holiday in Austria and have used Interpol to pursue her and her son Peter all over Europe.
The interview starts at 12:10, but is then delayed for technical reasons to 28:37
For more about the story go to: grandmabarbara.wordpress.com or google “The Abuse of Grandma B”

https://www.mixcloud.com/widget/iframe/?feed=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mixcloud.com%2Fandy-peacher%2Fgrandma-b-radio-interview-with-peter-hofschroer-8-8-2012%2F&hide_cover=1&light=1

 

SEE THE MAIN “GRANDMA B” SITE:  http://www.grandmabarbara.co.uk

Links

[1] CathyFox Hofschroer search https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/?s=hofschroer

[2] Grandma Barbara website Alert! Whistle Blower In Danger! Boots On Ground Needed http://www.grandmabarbara.co.uk/austria/alert-whistle-blower-danger/

Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. These links are generally UK based.

  • The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers.
  • National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups.
  • One in Four [C]
  • Havoca [D].
  • Useful post on Triggers [E]  from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog.
  • Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G]  and Meditation [H] may be useful.
  • Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma  [J]
  • Survivors UK for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men [K]
  • Voicing CSA group [L] helps arrange survivors meetings in your area
  • A Prescription for me blog Various emotional support links [M]
  • ShatterBoys -“Male Survivors Of Childhood Sexual Abuse Inspiring change, Through Shared Experience Whilst Building Connections…Together We Can Heal” [N]
Posted in cathy fox blog, Child Abuse, Falsely accused, set up, framed, Police, Yorkshire | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Medomsley – Police Incompetence or Corruption?

I requested Durham Police release some very basic information in a freedom of information request about what is going on about prosecutions for Medomsley. They refused. I therefore requested an internal review of the refusal, and I said that their refusal to publish may fuel fears that they were covering up child sexual abuse again. They said I was being “accusatory”.

Lets examine that police record to see what the facts are.

Neville Husband, one of the most brutal and prolific abusers at Medomsley was investigated by Police as far back as 1967 for a possible offence under the Obscene Publications Act 1959 and Post Office Act 1953.

The Director of Public Prosecutions instructed the Police in 1967 to investigate Husband,  for importing obscene and lewd photographs from Sweden, as is shown by this memo from the Governor of a Borstal at Portland, Dorset.

 

The Governor was HH Harrison. According to the Times 1 Feb 1967 he was to be Governor at Portland so in June 1967 he must have been relatively new in the job.

                                                            Times 1 Feb 1967

A second document, dated July 1967, reveals no further action was taken by the police and Husband was allowed to continue working with children in the prison service. (The allegations made against him in 1967 were brought up again when he was quizzed regarding sex abuse claims in 2001).

The Chronicle [13] accessed a transcript of a police interview with Husband, dated July 1967, during which he admits the pornography he imported showed images of children. An officer from Consett police station asked him: “And I understand that while you were in Portland, an investigation took place regarding you importing pornographic pictures of teenage boys, is that correct?” Husband replied: “There was, yes there was.” Seconds later, Husband, who claimed he was writing a book about homosexuality, adds: “The pornography at that time was, it was soft porn, but again I wasn’t aware that it was boys because you got sent what you got sent.” [13]

Fourteen survivors from Medomsley have said that they told the police and their complaints were ignored when they told police soon after getting out! [1] FOURTEEN – that is unconscionable institutional incompetence at the very least, whichever way anyone tries to spin it.

Neville Husband was finally brought to justice 36 years later in 2003, sentenced to several years in prison for abusing 5 victims, and he died in 2010 [23] shortly after being released. How many more victims were there?

One of those who reported abuse was Kevin Young, who said he had been ligatured and blindfolded and raped by three men. On the day of his release from Medomsley, on 17 Jun 1977, Young went to Consett Police Station and reported Husband’s abuse.

He said he showed a police officer the ligature marks on his neck, but was told it was a criminal offence to make such allegations against a prison officer. Durham police later confirmed that Young’s complaint had not been acted on. Who was that officer?

Until recently, Durham Police denied that he had made a statement on his release, but they now admit that a number of complaints were made by former inmates, “particularly in the 1970s and 1980s” [12]

Police also took no action in 1985 against Husband, even when Leslie Johnson was charged with abusing an inmate and told police Husband had ‘given him’ the boy. The boy told police that Husband had also abused him. Police took no action [12]

Johnson said “We joined the freemasons at Chopwell and got on quite well together”

The Police Officer until recently in charge of Operation Seabrook, Det Supt Paul Goundry was excoriating of the police who did not act on these complaints. He said “I have repeatedly informed media in interviews and in writing that the officers in question should hang their heads in shame…”

FOURTEEN youths reporting abuse and not only the police repeatedly refusing to do anything but also in one case stating falsely that it was an offence to report someone whilst on licence from Medomsley. That is unconscionable lie and institutional incompetence at the very least.

Five of the 14 who reported sexual abuse, reported it to Durham Police, the others are of unnamed police forces.

As over 1400 people have contacted Operation Seabrook [2] then hundreds of boys could have been saved from abuse if the police had acted upon these reports.

This utterly unacceptable and disgraceful situation is part of a pattern throughout the country – that the police failed children complaining of child sexual abuse on a huge scale. They were also part of an institutional cover up at the least and sometimes were also part of the abuse.

Durham is far from the only force who have covered up child sexual abuse – Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire, Devon and Cornwall Police, Met Police, Greater Manchester Police,  Lancashire, South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire, North Yorkshire, Warwickshire, Police Scotland, North Wales Police spring to my mind but there are many others. Obviously Police failures to investigate abuse, or react to reports of abuse, then to cover up the abuse, and also the links with Police and freemasonry and abuse needs to be investigated and written on in more detail. It should also be being investigated by IICSA.

Have Police started an investigation into who those 14 officers were who did not act on abuse reported by those fourteen survivors? Have they identified the patterns of behaviour in those fourteen instances? If not then they are failing in their duty to the public to bring criminals to justice. It is a no excuse to say it is a long time ago, especially without having started an investigation.

Det Supt Paul Goundry said “I have not instigated any inquiries to trace who these individuals reported to as there is insufficient detail to have any prospect of ID”. It is more likely that this course of action would be unpopular with the police and his colleagues. Even if the individuals could not be identified, an investigation might narrow the number of suspects and show patterns or modus operandi.

Further, the Durham Police should not investigate themselves. Police have got away for years with investigating themselves, either the same police force or a different one. This rarely works for public benefit.

Even if a police corruption investigation into themselves does reveal something due an an honest investigator who outwits the corrupt management, then the report goes missing in due course and the public never get to see it.

The inappropriately named Independent Police Complaints Committee, was recognised by a previous IPCC Commissioner Deborah Glass, several years ago as “not very effective” [24]

[24] You Tube Deborah Glass Commissioner of IPCC IPCC “not very effective” 

The IPCC  is “not very effective” partly because most of the complaints are referred back to the Professional Standards Department of the very force that is being complained about. The colleagues of the officers at fault investigate the complaint! It is designed not to be effective. The regulatory mechanism is faulty, so the barrel gets more full of rotten apples.

The “independent” part of the IPCC is just not independent enough with a large percentage of former police.

Operation Seabrook

The most recent Police investigation into Medomsley, Operation Seabrook was officially opened in Aug 2013 according to the Chronicle [13]

In 2010 John McCabe went to his local MP Michael McCann. Michael McCann Tells How Medomsley Abuse Probe Was launched [27] He told of being raped every day in Medomsley in 1983.

McCann raised it with Keir Starmer, then head of Crown Prosecution Service and also at Prime Ministers Questions, 2012 May 23 Hansard Prime Minister’s questions Michael McCann asked about Medomsley [29] He mentioned that senior figures in the establishment knew what was going on, saying that the CPS was refusing to pursue these matters and Home Office was seeking to issue compensation payments.

Prime Minister Cameron gave his usual evasive reply but did mention that the Home Affairs Committee had looked into Medomsley and made a number of recommendations – [Has anyone got a reference to Home Affairs Committee recommendations?]

McCann also mentioned Medomsley in Parliament in 2014 when May was Home Secretary, 2014 July 7 Hansard McCann re Medomsley to May  [28]

He accused the Home Office of knowing evidence but not investigating.

[Hansard may be worth further research on Medomsley, please let me know if there is anything signficant]

A Guardian article in 2012 also revealed horrendous violent abuse on Kevin Young [16]

9oo victims had been identified by Nov 2014 and approximately 70 detectives were working on the case Sky [13] .

Yet it is now June 2017, over 7 years on from John McCabe telling his MP about abuse, and 5 years on from that Guardian article on Kevin Young. We are 50 (FIFTY) years since the Governors report which mentions that Police knew that Husband was importing pictures of boys.

There is very little public information about what is happening. Prosecutions have still not been brought. The public has no effective mechanism to scrutinise an investigation by Durham Police into child sexual abuse at Medomsley – the same force that should have investigated properly decades ago, and a number of times over the years. This is why FOI is so important and why Durham Police should be transparent. They choose not to be.

Now this is a third or fourth go at investigating, after the Durham Police had already allowed the abuse to develop into a massive problem in which they are complicit.

Dave Greenwood, solicitor for many victims said in February this year  “It is unforgivable to make the victims … wait for so long before a CPS charging decision is made. This type of delay only fuels suspicions that powerful institutions like the police and prison service can use the system to their members’ advantage” [1]

Justice delayed is of course justice denied.

In February 2017, the Advertiser stated that police said “We have now been successful in taking 32 files to the Crown Prosecution Service for charging advice. That is ongoing and we would expect to get decisions in the summer. The investigation does not stop there.”

“We have ensured victims have been fully updated on the investigation so far. Counselling and professional support has also been available to anyone who needed help, and I am really pleased that so many people have taken us up on this offer.” [2]

So that article just raises questions. What exactly is a file?  What is charging advice? When were they sent off? Is each file on a different perpetrator? How much counselling is available, are survivors happy with the counselling?

Many survivors had faith in Det Sup Goundry. However he was removed from the case in Oct 2016 and his place as Senior Investigating Officer (SIO) has been taken by Det Supt Chapman. Many survivors felt let down by this. Why was Goundry removed? John McCabe reports it was done by “The Golden Executive Group” [see comments below]. Who is this group?

Timeline (Brief)

1967 Feb Memo from HH Harrison which shows that The Director of Public Prosecutions instructed the Police to investigate Husband,  for importing obscene and lewd photographs from Sweden, of boys.

1967 Jul Police interview Husband

1985 Police also took no action against Husband, even when Leslie Johnson was charged with abusing an inmate and told police Husband had ‘given him’ the boy. The boy told police that Husband had also abused him [12]

1999 Operation Halter opened

2003 Trial of Neville Husband at Newcastle Crown Court

2003 -2005 Investigation into Husband and Medomsley, [still Operation Halter ][30]

2005 Second Investigation into Husband [still thought to be Operation Halter]

2006 Dec 14 Kevin Young Supreme Court Catholic Care and Home Office v Kevin Raymond Young 14 Nov 2006 Supreme Court (St Camillus and Medomsley) [31]  

Overcoming the statute on limitations was the breakthrough using vicarious liability coupled with the Fraud Act. If there was an active covering up of all information then fraud was used to keep this quiet [HT @randolphtrent]

2007 Crown Prosecution Service announced it would not be charging Husband over an allegation that he went on to abuse a boy in Deerbolt

2009 Husband was out of prison

2009 John McCabe reported his abuse to Durham Police and his MP Michael McCann

2009/10 Jack Straw preparing and trying to ban children from childrens homes being allowed to speak about their abuse in Part 2 of the Children, Schools and Families Act 2010, see Children in Childrens Homes CAN Speak Out Against Abuse [32]

2010 Husband died

2012 May 23 Hansard Prime Minister’s questions Michael McCann asked about Medomsley [29]

2013 Aug – Operation Seabrook started

2014 July 7 Hansard McCann re Medomsley to May  [28]

 

Freedom of Information Request

My request was trying to ascertain why it is taking so long to bring perpetrators of abuse at Medomsley to justice from Operation Seabrook.

I asked Police in a Freedom of Information request [9] if they would tell me how many MG3 forms (forms requesting a charging decision) have been sent to CPS regarding abuse at Medomsley, and the date when the last was sent off?

Durham Police refused, citing a number of exemptions [9a]

The Crown Prosecution Service however in an answer to their FOI confirmed that 30 MG3’s were submitted for suspects, and later said that another two were returned to Police as CPS have not provided a charging decision on those [18]

They gave a table for 20 MG3s. It appears that the Police had only filled in the date on 20 forms.

The CPS divulging the information shows that the Durham Police were unnecessarily secretive, and brings into questions the exemptions they used, and why they used them.

The Police had  stated that the following “harms” may occur

“disclosing the information requested may have a negative impact on on-going investigations by putting into the public domain information which would allow suspects to prepare a defence or may taint witnesses.”
“Disclosing information during an on-going investigation would undermine operational capabilities and subsequent court proceedings by allowing potential offenders to avoid detection, prepare defences or taint witnesses.”
“To disclose information which would or could undermine ongoing investigations and subsequent court proceedings would, potentially, allow offenders to avoid detection or prosecution. This would be in direct conflict with the police service’s prime duties to protect life and property and prevent and detect crime.”

I therefore asked for an internal review of the Durham Police decision, especially at that time as it would have helped clear up the discrepancy at that stage between the 32 MG3s sent off by police and 30 said to have been received by the CPS.

Most of my request for Internal Review is below in Appendix 1 and the Durham Police Internal Review Reply in Appendix 2. For full details check the FOI [9]

I pointed out that the Durham Police had not explained how releasing the data requested could possibly have the effects they said ie “undermine operational capabilities and subsequent court proceedings by allowing potential offenders to avoid detection, prepare defences or taint witnesses” .

I also added that

“Stating the last date as requested will also give an idea of timescale for the public and victims who have been waiting 50 years in some cases for the police and other authorities do the job they are paid to do rather than cover up child sexual abuse.

Further failure to release even figures as innocuous as these will of course fuel fears that the Durham police are once again covering up child sexual abuse.

There is a tendency of Police to refuse information because they can, and try to find a reason to fit, which is not the spirit of the Act, nor doing the Police job as a public service. I hope that is not happening here. The public rightly judge the police by things such as this.”

As the evidence above in this post shows, it is wholly factual to mention the Police carried out flawed investigations and covered up child sexual abuse for 50 years. The public interest test should have taken into account the fact that the police have failed to investigate child sexual abuse at Medomsley properly. It should have taken into account that Durham Police covered up child sexual abuse making the balance of the public interest test is more tipped to transparency and publication, to show the public if the Durham Police are carrying out a proper investigation or are continuing to delay and cover up.

It was a disappointment but no surprise to me that the Internal Review carried out by Leigh Davison, Head of Information Rights & Disclosure Unit of the Durham Police rubber-stamped their previous decision. It also gave no further explanation of the absurd claim that to release the information would “undermine operational capabilities and subsequent court proceedings by allowing potential offenders to avoid detection, prepare defences or taint witnesses”.

Instead of internally reviewing fairly, they stuck by their secrecy and attacked me as “accusatory” to deflect from their embarrassing inadequacies. They also falsely characterise the request as what “one person might find it useful” by omitting the reasons and picking on the word “useful” and guessing that only myself is interested in this information.

If the reasons given by the Durham Police were valid then the CPS would have engaged those same exemptions. They did not. They published the information. Are Durham Police accusing the CPS of undermining “operational capabilities and subsequent court proceedings by allowing potential offenders to avoid detection, prepare defences or taint witnesses”?

The police as public servants should be a great deal less arrogant, a great deal more humble, admit their past mistakes, be a great deal more transparent and answer FOI questions as required under the FOI Act.

The Durham Police just have proved my claim that “There is a tendency of Police to refuse information because they can, and try to find a reason to fit, which is not the spirit of the Act, nor doing the Police job as a public service. I hope that is not happening here. The public rightly judge the police by things such as this.”

Durham Police actions are of a police service with something to hide and a public service that is not properly accountable to the public it is meant to serve.

Durham Police have still not even provided a blank MG3 form some 3 weeks after pointing out that they had failed to answer that part of the question. How long does it take Durham Police  to scan a form?

The CPS should also be examined closely as it appears that some charging decisions appear to have taken a long time, but perhaps more information is needed on that.

  • The failure to investigate child sexual abuse properly by Durham Police in Medomsley is not in doubt.
  • The cover up of child sexual abuse by police is not in doubt.

Many questions remain

  • Was it incompetence or was there a deeper underlying corruption in the police either generally or specific to child sexual abuse or Medomsley?
  • Were the police involved in child abuse?
  • How much was freemasonry a factor?
  • Why is the investigation taking so long?
  • Why are Durham Police being so untransparent?
  • Who are the establishment figures who knew about abuse at Medomsley that MP McCain talked about?
  • Why has Home Office been sitting on evidence and offering compensation orders?

Even if and when some victims and survivors achieve some sort of justice via trials, questions will still remain on the following issues and others

  • Why was there a culture of abuse and sexual abuse at Medomsley
  • Why was the widespread abuse not picked by by the channels supposed to check – eg Prison Service
  • Who knew what, and when?
  • Who should have done something about the abuse?
  • What were the actions of the Police for 50 years in flawed investigations and cover ups
  • What was the role and actions of the Home Office?

Should this not be addressed by a public inquiry?

Over 1000 boys have been abused. although some were 17, they were mainly 18 to 21 and not covered by IICSA unless they make an exception.

The government had a duty of care for over 100 boys, and failed to exercise that duty of care properly. Despite numerous warnings, they failed to act. WHY? There must be an inquiry into that.

John McCabe has updated me [see comments] that in fact it was SIXTEEN victims that reported abuse to Police on their release.

Please also see his other comments. It appears from his email that police are trying to put forward the scenario that it was just one officer who happened to be the recipient of 5+ peoples stories. This seems ludicrous cover story or “school play” even on the surface. and if they they are trying to spin nonsense this like that, would appear to be perverting the course of justice and fraud.

Furthermore the figures of victims and description John has given of his efforts at attempting to get justice are are even more disturbing than I had first thought. I have put his comments in Appendix 3

Please feel free to give your views, anonymously if you wish in comments below about how long the investigation is taking, whether there is enough counselling, or any other view

Other Notes

Prison Officers at one time was approximately 30 and more than one shift, who all knew about the abuse

Links

[1] 2017 Feb 5 Guardian UK police accused of ignoring claims about abuse by prison staff https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/05/police-ignored-complaints-of-abuse-by-prison-staff-say-victims-medomsley archive http://archive.is/ExB1A

[2] 2017 Feb 2 The Advertiser Consett and Stanley Police send 32 files to Crown Prosecution Service following investigation into Medomsley Detention Centre, near Consett http://www.consettstanleyadvertiser.co.uk/news/15065633.Police_send_32_files_to_Crown_Prosecution_Service_following_investigation_into_Medomsley_Detention_Centre__near_Consett/?ref=mrb&lp=2

[3] 2005 Jun 18 Chronicle Live North East MPs demand inquiry into historic child sex abuse cases http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/north-east-mps-demand-inquiry-7288479

[4] 2014 Mar 28 Guardian Durham police uncover paedophile ring with more than 500 potential victims https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/28/durham-police-uncover-paedophile-ring-500-potential-victims

[5] 2013 Oct 31 Mirror Borstal governor was ‘a leading member’ of paedophile ring which preyed on inmates, victims claim http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/medomsley-detention-centre-paedophile-ring-2658573

[6] 1967 Jun 2 Memorandum from Governor Portland Borstal, to Establishment Officer. https://cathyfox.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/medom1q7okvi3i.jpg

[7] 2014 Mar 29 The Advertiser Durham Police to review all deaths at Medomsley Detention Centre as part of abuse probe http://www.durhamadvertiser.co.uk/news/11112114.display/

[8] 2017 May 1 Durham Constabulary Operation Seabrook – Medomsley Detention Centre https://www.durham.police.uk/news-and-events/Pages/News%20Articles/Operation-Seabrook—Medomsely-Detention-Centre.aspx

[9] 2017 Mar 13 WDTK FOI Durham Police re Medomsley https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/medomsley#outgoing-632333

[9a] Answer https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/medomsley#incoming-977930

[9b] Answer pdf download https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/394834/response/977930/attach/9/SKM09217051214140.pdf

[10] 1967 Feb 1 Times [11] 2007 May Operation Rose Blogspot Grim Revelations http://operationrose.blogspot.co.uk/2007/05/grim-revelations.html

[12] David Icke Forum Neville Husband Timeline https://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?s=edd93a4c0a3b47dd322eb2871bf0dc14&p=1061672499&postcount=3

[13] 2017 Feb 2 Chronicle 1,400 ex-inmates at Medomsley Detention Centre are one step closer to claiming justice http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/1400-ex-inmates-medomsley-detention-12544306 32 files

[14] 2015 Mar 31 Guardian Medomsley abuse inquiry: two former officers arrested on suspicion of abuse https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/31/medomsley-abuse-inquiry-two-former-officers-arrested-on-suspicion-of-abuse

[15] Monster of Medomsley website http://themonsterofmedomsley.blogspot.com/

[16] 2012 Apr 13 Guardian A true horror story: The abuse of teenage boys in a detention centre The prison service and police knew of his interest in young boys. So how did Neville Husband get away – for decades – with the horrific abuse of teenagers in his care? https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/apr/13/abuse-teenage-boys-detention-centre-crime?guni=Article:in%20body%20link

[17] 2017 Feb 6 WDTK FOI to CPS https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/medomsley_child_sexual_abuse#outgoing-621724

[18] 2017 Feb 6 FOI to CPS  https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/medomsley_child_sexual_abuse#incoming-964562

[19] https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/medomsley#outgoing-639930

[20] 1967 Feb 1 Times

[21] 2016 Mar 29 Spidercat https://spidercatweb.blog/2016/03/29/37-famous-scots-among-child-abuse-suspects-where-are-the-arrests-sco/

[22] Islington Gazette http://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/news/crime-court/islington-kids-homes-scandal-why-did-police-pull-plug-on-new-child-abuse-probe-1-5022869

[23] 2010 Sept 3 Chronicle Paedophile preacher Neville Husband dies http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/paedophile-preacher-neville-husband-dies-1419391

[24] You Tube Deborah Glass Commissioner of IPCC IPCC “not very effective”  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7iNpbwJayc

[25] 2017 May 5 Cathy Fox Blog Barrie Trower interviewed young offenders in 70’s abused by VIP’s https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/05/05/barrie-trower-interviewed-young-offenders-in-70s-abused-by-vips/

[26] 2017 May 1 Durham Constabulary webpage Operation Seabrook – Medomsley Detention Centre http://archive.is/k7pAE

[27] 2014 Nov 13 Sky Michael McCann Tells How Medomsley Abuse Probe Was launched http://news.sky.com/video/michael-mccann-tells-how-medomsley-abuse-probe-was-launched-10382636 Michael McCann explains how a meeting with an old schoolmate eventually led to the opening of a “huge” investigation into abuse at the Medomsley Detention Centre. 2010 McCabe visit with McCann Mccabe told him he was raped every single day at MEdomsley. Raised at PM questions, raised with DPP Keir Starmer . 9oo vitims by Nov 014 approx, 70 detectives.

[28] 2014 July 7 Hansard McCann re Medomsley to May  https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2014-07-07/debates/14070736000001/ChildAbuse?highlight=medomsley#contribution-14070736000127

[29] 2012 May 23 Hansard Prime Minister’s questions Michael McCann asked about Medomsley https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2012-05-23/debates/12052368000029/Engagements?highlight=medomsley#contribution-12052368000194

[30] 2013 Oct 16 Shields Gazette Detention centre abuse – 83 new victims come forward http://www.shieldsgazette.com/news/crime/detention-centre-abuse-83-new-victims-come-forward-1-6152268

[31] 2006 Nov 14 Cathy Fox Blog  Catholic Care and Home Office v Kevin Raymond Young 14 Nov 2006 Supreme Court (St Camillus and Medomsley) https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/02/19/catholic-care-and-home-office-v-kevin-raymond-young-14-nov-2006-supreme-court-st-camillus-and-medomsley/

[32] 2013 Dec 21 Cathy fox Blog Children in Childrens Homes CAN Speak Out Against Abuse https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2013/12/21/it-is-legal-for-children-in-children-homes-to-speak-out-against-abuse/

Appendix 1

My request for Internal Review

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Durham Constabulary’s handling of my FOI request ‘Medomsley’.

My reasonable request for “how many MG3 forms have been sent to CPS regarding abuse at Medomsley, and the date when the last was sent off?” has been refused.

The reasons given are included in full at the end of this internal review request . However I include some here

“disclosing the information requested may have a negative impact on on-going investigations by putting into the public domain information which would allow suspects to prepare a defence or may taint witnesses.”
“Disclosing information during an on-going investigation would undermine operational capabilities and subsequent court proceedings by allowing potential offenders to avoid detection, prepare defences or taint witnesses.”
“To disclose information which would or could undermine ongoing investigations and subsequent court proceedings would, potentially, allow offenders to avoid detection or prosecution. This would be in direct conflict with the police service’s prime duties to protect life and property and prevent and detect crime.”

It does not explain how something as simple as this request would have those effects, nor does it provide any “evidence” merely assertion for the evidence of harm test. I would suggest the release of the numbers would not have the effects stated.

However it the above is true then police have already broken the “prime duties to protect life and property and prevent and detect crime.” as a figure of 32 was released by the police http://www.consettstanleyadvertiser.co.u…

The Crown prosecution service say they have received 30 MG forms https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/m…

Hence I think it would be useful to clear up which figure is right, so that any discrepancy can be looked into, or even if forms have gone missing, a benefit missed out of your public interest tests. Certainly the dire effects outlined as a reason for refusal are not going to take place by correcting the figures.
Stating the last date as requested will also give an idea of timescale for the public and victims who have been waiting 50 years in some cases for the police and other authorities do the job they are paid to do rather than cover up child sexual abuse.

Further failure to release even figures as innocuous as these will of course fuel fears that the Durham police are once again covering up child sexual abuse.

There is a tendency of Police to refuse information because they can, and try to find a reason to fit, which is not the spirit of the Act, nor doing the Police job as a public service. I hope that is not happening here. The public rightly judge the police by things such as this.

Appendix 2 – Internal Review Answer By Leigh Davison Durham Police


Appendix 3

Some comments from John McCabe which are at the end of this article

This Was Sent To SIO Stephen Chapman New Head Of OperationSeabrook and
Sgt. Claire Errington Who Heads Investigation Team.

As You’s Eill Read The following Letter Has Been Sent To IPCC and The Media and MP’s.

I Can Not Attach The Documentation Mentioned in My Mail ! As I Do Not Have Permission From The Medomsley Victims in Question.

Here is the letter:

Hi Stephen’ Claire.

The mail below will be forwarded to
The IPCC and the following agencies and individuals’ listed below.

This is not attack on either yourself Stephen or Claire”
As we believe neither of you’s were stationed at Durham Constabulary at the time of the dates mentioned.
We certainly do not believe that yourself Stephen” was involved in the first 2 investigations.

My concern’ is to why a member of The Golden Executive Group” stepped down to send out January’s Victims Update letter.

Very odd’ but logically by doing so, was concerned about matters’ involving the investigation” our thinking is the 14+ victims who contacted on North East Police stations, on they’re release ! 5 at Durham.

These issues will not fade away’ take my word on this.
If Durham continue to insult our intelligence by standing by this story of the 5 + victims
complaints were all dealt with with the same Durham Police Officer”
I promise you that I will be the one that will expose this nonsense’ we know who the victims by name” and when they’re complaints were made”

We also know that one of the victims mother and father, were present at Durham at time of complaint.

We can see by this individual “Police Officer”
coincidentally being on duty, when all victims reported abuse at Medomsley has been hung out’ for damage limitation.

We will clear this officer of any incompetent procedures !

If Durham are prepared to continue with this explanation”
I again will set the foundation with reference to filing a law suit against Durham Constabulary.

Regarding any conversation either by phone” or in person with yourself Stephen”
Will only take place’ once The CPS has made the long awaited decision on alleged suspect charges.

The IPCC’
The HASC’ ( Chair ) Yvette Cooper MP.
MP Dr. Lisa Cameron.
David Collins ( The Times )
Eric Allison ( The Gaurdian )
David Cowan ( ITV )

Dear Sir / Madam

I write to formally make the following complaints against Durham Constabulary.

I have attached documentation with references to 2 Investigations carried out by Durham Constabulary in 1999 OperationHalter and the 2nd investigation 2003.

The issues I am raising is regarding the timespan between the victims involved in both investigations.

The current investigation OperationSeabrook was launched on the 14th August 2013′ after 4 years of continuous fighting for justice and accountability for alleged abuses inflicted by staff employed at The Medomsley Detention Centre.
Both my former MP Michael McCann and myself John Francis McCabe’ convinced The CPS to launch this 3rd investigation.

I would ask you to please look at the documentation I have attached” and beginning with Durham’s 1st investigation in 1999:
This which led to the trial and conviction of Neville Husband in 2003.
Within this investigation was 6 victims’ I will not mention they’re names as they are all listed in attached documentation.

The sexual abuse inflicted on these victims spanned from 1977′ 1979′ 1981′ 1983′ and 1985′ over a 8 year period !
If you request and read the court trial transcripts of this case’ it is beyond belief that any investigating officer “Senior or Otherwise” could not have concluded that due to the timespan there may well be more victims involved.

Durham Constabulary failed to form the obvious opinion’ and for whatever reason did not look further into Medomsley Detention Centre.

Whilst Neville Husband was on trial at Newcastle Crown Court in 2003″
Durham Constabulary were investigating a further 6 Victims who had came forward and gave them testimonies of similar crimes of sexual abuse !

Within this 2nd investigation were 6 victims
but this time the timespan was over 13 years.

Again I will not name the victims’ as the are also listed in the attached documentation’
The 1st victim a child under the age of 16yrs
in 1972″ to the last victim’ in 1985.

2 investigations’ 12 victims of sexual abuse related crimes’ from 1972 to 1985 and Durham Constabulary still fail to notice the inevitable” The balance of probabilities are there are more victims.

Durham Constabulary ended all criminal inquiries into both Neville Husband and Medomsley Detention Centre in 2005.

I was a former detainee at Medomsley Detention Centre in 1983″
Related crimes of Sexual Abuse’ were inflicted against myself whilst I was in Medomsley.

I came forward in 2009″ but as I said it took me 4 years to convince The CPS to launch the present investigation’ as in 2010 after giving my testimony to Durham Constabulary on 2009, The CPS decision was not to proceed’ as it was not in the Publics Interest.

This decision did not discourage me from continuing to seek Justice !
Today there are 31 alleged suspects files in the hands of The CPS, awaiting charges.

My complaint” is of incompetence for reasons only known within Durham Constabulary”

Why it took myself to go through the shame of giving up my anonymity on the 14th August 2013′
To expose what Durham Constabulary failed to a decade earlier.

Why ?
Since OperationSeabrook was launched in 2013″
Today they have 1,436 alleged victims testimonies ?
1,436 Victims ! Which does not include the fellow 12 victims from the previous 2 investigations.

There are many serious concerns regarding Durham Constabularies investigating capabilities.
During this present investigation’ I raised this following serious issue’ with the former head of investigation SIO Paul Goundry.

14+ Victims on they’re release from being detained in Medomsley Detention Centre,
reported allegations of sexual abuses inflicted against themselves at North East Police stations.
5 of these Victims complaints were made at Durham Constabulary HQ’ The first victim to make a complaint was in 1981.
When I raised these victim reporting allegations at Durham HQ’ with SIO Paul Goundry’ his explanation was unacceptable.

Mr. Goundry, informed me that all 5 victims who made their complaints at Durham HQ’
Had all given they’re allegations over several years timespan to coincidentally the same individual Police Officer !
I am informed that the officer has now passed’ to which I sent my condolences.

Mr. Goundry, therefore attempted to imply that due to the officers passing’ this line of inquiry was exhausted.
Unless the Policies and Procedures in relation to taking a statement from a complainant that only consists of 1″ officer carrying out interviews of such serious crimes, as “Sexual Abuse.” Durham Constabulary believe they are a law unto themselves.

The above complaints have also have been forwarded to HASC’ not only relating to Durham Constabulary’ But also CPS Jim Hill
who was the Crown Prosecutor not only in the first 2 investigations’ but current investigation OperationSeabrook.

Your a Sincerely
John F McCabe

Appendix 4

Trigger warning

Photo of Neville Husband HT Trent

 

Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. These links are generally UK based.

  • The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers.
  • National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups.
  • One in Four [C]
  • Havoca [D].
  • Useful post on Triggers [E]  from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog.
  • Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G]  and Meditation [H] may be useful.
  • Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma  [J]
  • Survivors UK for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men [K]
  • Voicing CSA group [L] helps arrange survivors meetings in your area
  • A Prescription for me blog Various emotional support links [M]
  • ShatterBoys -“Male Survivors Of Childhood Sexual Abuse Inspiring change, Through Shared Experience Whilst Building Connections…Together We Can Heal” [N]
Posted in cathy fox blog, Child Abuse, Child sexual abuse, Childrens home, Crown Prosecution Service, Freedom of Information Request, Freemason, North east, Police, Police Operations | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 13 Comments