DA / D Notices Secretary says no paedophiles in secret services

I had wrongly assumed that Andrew Vallance would not reply to my last email. However to his credit he has. First I include part of my last email to him which is relevant to his reply. If you want to check out the whole correspondence the links are [15]  [1] and the full FOI Request [2]

andrrew vallance

Andrew Vallance

Cathy Fox to Andrew Vallance, (Secretary D Notice Committee)

“I shall acquiesce to your request to desist from further
correspondence, after this email. However I refute that 3 emails on
pertinent and legitimate points could be taken by any
reasonable person to be “repeated questioning that has become
burdensome and vexatious”.

My last question,
Reading the DA notice below, if an agent or officer of a secret
service mentioned in a) was a paedophile and abused children, is it
not entirely possible that there arises a conflict of interest in
that if the paedophilia was exposed, national security could be
said to be at risk and newspapers asked not to publish?

Indeed bearing in mind that paedophiles are open to blackmail, is
it not likely that agents or officers are chosen because they are
paedophiles, and are able to be “turned” to do what their bosses
and people who wield real power wish them to do?

If their bosses are in fact paedophiles, as is alleged with
Oldfield and Hayman, then the situation gets more complicated,
especially when a different secret service realises this.

This is one reason why people believe D / DA notices have been
used/misused to cover up paedophilia.

Can you state categorically that no D/DA Notice 05 has been used,
and that use has not inadvertently or deliberately covered up abuse of
children?

DA – Notice 05: United Kingdom Security & Intelligence Services &
Special Services

Information falling within the following categories is normally
regarded as being highly classified. It is requested that such
information, unless it has been the subject of an official
announcement or has been widely disclosed or discussed, should not
be published without first seeking advice:

(a) specific covert operations, sources and methods of the Security
Service, SIS and GCHQ, Defence Intelligence Units, Special Forces
and those involved with them, the application of those methods*,
including the interception of communications, and their targets;
the same applies to those engaged on counter-terrorist operations; ”

Dear Cathy Fox,

Your hypothesis below  is not only completely speculative and unfounded, but also ignores the internal checks and balances within the intelligence agencies (not the least of which is the direct vetting system). These impose a constant watch for any potential security risks; they would certainly involve anyone (however exalted) involved in paedophilia.

However, the subject of this correspondence has not been the possibility of paedophiles within the intelligence agencies, but whether the D/DA Notice System has sought to suppress media reports about them. As I have repeatedly said to you, but which you seem unable to grasp, I know that in the 10 years since I have been DPBAC Secretary that that has never and could never have happened, but also – for all the reasons set out to you in my previous emails, which you seem determined to ignore – I believe it is inconceivable that any of my predecessors would have done so. Certainly, and having yet again gone through the archived files, there is not the least shred of hard evidence to support this empty conspiracy theory. I say again to you, if you or those who are making these allegations have hard evidence (not hearsay) about this issue, would they please give us copies of it, rather than making unsupported allegations or indulging in open-ended enquiries which lead nowhere? Finally, the only people who ‘believe D / DA notices have been used/misused to cover up paedophilia’ are those who are either ignorant of the facts or cannot view them objectively.

As I said in my last email, I have replied to your enquiries with full openness and transparency, save those that would breach the DPBAC code of confidentiality and thus put at risk the whole DA Notice System. The contents of your last email has only confirmed my view that your repeated questioning has indeed become vexatious, and hence this will be my last communication to you.

Sincerely,

Andrew Vallance

—-

Andrew first dealt with my hypothesis that  “if an agent or officer of a secret
service mentioned in a) was a paedophile and abused children, is it not entirely possible that there arises a conflict of interest in that if the paedophilia was exposed, national security could be said to be at risk and newspapers asked not to publish?”

I consider this to be one reasonable explanation of how part of the paedophile cover up has happened.

However Andrew not will not even contemplate that a member of the intelligence agencies can be a paedophile….”Your hypothesis is completely speculative and unfounded, but also ignores the internal checks and balances within the intelligence agencies (not the least of which is the direct vetting system). These impose a constant watch for any potential security risks; they would certainly involve anyone (however exalted) involved in paedophilia.”

Firstly I would not say that my hypothesis is completely speculative or unfounded. Peter Hayman [14] Maurice Oldfield [12] and Anthony Blunt [13] were paedophiles I believe. Cyril Smiths widespread paedophilia was covered up by politicians, police, special branch and MI5 [11]. Jimmy Savile of course would have been vetted at BBC [10] and should have been on other occasions yet that apparently did not pick up his paedophilia. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

The Secretary of the D Notice committee will not even accept the premise of my hypothesis, and he relies on “direct vetting” and unspecified checks and balances to assume that no one in the intelligence services is a paedophile.

From this flows his conclusion regarding that a D notice could not be used to cover up an operation in which there was a paedophile agent or officer. “I know that in the 10 years since I have been DPBAC Secretary that that has never and could never have happened, but also – for all the reasons set out to you in my previous emails, which you seem determined to ignore – I believe it is inconceivable that any of my predecessors would have done so.”

There are no paedophiles in the secret services so that it could not be covered up by a D notice, it seems is the thrust of his argument. So move along, nothing to see here!

I disagree and think it is very dangerous that the Secretary for 10 years of this committee thinks so. In fact this opinion itself puts national security at risk, and explains partly why we are in the postion we are today with a paedophile network across people in power.

Links

[1] 2014 Dec 3 Cathy Fox A little more on D notices https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2014/12/03/a-little-more-on-d-notices/

[2] Cathy Fox FOI Request https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/da_notices_index_and_other_infor#incoming-592453

[3] 2014 Nov 4 NY Enquirer http://nyenquirer.uk/mi5-special-branch-prominent-paedophiles-cover-peter-jaconelli/

[4] 2014 Nov 22 Guardian http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/nov/22/media-gagged-westminster-child-abuse-ring

[5] 2014 Oct 21 Central Lobby http://centrallobby.politicshome.com/latestnews/article-detail/newsarticle/naomi-long-mp-intelligence-services-hide-child-sexual-abuse/#.VEf-4TaLkQU.twitter

[6] 1989 May 13 After Dark ‘Out of Bounds’, Channel Four http://youtu.be/BvAAY7UiMH8

[7] 2014 Jun 14 Express http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/485529/Special-Branch-funded-Paedophile-Information-Exchange-says-Home-Office-whistleblower

[8] 2014 RTE http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0801/634558-kincora-abuse-investigation/

[9]

[10] 2014 Jun 26 http://tompride.wordpress.com/2014/06/26/how-mi5-vetted-savile-and-decided-paedophilia-was-nothing-to-worry-about/

[11] 2012 Nov 19 rochdale Online http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/75362/cyril-smith-allegations-mp-danczuk-wants-mi5-coverup-inquiry

[12] Paul Foot Who Framed Colin Wallace ISBN-13: 978-0330314466

[13] Peter Wright Spycatcher ISBN-13: 978-0670820559

[14] 2014 Nov 8 Daily Mirror http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mi6-chief-shamed-diplomat-raped-4596308

[15] 2o14 Dec 1 Cathy Fox D Notices 1 https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2014/12/01/d-notices-da-notices-don-hale-and-d-notice-committee/

Advertisements

About cathy fox blog on Child Abuse

the truth will out, the truth will shout, the truth will set us free...
This entry was posted in Child sexual abuse, D notices, Freedom of Information Request and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to DA / D Notices Secretary says no paedophiles in secret services

  1. l8in says:

    Reblogged this on L8in.

  2. The security services of the CIA and Mossad do all they can to promote paedophile spies. They are connected at a level that Andrew Vallance is too far down the food chain to grasp. Just another bureaucrat either out of his depth or covering up.

  3. Bishop Brightly says:

    Astonishing work Cathy.

    What utter contempt this man evidently has and what conclusions he reaches!

    This should be passed onto the Mirror, Exaro etc and publicised far more widely. The responses he has given in themselves warrant investigation within the scope of a CSA Inquiry.

    • cathyfox says:

      To be honest I would rather it spread from the grass roots, reblogging and alternative media than the top down corporate media. We need to continue to build our own media bases and dissemination of stories. Yes it did feel that he was quite patronising and condescending, but that is water off a ducks back, what is more serious is he is in such a bubble of ignorance, yet in a position of relatively considerable authority.

  4. 6033624 says:

    Interesting. He’s right of course, not his place to speculate what COULD have happened. Sticking to purely factual information he does not deny any possibility but does himself ‘speculate’ that predecessors ‘wouldn’t’ have carried out such actions. He is particular to note that there is no “hard evidence”. I would take this to mean he is hedging his bets on information coming from elsewhere and covering his back. All statements are qualified and tellingly he relies commenting in a personal fashion. As a former civil servant I know that this means he feels backed into a corner, ie he can say no more and/or say no more without risking his job or his reputation should more information come to light. NB ” agents” aren’t ‘vetted’ as they can be deeply involved in activities that are illegal and possibly improper whilst providing information and assistance to officers. Cabinet Ministers are also vetted in the same way security personnel are. We have seen Cabinet Ministers as well as Mr Hayman turn out to be involved. ie if vetting worked we wouldn’t be in this situation, which he is well aware of.

  5. cathyfox says:

    My Sweet Landlord ‏@MySweetLandlord

    @gojam_i_am Direct Vetting certainly kept Sir Peter Hayman, ex Deputy director MI6, on a tight leash! https://twitter.com/MySweetLandlord/status/541938344729800705/photo/1

  6. cathyfox says:

    My Sweet Landlord ‏@MySweetLandlord
    @gojam_i_am Geoffrey Prime makes it 3 of a kind. Direct Vetting missed him too.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2567991/The-child-sex-attacker-Soviet-spy-vile-group-legitimised-Harman-chums.html

  7. newbilong says:

    you extracted helpful information about D Notices.

    I’m puzzled by Vanner’s view that you are ‘vexatious’ and his dismissive treatment of you. I live in a different country, where public servants are required to serve the public, and where they must have a rational basis for refusing to deal with someone on the basis of vexatiousness. Any such refusal is reviewable by Ombudsmen. I guess in this instance you’ve already told him that you won’t be corresponding further, but anyone else running into similar dismissiveness from a Government dept might consider contacting the UK Ombudsmen: http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/make-a-complaint/how-to-complain/what-can-we-help-with

    there are other administrative and public law remedies to deal with obstructive or dismissive officials, but they are all vulnerable to what looks like a dominant tradition of toadyism, subservience, self-preservation and classism in the UK.

    • cathyfox says:

      I believe that he should be prepared to discuss properly, but they never do. He does not have to reply at all as the Committee is not covered by Freedom of Info. I was careful not to push it too far, as once he had complained of vexatiousness (me or the request and by what definition) then he could claim I was harassing him and causing him distress etc etc. Thanks for the Ombudsman link

      • newbilong says:

        It may be that the Ombudsman doesn’t have jurisdiction either. There are numerous ways to poke and prod the system, and a coordinated and concerted attack on several points at once by several parties (including media, MPs) has a good chance of success. I think we’re seeing that now with CSA, but I’m not sure about the level of coordination, or whether the most strategic points are being targeted yet.

  8. Highwayman says:

    “… but also ignores the internal checks and balances within the intelligence agencies (not the least of which is the direct vetting system). These impose a constant watch for any potential security risks; they would certainly involve anyone (however exalted) involved in paedophilia. ”

    OH really, have things changed at all since ; Donald Maclean, Guy Burgess, “Kim” Philby and Anthony Blunt were recruited as Soviet spies while at Cambridge University in the 1930s.

  9. cathyfox says:

    If anyone has proof of Blairs supposed d notice it would be good http://www.tpuc.org/blair-covering-up-paedophile-scandal/

  10. Highwayman says:

    I think there is a case to be answered !
    One in six people may have been sexually assaulted in ‘national epidemic’ of abuse, Government adviser warns

    Graham Wilmer said 11.7m people may have been abused in the UK

    He was appointed by Theresa May to the historic sex abuse inquiry
    Mr Wilmer set up the Lantern Project charity to support sex abuse victims
    By TOM MCTAGUE, DEPUTY POLITICAL EDITOR FOR MAILONLINE

    PUBLISHED: 10:44, 8 December 2014.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2865284/One-six-people-sexually-assaulted-national-epidemic-abuse-Government-adviser-warns.html

  11. Vic says:

    ‘Vexatious’ has become shorthand for ‘your questions are annoying me/making me uncomfortable and I do not wish to answer them’. Much as a Victorian parent would shut a child up with ‘children should be seen and not heard’. Ugh.

  12. Pingback: cathys foxs site on child abuse its worth a read believe me | meggiemom342

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s