Macur Review Omerta?

The Macur Review is still refusing to indicate when the Report from the Review will be sent to Government.

This is despite the Minister of State for Justice and Civil Liberties Simon Hughes, reply to a Parliamentary Question on 20 November 2014 stating that it would be looking forward to it during 2015 [57]. With only 5 months left in the year, it may have been thought that a competent, well planned, transparent inquiry could and would give some indication as to whether it will finish the report this year or not.

They have also refused to state

  • what counselling was available for survivors who gave evidence to the review
  • why the review has taken so long
  • why the review has chosen not be transparent

Macur’s letter of appointment by Chris Grayling, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, from way back on 14 January 2013 has been released under Freedom of Information [54]. This type of document of course should routinely be published at the time by any “open” government, rather than having to be asked for it in a FOI request. (Incidentally the title Lord Chancellor brings up the issue of the not well known Great Officers of State [58])

The letter of appointment in January was over two months after the announcement of her appointment. In the letter it states that Macur was told of the urgency of the review, which further makes inexplicable her delay and her completely unapologetic lack of explanation for that delay. The remit of the review is printed in the letter.


The MOJ answered some other questions [54]

As of 18 Dec 2014 the Review had cost £1,180,000 [57]. The review has two employees seconded from their permanent positions at the Ministry of Justice. Compliance with the Nolan Principles for the Civil Service has been replaced by the Civil Service Code.


I have followed up asking several points as regards who pays and employs Macur, whether the review abides by the Nolan Principles, the reasons for the delay, the apparent lack of concern for people who gave evidence to the review  and what the retention and destruction schedules are for the DOJ.

One FOI request to the Department of Justice on the Macur Review has never received a substantive answer at all, despite several emails over 3 years [59]. Another FOI request was finally answered in August 2014 [55] 3 months later than required by law. This is the normal contempt with which the government holds for the people with FOI, even this local councillor.

The answer to that Councillors FOI includes an email from Sean Gallagher Director Access to Justice at the DOJ to Richard Mason, [see below] in which it  states that the report would be handed in by end of 2014 and the closedown of review by March 2015.  This is evidence that the review is delayed. Why? Why will the review nor the DOJ answer what the delay is, if they have nothing to hide.

  • Was it delayed for political purposes – so that it did not affect the election?
  • Was it delayed for political purposes as it may implicate Conservatives and so it was delayed until after the election, and now Conservatives got back in the government is not sure what to do?
  • Is it perhaps delayed because Dame Macur is whitewashing for the powers that be?
  • Is it delayed due to Operation Pallial?
  • Is it delayed because she is taking her time to do a review that is so thorough that no one can dispute the recommendations, but it implicates people in democratic power or the secret government behind those in apparent power and so she has been threatened or blackmailed to rewrite it?
  • Are “national security” considerations beign forced upon her by MI5 and other secretive organisations.
  • Is it delayed as the crown or royal family are or have become involved?

arfonjones1arfonjones2arfonjones3The delay since giving evidence, which finished March 29, 2013 has been so protracted that Paddy French from Rebecca Television who gave evidence to the “urgent” Inquiry, officially withdrew his evidence earlier this year [56]. He said “the passage of time has seriously eroded my confidence in the process”. He also asked Macur to “include my reasons … in the Review’s report when it is finally complete.”

This met with an extraordinary response.

“The Judge has asked me to let you know that she has found no reason to refer to your submissions specifically in her report and therefore it will not be necessary to indicate why she has removed them.”

“The report will indicate that you have made contact with the review and that you attended an interview with Lady Justice Macur.”

Paddy French was a reporter at the time.  He had a 3 hour interview with Waterhouse and  subsequently corresponded with him. He has argued that the inquiry had not been fit for purpose [62] [63]. The Waterhouse Tribunal did not investigate Allen properly. It prevented a key witness, Des Frost joint second in command at Bryn Allen, from giving evidence that he had reported serious allegations of sexual abuse against Allen more than a decade before he was brought to book. Not only did the Tribunal suppress his evidence, it also censored television journalists from reporting what he had to say.

There are few people with Paddy French’s level of personal involvement and knowledge of the  case. I find it surprising that Macur would not have wanted to refer to his information specifically. However for her then to state that “The report will indicate that you have made contact with the review and that you attended an interview with Lady Justice Macur” is a partial truth. It hides the fact that Paddy withdrew due to the delay and that asked her to state this.

She has chosen to give a partial truth about this. What else in the report is a partial truth and hidden?

I am a member of the public and a specialist blogger on child sexual abuse, and I cannot get information from the Government or the Review as to when it is expected to finish its report or even why I am not allowed that information. Why not?

It is now over a year since I first wrote posts that the Macur Review was refusing to say when it would be sending its report to the Department of Justice [51]. Further to that I posted on Oct 14 [52] stating that they still refused to.

It is no excuse that Operation Pallial is ongoing. If this was a factor, the Macur Review should have stated so. The Waterhouse Inquiry also had simultaneous investigations, which did not hamper the publication of that Report.  The Macur Review should, if this is a factor have found alternative ways round that eg a report in two phases. The fact that Macur Review is silent, and survivors who gave evidence are in limbo, acts as a disincentive for others to give evidence to other inquries.

Operation Pallial, the National Crime Agency investigation into child abuse in North Wales, announced on 5th November, at the same time as the Macur Review [74] has had several successful prosecutions.  John Allen, who was the owner of several children’s homes in the Wrexham area, received life on 33 counts of sexual abuse against 19 boys and a girl, aged between seven and 15, in the Sixties and Seventies [60]. George Phoenix, David Lightfoot, Eddie Huxley, Roy Norry and Gary Cooke (aka Mark Grainger) were also convicted.


John Allen

A further 28 believed perpetrators are dead. Operation Pallial investigated only 21 and say an independent review of the evidence shows there was enough material to present a case to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in these cases had the alleged perpetrators still be alive. [66]

Gordon Anglesea, retired police superintendent has been charged with five offences of sexual assault and two offences of buggery [65]. He is charged with abuse of three boys between 1979 and 1987, when they were between 11 and 16 years old. He has been released on conditional bail and is due to appear at Mold Magistrates Court on the 6th August 2015. [65] Anglesea was an inspector in Wrexham at the time the alleged offences were committed. He was also a member of a masonic lodge in the town. [63]


Gordon Anglesea

Anglesea had previously sued Private Eye, The Observer and the Independent on Sunday for libel and a jury found for him in December 1994. He accepted a total of £375,000 in damages and the case cost HTV nearly a million pounds when the legal costs of the 15 day trial were added [63]. Hence many people will be watching this case with added interest.

William Hague was the Welsh Secretary who ordered the 1996 Waterhouse Report [70] into the abuse.  The abuse involved childrens homes in a wider geographical area, as well as Allens houses elsewhere and children being trafficked from the childrens homes around the country. Hague limited the inquiry to North Wales.

Hague is expected to be severely criticised by the Macur Review, the Mail reported recently. He knew that Sir Peter Morrison was connected to this child abuse scandal [60] . Former Tory MP Rod Richards, a Welsh Office Minister who served alongside Mr Hague, said he saw a handwritten note in a Government dossier in the Nineties which appeared to link Morrison but the Waterhouse Report made no mention of him. For further information on Morrison see Ian Paces’s excellent article [75]

hague savile

Hague took over as MP for Richmond from child rapist Leon Brittan. Hague has been accused of stifling the Waterhouse Inquiry by limiting its remit [72]. Despite evidence of a photograph with fellow Tory MP Anthony Gilberthorpe, Hague also has no recollection of a meeting with him. Gilberthorpe says this was arranged to discuss the 40 page dossier accusing the Conservative Cabinet of sexually abusing young boys, which he had sent to Thatcher when Prime Minister [69]. The dossier is “missing” [76].

It is no surprise that Hague is suspected of being a gatekeeper or enabler, covering up child abuse. He has also faced accusations of being gay after sharing his hotel room with his aide who resigned soon after [68] [73], and whilst being gay should not be an issue per se, his truthfulness is debateable.

47haguefrom Top Trumps – British Nonces – High Quality [77]

It will also be very interesting to see how the Macur Review treats the lengthy and informed submission from Andrea Davison [71], as well as the issue of Freemasonry.

The current Macur Review team according to their website is: Diane Caddle, Secretary to the Review; Ashleigh Freeman Solicitor to the Review; and Marie Colton Business Manager to the Review [61].



I’ll find out the truth about this pedophile scandal.”  Dame Macur is quoted as saying.

She said she would find the truth and she might, but she didn’t say that she would put the truth in her report.

Unfortunately the “urgent” Macur review is losing importance and integrity the more days pass by. Perhaps it was designed to, and that is the real reason for the delay?

Will Macur prove to be an establishment enabler, public truthseeker or lame duck?

The choice is hers. Has she got the courage to make the right choice?


Macur – Enabler?


Macur- Truthseeker?

lame duck

Macur – Lame duck?

 Timeline of Macur Review

1996 Jun 17 Terms of Reference of Waterhouse Report Issued [9]

2012 Nov 6 Home Secretary Theresa May Announced New Police Inquiry (Pallial) by National Crime Agency into North Wales Child Abuse [10]

2o12 Nov 8 Macur Review Established by Government

2013 Jan 8 Macur Review Issues Paper Published [9]

2013 Mar 29 Deadline for Macur Submissions to Issues Paper [1]

2013 Apr 17 Thanks issued for Submissions [1]

2013 Jun 18 Wrexham. 2 public meetings and private meetings with anyone who requested [1]

2013 Jun 21 Thanks issued for attending meetings [1]

2013 Oct 10 Freedom of Information Request to Ministry of Justice not yet answered [8]

2014 Jan 14 Macur appointment letter from Grayling [in this post]

2014 Apr 23 Email from Macur Review refusing answer to publishing date [3]

2014 Apr 24 Different Freedom of Information request not yet answered [7]

2014 May 16 Email from Macur Review to Cathy Fox refusing to state publishing date

2014 May 18 Further Cathy Fox email to Macur Review. No answer

2o14 Sept 17 Further Cathy Fox email to Macur Review No answer

2014 Oct 7 Further Cathy Fox email to Macur review

2014 Oct 7 Cathy Fox FOI to Home Office [28]

2014 Oct 23 Macur Team reply “as previously advised we are unable to give an indication of when we will submit our report to Government.”

2015 July 7  Macur Review Reply to Cathy Fox “We have provided all the information that we are able to at this stage in response to your questions.” in answer to “Please could you state when the review is due to be sent to government, [and be publically published.] Please could you state what counselling was available for survivors who gave evidence to you. Please could you state why the review has taken so long and why the Review has chosen not to be transparent I would be grateful for the answers to these very reasonable questions, especially after victims lives are still on hold after giving you information.

Appendix 1

Minister of State for Justice and Civil Liberties Simon Hughes, reply to a Parliamentary Question on 20 November 2014, Hansard

Ian Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice when he expects that the Macur Review will report. (214637)

Simon Hughes: Lady Justice Macur’s Review is entirely independent of Government and its timetable is a matter for her. She is on record as saying that her Review would be thorough and that she would not draw any conclusions until she had considered all the evidence. I am, however, confident that good progress has been made and the Review is nearing its completion. The Government looks forward to receiving Lady Justice Macur’s Report next year.

Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. 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. Other useful sites are One in Four [C] and Havoca [D]. Useful post on triggers [E] from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog.


[1] Macur Review

[2] Macur review FAQ

[3] Bryn Alyn Victims

[4] Wikipedia Macur

[5] Macur Submission

[6] Macur Submission Andrea Davison

[7] Macur FOI Jones

[8] Macur FOI Scot

[9] Macur Review Issues Paper

[10] May announces Pallial inquiry into North Wales Child Abuse

[11] Waterhouse Report

[12] Needleblog Pallial

[13] Macur Andrea Davison

[14] Bryn Alyn victims Blogspot

[15] Needleblog North Wales

[16] Spotlight on Abuse in North Wales

[17] North Wales Child Abuse Wikipedia

[18] Paedos Exposed

[19] Touch of Frost North Wales

[20] North wales tribunal

[21] Mason free Zone

[22] Gordon Anglesea

[23] Rebecca TV Investigations North Wales

[24] Waterhouse meeting

[25] Messham BBC

[26] Cathy Fox Bryn Alyn

[27] Macur review

[28] Cathy Fox FOI to Home office on Macur Review

[29] Pedocriminalite

[30] 2014 May 25 Cathy Fox Macur review refuses to give report publishing date

[51] 2015 Jun 18 What Do They Know Macur Review

[52] 2014 Oct 8 Macur Review Limps on and on

[53] 2014 May 25 Macur Review Refuses to give Report Publishing Date

[54] 2013 Oct 10 What do They Know Jones

[55] 2014 Apr 24 What Do They Know  cathyfoxblog

[56] 2015 Nov 3 Rebecca Television THE MACUR REVIEW: A LOSS OF CONFIDENCE

[57] 2014 Nov 24 What Do They Know Macur Review cathyfoxblog

[58] Wikipedia Great Officers of State

[59] What Do They Know unanswered FOI name

[60] 2015 May 31 Daily Mail Hague faces cover-up row over Thatcher ally’s link to care home abuse scandal: Former foreign secretary said to have been made aware of Sir Peter Morrison’s connections while working as Welsh secretary

[61] Macur Review

[62] 2013 Jun 24 Paddy French website A Touch of Frost

[63] 2013 Jun 24 Paddy French website North Wales Child Abuse tribunal

[65] 2015 Jul 11  Paddy French website Gordon Anglesea charged

[66] 2015 Jul 2 Wales Online How North Wales paedophile ring targeted vulnerable young men – and how, decades on, they were brought to justice

[67] 2015 Wikipedia Macur

[68] Johnny Void blog William Hague Fingered in Gay Affair Scandal

[69] 2014 Jul 13 Mirror Tory child abuse whistleblower: ‘Margaret Thatcher knew all about underage sex ring among ministers’

[70] Archive of Waterhouse Report

[71] Macur Statement Blogspot Andrea Davison submission to Macur review

[72] 2012 Nov 8 Telegraph William Hague stifled 1996 paedophile report, says ‘victim’

[73] 2010 Sep 1 Guardian Christopher Myers: the man in the spotlight

[74] Wikipedia North Wales Child Abuse Scandal

[75] 2015 Jul 26 Desiring Progress Peter Morrison – the child abuser protected by MI5, the Cabinet Secretary, and Margaret Thatcher – updated July 2015

[76] 2014 Sept Cathy Fox Request on Gilberthorpe Dossier

[77] 2015 Jul 28 Cathy Fox Top Trumps – British Nonces – High Quality

[A] Sanctuary for the Abused


[C] One in Four

[D] Havoca

[E] SurvivorsJustice Triggers post

[F] SurvivorsJustice Blog

[G] Jim Hopper Mindfulness

[H] Jim Hopper Meditation

This is all written in good faith but if there is anything that needs to be corrected please email

cathyfox the truth will out, the truth will shout, the truth will set us free

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 #OpDeathEaters, #OpPaedoHunt, Andrea Davison, Bryn Alyn, cathyfoxblog, Child Abuse, Child sexual abuse, Childrens home, Freedom of Information Request, Inquiries, Macur Review, Wales and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Macur Review Omerta?

  1. Pingback: Macur Review – Foxy's Extra Blog

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.