Excluding Northern Ireland and Scotland from the inquiry is, in my opinion, a very cynical move on the part of the Theresa May to limit the inquiry and keep extremely sensitive intelligence matters off the agenda.

The Kincora Boys Home (N. Ireland) scandal is an essential subject for the Inquiry to review for a full understanding of the role of Britain's intelligence community in this affair. In Scotland the so called "Magic Circle" child sex abuse scandal is even more vital in order to understand the role of the police and, especially, the widespread judiciary involvement in paedophile activities. Not least the Scottish story impinges on the Jimmy Savile case and what I suspect was his role in using powerful Scottish underworld connections to threaten and even murder people.

Personally, I don't believe Theresa May has the slightest intention to allow an unobstructed inquiry with full powers -- and the foregoing limitations prove that already.

Not least the fact that Fiona Woolf had already resigned prior to the meeting the Home office held with interested parties last Friday (October 31st) without advising those present that she had resigned, for me clearly demonstrates their ingrained dishonesty. Nothing changes and I doubt it ever will.

Lastly I think I disagree with Tom Watson, who I otherwise regard highly, in stating that he thinks Theresa May is trying to get to the truth. Maybe he's right, but her track record to date is simply awful. It may be she is complacent and weak and that her civil servants are able to manipulate her blind. Either way she has demonstrated an inability to do the right thing at the right time.

From Ianpace. blog

Quote:Colin Tucker, steward to Fiona Woolf, Fettesgate and the Scottish Magic Circle' Affair, and Wider Networks Part 1 →

The Meeting with the Abuse Inquiry Secretariat at Millbank Tower, Friday October 31st, 2014

Posted: November 1, 2014 | Author: Ian Pace | Filed under: Abuse, Conservative Party, Labour Party, Politics, Westminster | Tags: against violence and abuse, alison millar, Barbara castle, barbara hearn, ben emmerson, children's society, fax maxted, fiona woolf, independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, jonathan west, leigh day, liz davies, lucy duckworth, napac, NSPCC, parents against child sexual exploitation, peter mckelvie, peter righton, peter saunders, peter wanless, sharon evans, survivors trust, theresa may, usha choli, victim support |12 CommentsYesterday (Friday, October 31st, 2014) I attended the roundtable for the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse at Millbank Tower, together with 20 others. Whilst it would not be appropriate to provide a full list of attendees, various have otherwise identified themselves or been identified: Peter Wanless from the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC); Peter Saunders from the National Association for People Abused in Childhood (NAPAC); Liz Davies, social worker and whistleblower at Islington Council, now Reader in Child Protection at London Metropolitan University; Peter McKelvie, former child protection manager involved in the 1992 investigation into Peter Righton; Jonathan West, St Benedict's School parent and campaigner into abuse at Ealing Abbey and associated schools, also part of MandateNow, but on this occasion there in a personal capacity; Alison Millar from Leigh Day Solicitors, Lucy Duckworth from Ministry & Clergy Sexual Abuse Survivors (MACSAS); and Fay Maxted from The Survivors Trust. In some cases other representatives of these organisations were also present; other organisations represented were the Association of Child Abuse Lawyers, Parents Against Child Sexual Exploitation (PACE), The Children's Society, Against Violence and Abuse (AVA) Project, and Victim Support. I was at the meeting because of my involvement as a campaigner on abuse in musical education and contact with survivors there, and also because of wider research into organised abuse.
Jonathan West has already written a blog post on the meeting, and has covered some things I might have done and so will do so briefly; here I just want to add my own impressions and some further thoughts coming out of the further developments yesterday. It would not be appropriate to report exactly who said what, except where they have made this known elsewhere, so I will not do so, but I can give a broader picture of the nature of the meeting. From when people began to arrive there was a barrage of media outside Millbank Tower which had only increased by the end of the meeting; they were keen to interview attendees from when they arrived.
The meeting, which took place on the 12th floor and ran from 10:30 until slightly after 13:30, was also attended by two members of the inquiry panel, Barbara Hearn and Sharon Evans, as well as counsel to the inquiry, Ben Emmerson QC. It was chaired by Usha Choli, Engagement Manager to the inquiry, and several other administrative staff were present. All were sat around a large table with the panel members and counsel at one end, whilst Choli remained standing through the three-hour meeting. The administrative staff were taking notes throughout whilst Choli made some larger notes on a flipchart.
It is clear that this meeting was organised at very short notice, with most representatives having only been informed about it earlier in the week. It would appear to have been a response to widespread reporting about unhappiness following Fiona Woolf's appearance before the Home Affairs Select Committee on Tuesday October 21st, 2014, and many subsequent reports suggesting there was more to her connections with various relevant individuals than had been made clear during this appearance and in the letter confirming Woolf's connections which was previously posted on the inquiry website. The details of these are now well-known and need little extra rehearsing; suffice to say that I think if she had stayed in position, some of the seemingly less important connections (in particular concerning her steward Colin Tucker) would have been raked over more extensively in the media.
However, I want to stress that I felt this was a very positive and constructive meeting, notwithstanding the naturally heated atmosphere as a result of overwhelming dissatisfaction with then then-chair of the inquiry, Fiona Woolf. Throughout I got a sense that there was a real will to listen to the representatives present and try to answer the numerous questions posed and also aim for transparency of process; of course the real test will be whether the Secretariat of the Inquiry and the Home Office follow through on these promises. There will be a further meeting next Friday morning (November 7th, 2014), possibly starting later. It was made clear at this meeting that the secretariat will be happy to accommodate a larger group if necessary (and book a larger room for the purpose), and I would urge anyone who feels they should be present as a survivors' representative or because of other relevant expertise to contact them as soon as possible.
At the outset, all those present were invited to introduce themselves, detail the organisation they represented where appropriate, and list one thing they felt to be most important for the inquiry to consider. Many different responses were given to the latter, such as considering non-sexual abuse, looking at how various institutions turned a blind eye, to (my own point) considering the culture of institutions in which abuse is able to flourish unchecked.
From these points, almost immediately a discussion flared up about whether one should assume that the chair and panel as currently constituted would remain, and also about what real powers the inquiry would have. In response to concerns about the latter, the point was made early on that the possibility of the inquiry having statutory powers (so that they would be able to demand evidence) had not been ruled out by any means, leading Choli to take a poll of those present as to whether this would be their preferred option. There was unanimous support for this, with various individuals expressing their belief that otherwise many institutions would provide no more information to the inquiry than absolutely necessary (I personally know of institutions who would act this way as a matter of policy because of fear of any other information being used against them in civil lawsuits). Choli made clear that this verdict would be communicated to the appropriate people.
Following this came a call for everyone to express their views on the suitability of Fiona Woolf as chair of the inquiry. Of those present, the majority were unequivocal in their view that she should definitely resign; three individuals were a little less emphatic, mostly because of concern about the delay to the inquiry that would be caused by the resignation of the chair, and two others were very mildly less emphatic than others whilst still essentially sharing the belief that Woolf's resignation was necessary. Later in the meeting, various people made clear that were Woolf to remain chair, they and the survivors they represent had no intention of having anything to do with the inquiry. As Jonathan West has pointed out, there were a variety of reasons for this view, not simply Woolf's relationship to Leon Brittan and others; various people also commented upon her lack of experience in this field and the amount of time which it would take for her to become fully acquainted with it within an otherwise busy schedule.
Otherwise, the schedule presented (in which there would be discussions about how the panel would engage with representatives, how such representatives would engage with each other, which issues the panel should be considering, and how the panel could draw upon representatives' networks) was not really followed, though various of the issues listed were covered through the course of the ensuing discussion. Those present were invited to suggest skill sets or other areas of expertise they felt were not represented on the panel at present, and invited to suggest names for further individuals who could contribute in this respect. Expertise in abuse in education, not least in elite public schools, does not seem to be well-represented on the panel at present, and I hope some good suggestions will be made on this; I have proposals of my own to make for those knowledgeable about abuse in music and the arts worlds to suggest.
The Terms of Reference of the inquiry have received some criticism, for reasons of perceived vagueness, the omission of some types of institutions from the scope, and in particular the restriction of the inquiry to cover England and Wales. It was made clear that this latter point was due to devolution legislation which made devolved authorities responsible for child protection issues; thus Scotland and Northern Ireland would not be included. The message communicated, if not wholly clearly, suggested that the authorities in Scotland had not shown any inclination to launch a parallel inquiry of their own, despite widespread allegations of abuse in Scotland (much of it involving institutions and individuals operative elsewhere in the UK). This issue needs to be pursued further, and the Scottish Government held to account; various of those present at the meeting rightly asked the question of what they were meant to take back to Scottish survivors of abuse from this meeting. One person suggested that the model of a Royal Commission, such as was used in Australia to overcome separate jurisdiction in different states, might get round this problem. I requested that the appropriate devolution legislation and other clarification be placed on the inquiry website concerning all of these matters. Further questions affect the Channel Islands, under separate jurisdiction; knowledge of links between Jersey and Islington were raised.
In terms of the shape of the inquiry, it was presented as being in three stages: (i) consultation of all published and unpublished documentary evidence (referred to as the reports'); (ii) taking of testimony from individuals; (iii) writing of the final report. The counsel also made clear in response to questions, some from myself, that those giving evidence to the inquiry would not be subject to criminal liability if their information was sub judice (thus otherwise liable for contempt of court proceedings) or libel, unless it could be shown to have been given maliciously. Even more importantly, it was also affirmed that those who give evidence will not be liable to prosecution under the Official Secrets Act; this is very important for current or former civil servants who may have been privy to important information. The panel will receive developed vetting' powers, enabling them to view security and intelligence files. They will also be able to access currently closed' files I raised the example of the Barbara Castle archives in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, access to most of which has been forbidden to three people who have tried, and which might oossibly contain a copy of Castle's own dossier of paedophiles in politics. In other archives, others have found access has been forbidden to key files on sensitive matters involving prominent individuals.
Liz Davies has emphatically made the point both inside and outside the meeting about the need for the inquiry to be limited to organised abuse (so not familial abuse with no institutional involvement) and also should consider some non-sexual forms of abuse such as torture. Others spoke of knowing survivors of abuse by some of the most prominent politicians in the country, and of massively widespread abuse in the care system, churches, schools, and elsewhere. One individual made the important point that the principal reason for Lady Butler-Sloss's resignation from the inquiry chair was not so much the fact that her late brother was Attorney-General as that a report had suggested she had dismissed evidence against a bishop in order to protect the church. There were some questions placed to the members of the panel present about their own connections and the means by which they were selected for this task; an undertaking was provided that this latter process would be made clear on the inquiry website.
If anyone has reason to question whether this is a fair account of the meeting, I welcome comments below, and am happy to make changes if necessary.
As mentioned before, towards the end of the meeting, people returned to the issue of complete lack of survivor confidence in Fiona Woolf. Of course, within less than four hours of the meeting breaking up (and widespread media coverage of statements by various of those who were present), Fiona Woolf's resignation was announced. Now the inquiry is at least partially in a state of limbo.
Tom Watson has repeatedly tweeted and otherwise expressed his opinion that this should not be turned into an opportunity to score political points against Home Secretary Theresa May, who he believes genuinely wishes to get to the truth, unlike various politicians and non-politicians around her. Knowing of Watson's tireless efforts on behalf of this issue (from his crucial question to the Prime Minister in October 2012, alleging the existence of a high-level paedophile ring with connections to a former Prime Minister, onwards) and his resolute will to stand up to corrupt power (as amply demonstrated through the phone-hacking affair), I am sure he would not make such an observation about a politician from an opposing party lightly, and think everyone should take this seriously. In the immediate aftermath of Woolf's resignation, both Labour leader Ed Miliband and Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper have wasted no time in making this into an issue of incompetence on the part of the Home Secretary and accumulate political capital in the process.
I hope this will die down quickly. No political party has reason to be complacent on this issue, and for it to descend into partisan point-scoring (just as UKIP unsuccessfully attempted to do in elections for the new South Yorkshire Police Commissioner) is both to trivialise the grave importance of the issue and what is at stake, and may be insulting to some survivors. Finding an appropriate chair for this inquiry with no conflicts of interest is no easy task, and whilst it is clear that the process has not be managed well, it would be rash to assume that if Labour or another political party were faced by the same demands as is the current government, they would have managed it much better. Furthermore, Labour and the left in general have their own types of establishments' as well, including politicians and others who are also likely to be the subject of scrutiny; some candidates being touted from the left might be equally problematic for this reason.
I believe very passionately that all politicians should do all they can to take the issue of child abuse out from short-term party politics (and equally avoid exploiting it to bolster black-and-white ideologies concerning race, class, gender, sexuality and so on), and co-operate, in consultation with survivors and their representatives, and other expert parties, to try and find a chair who will command maximum support. It is in my opinion really vital that the inquiry is able to start its business before the General Election (to stop it being used as a political football then), and that it commands support and inspires confidence in its integrity. No such inquiry will ever satisfy everyone, and some alleged cases of organisational abuse may be found to have been other than portrayed by those making the allegations (though of course also some hitherto unknown cases may also come to light). But to have an inquiry which has the widest range of powers realistically available, and which is staffed by those with a genuine commitment to the truth, will be a major step forward, little imaginable even just a year ago.
[Addendum: An article in the Mail on Sunday has reported various participants expressing serious unhappiness about the fact that the resignation of Woolf had already been decided before this meeting took place, yet no-one at the meeting was informed of this. Whilst other aspects of the meeting remain valuable, I would like to add my voice to those who feel a lot of time was taken up pointlessly as a result, and this does suggest stage management on the part of the Home Office. In this context, I will also register here that at the meeting I raised the question of whether, in case there were to be a voluntary resignation of the chair (which at this stage appeared more than a little likely following the release of the seven drafts of Woolf's letter to the Home Office, providing clear evidence of manipulation of truth), other candidates had been considered? This was not least in order to obtain some clarification of the process for vetting potential chairs. No doubt because of instructions emanating from the Home Office, the reply was that it would be inappropriate to discuss this issue at that point in time..]

Unbelievable they are not going to do Northern Ireland and Scotland. It is the government of the UK that is running the inquiry. Again there are n rational grounds for not including them but it make perfect sense if it is a cover up.

The following llnk is to an interesting and well referenced report of the Magic Circle child sex abuse affair. It is a long report and for that reason I haven't copies it here verbatim. There are text copies of numerous newspaper stories. My eye was, in particular, drawn to The Guardian report dated 5th September 1992 about the curious break-in at the police HQ which was presented with the false trail of the Animal Liberation Front -but blame has also been more likely cast upon MI5. Read the story HERE.

David Guyatt Wrote:The following llnk is to an interesting and well referenced report of the Magic Circle child sex abuse affair. It is a long report and for that reason I haven't copies it here verbatim. There are text copies of numerous newspaper stories. My eye was, in particular, drawn to The Guardian report dated 5th September 1992 about the curious break-in at the police HQ which was presented with the false trail of the Animal Liberation Front -but blame has also been more likely cast upon MI5. Read the story HERE.

Yes that caught my eye also. It was on a previous post above. I was going to mention it yesterday but ran out of time. Extraordinary. And I think they pinned it on some patsy too.

Be sure your lies will eventually catch you out.

Quote:

Dickensgate Guest Blog Post by Brian Merritt on Inconsistencies in Leon Brittan's Accounts

Posted: July 6, 2014 | Author: Ian Pace | Filed under: Abuse, Conservative Party, Geoffrey Dickens, PIE, Westminster | Tags: bobby friedman, channel 4 news, cyril smith, douglas hurd, Geoffrey Dickens, Home Office, jimmy savile, leon brittan, margaret thatcher, mark sedwill, martin hickman, michael gillespie, mischon de reya, nigel pantling, paedophile information exchange, paraic o'brien, simon danczuk, sir brian cubbon, sir hugh taylor, thomas hetherington, tim smith|3 Comments[The following guest blog post was written by Brian Merritt aka @MySweetLandlord on Twitter. I am immensely grateful to Brian for this, which reveals very clearly many questions yet to be answered in the wake of the statements this week on the Dickens dossier by Leon Brittan.]
The 2 links below summarise the timeline of events on Wednesday July 2014 regarding various statements made regarding the Dickens Dossier'.
Lord Brittan's comments on 1980s Westminster child sex abuse dossier", ITV, July 2nd, 2014, updated July 6th, 2014
Tom Harper, Lord Brittan issues statement on alleged Westminster paedophile ring', The Independent, July 2nd, 2014.
On Wednesday July 2nd 2014 at 10am Leon Brittan issues a statement through his solicitors Mischon de Reya:
During my time as Home Secretary (1983 to 1985), Geoff Dickens MP arranged to see me at the Home Office. I invariably agreed to see any MP who requested a meeting with me. As I recall, he came to my room at the Home Office with a substantial bundle of papers. As is normal practice, my Private Secretary would have been present at the meeting. I told Mr Dickens that I would ensure that the papers were looked at carefully by the Home Office and acted on as necessary. Following the meeting, I asked my officials to look carefully at the material contained in the papers provided and report back to me if they considered that any action needed to be taken by the Home Office. In addition I asked my officials to consider a referral to another Government Department, such as the Attorney General's Department, if that was appropriate. This was the normal procedure for handling material presented to the Home Secretary. I do not recall being contacted further about these matters by Home Office officials or by Mr Dickens or by anyone else.
This statement in itself was not remarkable, although it is somewhat unusual is issue such a statement through a firm of solicitors. But the devil is in the detail, and the context is all important. For a start, although it didn't specifically say so, this was a statement about child sex abuse, despite sounding like a dispute over a planning application.
Furthermore, Leon Brittan had been asked about paperwork supplied by Geoff Dickens before. By Martin Hickman of the Independent:

And also by Paraic O'Brien of Channel 4 News (Paraic O'Brien, Leon Brittan: I was handed paedophile' dossier', Channel 4 News, July 2nd, 2014), this was the exchange which took place:
In the email, I said: "I'm trying to find a dossier that was given to you by Geoffrey Dickens MP regarding child abuse while you were home secretary. I've been in contact with the Home Office but am not holding out much hope that they will be able to find it."
I went on to ask him whether he had any recollection of the dossier. Half an hour later, Lord Brittan replied by email. He wrote: "I'm afraid I do not recollect this and do not have any records which would be of assistance, Leon Brittan."
Now, all of a sudden,Leon Brittan recollected quite vividly. But also quite wrongly. A Home Office statement suddenly appeared, quoting from a letter sent by Leon Brittan to Geoff Dickens dated March 20th 1984. This statement was based upon the Executive Summary of a Home Office report concerning Historical records of documents it had relating to child sex abuse dated February 2013:
Dear Geoff,
You drew my attention to a number of allegations concerning paedophilia when you called here on 23 November and in subsequent letters. I am now able to tell you that, in general terms, the view of the Director of Public Prosecutions is that two of the letters you forwarded could form the basis for enquiries by the police and they are now being passed to the appropriate authorities. In other cases there either seems to be inadequate evidence to pursue prosecution, for example the lady who wrote about PIE[1. Paedophile Information Exchange] advertising but did not secure any example of the material complained of, or they have already been dealt with in some way by the courts or the police.
This flatly contradicted Leon Brittan's assertion from his statement that he had "not been contacted further about these matters". A second statement was promptly issued:
In the last hour I have been alerted to a Home Office independent review conducted last year into what information it received about organised child sex abuse between 1979 and 1999. A letter was sent from myself to Mr Dickens on March 20, 1984 explaining what had been done in relation to the files. The Home Office independent review is entirely consistent with the action I set out in my earlier statement. Whilst I could not recall what further action was taken 30 years ago, the information contained in this report shows that appropriate action and follow-up happened.
Although, in itself, this chain of events didn't appear to be particularly significant, things had started to look a little muddled. So let's return to that first statement and ponder the real significance of what Leon Brittan actually admitted did happen.
Firstly, Dickens attended the Brittan meeting with "a substantial bundle of papers". Presumably there would be some record in the Home Office of these papers having been provided. However returning to the Executive Summary report linked above, the only information recorded at the Home Office would appear to be subsequent letters.
The evidence of the existence of such a document is compelling. Contemporary press reports yield much information. This link Ian Pace, Published Articles on Geoffrey Dickens, Leon Brittan, and the Dossier', Desiring Progress, July 2nd, 2014 contains all the relevant articles.

Daily Express, November 25th, 1983


Daily Mirror, January 19th, 1984

Both these press cuttings specify dossiers supplied by Dickens. But there is something else interesting about them they are dated 2 months apart, but both refer to dossiers being handed over yesterday'. Clearly there were 2 meetings between Dickens and Brittan, and therefore there were 2 dossiers, rather than 1!
Further digging yielded an article from the Daily Telegraph, November 15th, 1984:

So Leon Brittan had a total of 3 meetings with Geoff Dickens, during which at least 2 dossiers were provided. Also handed over was a petition with one million signatures (Daily Express, November 25th, 1983.

As if this wasn't enough, as reported in the Daily Express, August 25th, 1983. Dickens produced a thick file' which he handed direct to Sir Thomas Hetherington, the Director of Public Prosecutions:

On that very same day, Leon Brittan broke his holiday to express his outrage at child sex attacks, and declare he was taking a "personal interest" Daily Star, August 24th, 1983:

The following day, The Guardian reported:

Two Scotland Yard dossiers had been produced, one of which was sent to the Home Office.
All the evidence therefore shows that Geoff Dickens had 3 meetings with Leon Brittan and provided him with 2 dossiers and a huge petition. He also handed another dossier to the DPP naming 8 big names including a personal friend of his' and a television presenter'. Scotland Yard produced 2 files of their own, 1 of which also went to Leon Brittan, the other of which went to the DPP. Leon Brittan's first statement admitted to Dickens providing a substantial bundle of papers', which is consistent with at least 1 of these dossiers.
But whatever became of these dossiers? But the Home Office Investigation of February 2013 had failed to find any record of these dossiers, let alone the dossiers themselves. Since that investigation, Home Office Permanent Secretary Mark Sedwill has clarified, in a letter to Keith Vaz MP dated July 5th 2014, that "The investigation did not find a single dossier from Mr Dickens" (see Sedwill to Vaz, July 5th, 2014, reproduced on Tom Watson's site).
This time there was some detail of what records had been kept:
The review identified 527 relevant files which had been retained. These 527 physical files were all physically examined. In addition the same extensive analysis identified 114 potentially relevant files had been presumed destroyed, missing or not found.
What this statement doesn't clarify is whether there is any record of what these 114 files were, and whether any of them originated from Geoff Dickens. What it does clarify is that 18% of relevant files were recorded but not physically present.
It also confirmed that Leon Brittan, who was outraged and taking a personal interest in child sex abuse, had managed to write just the 1 letter to Geoff Dickens, detailing the small amount of information he had forwarded to the DPP.
Under these circumstances we need to return to what Leon Brittan actually admitted did happen during his meeting with Geoff Dickens on November 23rd 1983.
As is normal practice, my Private Secretary would have been present at the meeting.
So there was a witness to exactly what happened. Leon Brittan had 3 private secretaries at the Home Office (see Dod's Parliamentary Companion, 1984):

Here is Sir Hugh Taylor's profile at Debrett's; here is Nigel Pantling's profile; whilst this article references Michael Gillespie.
These 3 civil servants are all very much still alive and active in professional life, and Leon Brittan has put them in an awkward position. If none of them admit to being at the relevant Dickens meeting they contradict Leon Brittan. If 1 of them admits to being present but denies the production of a dossier they also contradict Leon Brittan. If 1 of them admits to being present and also admits the production of a dossier it raises serious questions for the Home Office to answer, in addition to those concerning the rest of the dossiers reported to have been logged with the Home Office at various times.
The Dickens Dossier' itself is only part of the jigsaw. The wider issue is that Geoff Dickens and Leon Brittan had a great deal of personal contact over the issue of child sex abuse in high places 1983-84, and it is impossible to believe that names weren't mentioned. Geoff Dickens was a personal friend of Cyril Smith, who was MP for the neighbouring constituency of Rochdale. Leon Brittan himself had been to Rochdale to help Cyril Smith with fundraising (from Simon Danczuk, A promiscuous mother and the childhood taunts that turned Cyril Smith into a twisted predator', Daily Mail, April 17th, 2014);

If one of those names was Cyril Smith it would surely have caught Leon Brittan's attention, and perhaps his child sex abuse could have been curtailed nearly 30 years before he died. If another was Jimmy Savile, the same applies.
However the Dickens Dossier' has become the focus of press and public attention, and some further explanation is required as to what became of it. Hopefully the ex Home Office civil servants named above will be more forthcoming than Sir Brian Cubbon (see Former mandarin has "no recollection" of paedophile dossier', Channel 4 News, July 3rd, 2014). He was the Permanent Secretary at the Home Office 1979-1988, but has "no recollection at all" of this dossier.
As stated above, Leon Brittan's Parliamentary Private Secretary was Tim Smith MP. He also has no memory of the Dickens Dossier'.

The final name stated above was Douglas Hurd MP, Minister of State at the Home Office 1983-84 and himself Home Secretary 1985-1989. He has yet to comment, but his memoirs (as quoted at Ian Pace, Douglas Hurd on Leon Brittan at the Home Office', Desiring Progress, July 5th, 2014)
state the following:
Leon's style was centralising in the sense that he liked to know everything and took the main decisions himself.

From Ianpace blog.

Being a cynic about this, I hardly need mention that the panel having access to secret files - if that does, in fact, happen - is not the same as having the right to publish it in whole or part.

But it is interesting that the Dickens Dossier might be in Oxford Uni? I wonder how Castle obtained a copy, if indeed she did?

Quote:The Dickens Dossier: Secret file on establishment paedophiles may be opened

File rumoured to be locked in archives at Oxford University's Bodleian Library

PAUL GALLAGHER

Wednesday 05 November 2014

A secret file which is said to contain the names of paedophiles with links to the British establishment and which is rumoured to be locked away in archives at the University of Oxford's Bodleian Library, could be made public as part of the Government's child abuse inquiry.

Inquiry panel members Barbara Hearn and Sharon Evans, along with Ben Emmerson QC, counsel to the inquiry, assured campaigners at their meeting last week shortly before Fiona Woolf announced she would be the second person to resign as chair that they would have top-level security clearance and access to restricted or closed files.
The whereabouts of the "Dickens Dossier", containing allegations of paedophiles linked to the British establishment and compiled by former Conservative MP Geoffrey Dickens, is unknown. It went missing after the politician handed it to the then Home Secretary, Leon Brittan, in 1984, as are more than 100 documents concerning child abuse allegations that had been held by the Home Office. It is rumoured it may be in the Barbara Castle archives within the University of Oxford's Bodleian Library.

Former Conservative MP Geoffrey Dickens (Getty)
Ian Pace, who in 2013 organised a petition of musicians calling for a public inquiry into abuse in specialist music schools, and one of 21 campaigners at Friday's meeting chaired by Home Office official Usha Choli, asked whether the panel would have access to closed archives such as those belonging to the former Labour cabinet minister under Harold Wilson.
"The answer seemed to be yes," said Mr Pace. "We were told the panel's security clearance would enable them to access things like intelligence files and closed archives such as a lot of material contained within the Barbara Castle archives where some people suspect she may have kept a copy of the dossier."
At least three people have tried unsuccessfully to access the Castle files to see if it contains the Dickens Dossier, but found a lot of the material closed. Some papers with restricted access include diary entries and correspondence with family members. All of her correspondence with the former Labour Home Secretary Jack Straw between October 1981 and February 1999 is also marked "closed" on the library's database, along with a letter she wrote to Neil Kinnock in December 1999.
Barbara Castle, pictured in 1974 (Getty Images)
Mr Pace said: "I do know of separate occasions where people went after a whole range of material where the Dickens Dossier was likely to be, but could not see any of it."
The Independent on Sunday revealed at the weekend that the inquiry panel will have "developed vetting" top-level clearance allowing them access to intelligence files and information.
Home Secretary Theresa May told the Commons on Monday that the Government was "in the process of working out the protocol" to ensure that access is possible "between all agencies and the inquiry, so that no stone is left unturned".
Due to the number of ongoing cases and historical sex abuse trials taking place in the coming months, campaigners have received assurances from the panel that witnesses could give evidence about people already on trial, with proceedings therefore sub judice.

From The Needle.

Freddy the Fly and that picture.

One might opine that the significance of Freddy buzzing around that picture is that the witch had paedo's to her left and paedo's to her right? - it's not so much the charge of the light brigade, but rather the slithering of the kiddy fiddling brigade...

I note two different former Home Secretary's too.

Listen and weep.

Quote:

John Mann MP BBC Radio 4 Today 7th Nov14

John Mann MP talking to John Humphrys on BBC Radio 4 Today 7th Nov14. He talks about the Wanless Home Office Review into the missing Dickens dossier. He also mentions the Barbara Castle files, the journalist Don Hale, and the role of the Intelligence Services.

From the needle blog and the (related?) post below also:

Quote:

Question For Douglas Hurd

~

In 1981 Douglas Hurd was a junior Foreign Office Minister, he later replaced Leon Brittan as Home Secretary (1985-89) and became Foreign Secretary (1989-95). In 1997 Douglas Hurd was elevated to the House of Lords and became Baron Hurd of Westwell.

~

Senior Civil Servant (Security Risk)
HC Deb 17 March 1981
Mr. Dickens
asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether, in view of the references to the conduct of a former senior civil servant of the Ministry of Defence in the case of Regina v Thomas O'Carroll and others, he will cause an investigation to be made of the extent to which a security risk occurred at the posts at which that official served.
Mr. Hurd
I have been asked to reply.
The security authorities have carried out a full investigation. This has revealed nothing to suggest that security has been prejudiced.

Hansard

Question: Was Douglas Hurd told that former Deputy Director of MI6, Sir Peter Hayman was a paedophile and a member of the Paedophile Information Exchange when he was briefed by MI6 in 1981 before submitting this statement to the House of Commons ?

And it gets worse, and the main reasons for cover up begins to clarify.

It wasn't just the deputy director of MI6 who was a paedophile. Now it looks like the director, Sir Maurice Oldfield was also a paedophile. Plus there are other political names who were on the PIE membership list who probably were not paedophiles, but who supported PIE's objectives and who (I suspect) now wish to conceal this.

From The Needle blog:

Quote:PIE: The Paedophile Intelligence Enigma

Former Director of MI6 Maurice Oldfield and former Deputy Director of MI6 Peter Hayman

"A conspiracy like this… a conspiracy investigation… the rope has to tighten slowly around everyone's neck. You build convincingly from the outer edges in." Associate Director of the FBI Mark Felt (Deep Throat)

After two years of investigation since the Savile expose by many people, the noose is tightening.

Last night Exaro revealed that Sir Peter Hayman was the Deputy Director of MI6 Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, PIE.

The suggestion was not entirely new. Hugh Muir in The Guardian had said much the same in February 2014:

When the police did get around to prosecuting PIE leaders for conspiring to send indecent material through the post, a strange thing happened. Evidence comprised masses of obscene material, but by far the most active and viciously minded member of PIE one Mr Henderson was never prosecuted nor produced as a witness. Who was this hideous fellow? After the convictions, a conscience-stricken member of the prosecution called Private Eye to say they had been ordered from the very top to perjure themselves over "Mr Henderson" who was, in fact, Sir Peter Hayman, long-time deputy director of MI6.

[URL="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/25/hugh-muir-diary-ids-calculator"]
The Guardian[/URL]

However, that Guardian piece was only one article, Others had described Sir Peter Hayman variously as an MI6 operative, or someone with connections to the security services. The Exaro article is important in that it explicitly confirms Sir Peter Hayman as the Deputy Director of MI6 from around 1974.
Sir Peter Hayman was a paedophile and a member of PIE.

His tenure as Deputy Director of MI6 appears to coincide with Maurice Oldfield's tenure as the Director of MI6 (1974-1979) a man who has come under suspicion himself and not just for his homosexuality'.

The Prime Minister- Sir Maurice Oldfield became Security Co-ordinator in Northern Ireland in October 1979. Subsequently reports were received which caused his positive vetting clearance to be reviewed. In March 1980, in the course of that review, he made an admission that he had from time to time engaged in homosexual activities. His positive vetting clearance was withdrawn. By this time he was already a sick man; he finally ceased to serve as Security Co-ordinator in Northern Ireland when a successor took over in June 1980; he died in March 1981.
There was a lengthy and thorough investigation by the Security Service, which included many interviews with Sir Maurice Oldfield himself, to examine whether there was any reason to suppose that he himself or the interests of the country might have been compromised. The conclusion was that, though his conduct had been a potential risk to security…

Hansard

And so we face the very real possibility that from 1974 (the very year that PIE was founded) until 1979 both the Director and Deputy Director of MI6 were paedophiles and members of the Paedophile Information Exchange, PIE.

Over the last two years I've occasionally picked up tantalising indications that there is a different view within the security services regarding the establishment paedophile' issue, nothing firm, nothing that I could hang a story on, just the odd titbit here and there.

It now starts to make a little sense for if the foreign intelligence services(MI6) was headed by two paedophiles then the domestic intelligence service (MI5) would have known and would have been put in an impossible situation. One point I'd like to make is that it is not helpful to greater understanding to think of any of the UK's security services as homogeneous organisations. These are organisations which depend entirely, and out of necessity, on compartmentalisation of roles and information.

This brings me to the PIE membership list. Over the last two years I've had two sniffs of this but have never been able to lay my hands on a copy. I'm told that there are 3 slightly different membership lists held by 3 different police forces in the UK. I've also been told that there is no legal reason why this list could not be published. PIE was a legal organisation from 1974 until 1984. Though many members of PIE were at some stage prosecuted, being a member of PIE was not illegal and the membership list is not subject to the Data Protection Act as it can not be enforced retroactively.

It had been suggested to me that some names on the list are not paedophiles themselves, they foolishly considered the PIE campaign as a equality and rights issue and they deeply regret having been a member. We'll call this the NCCL PIE members for arguments sake, as it would not be unusual for executive members of an umbrella organisation like the NCCL to automatically receive membership of an associated organisation as PIE was to the NCCL. Nevertheless, these NCCL PIE members would have received literature through the post just as every member of PIE would.

I'm afraid that it is no longer in the public interest to spare these individual's blushes. With an increasing number of high establishment figures named as members of PIE it is essential that this membership list be put responsibly into the public domain.

At the very least, the CSA Inquiry panel members should not wait until a chair is appointed, they should demand copies of all three PIE membership lists without delay.

The Wanless Report proves to be as useless as anticipated. Wales was a former civil servant, and worked for, amongst others, Michael Portillo. He later became CEO of NSPCC - the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. As a former civil servant my guess is that he had the English civil servants skill with the English language?

I have honed on the statement made in his report which said: "there is no evidence that they [the files] were "deliberately or systematically removed or destroyed to cover up organised child abuse"."

As the aphorism says, "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

From this I conclude that these files either still reside in the Home Office (or that the purpose of their removal or destruction was not to do with organised child abuse but, rather, for reasons of state security perhaps?) and since Wanless goes on to say that: "the record-keeping practices inside the Home Office at the time mean it is not possible to reach a categorical conclusion on whether or not files were destroyed as part of a cover-up..." it seems to me that the files are probably still there somewhere. Might it be that the files are covered by a security level that Wanless did not have access to?

Quote: Theresa May: Wanless report finds Home Office cover-up not proven'

Home secretary says she cannot say there was no cover-up of child abuse allegations in 1980s

• Alan Travis, home affairs editor
  
• The Guardian, Tuesday 11 November 2014 14.06 GMT
  

Geoffrey Dickens (left) and Lord Brittan. In this video Peter Wanless summarises the findings of his report.

The official Wanless review into whether there has been a cover-up of the Home Office's handling of child abuse allegations in the 1980s has returned a verdict of "not proven", the home secretary, Theresa May, has told MPs.
"There might have been a cover-up," she said. "I cannot stand here and say the Home Office was not involved in a cover-up in the 1980s and that is why I am determined to get to the truth of this."
Peter Wanless, the chief executive of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC), concludes in his inquiry report into 114 missing Home Office files relating to child abuse in the 1980s that there is no evidence that they were "deliberately or systematically removed or destroyed to cover up organised child abuse".
Wanless says the record-keeping practices inside the Home Office at the time mean it is not possible to reach a categorical conclusion on whether or not files were destroyed as part of a cover-up but says: "We found nothing specific to support a concern that the Home Office had failed in any organised or deliberate way to identify or refer individual allegations of child abuse to the police."
The home secretary responded to Wanless's review of the original Home Office internal investigation into the missing files by asking him to look further at how the police and prosecution authorities handled the child abuse allegations that were passed on to them by the Home Office at the time.
She has also asked Wanless and his co-author, Richard Whittam QC, to establish whether any of the material mentioned in the internal inquiry or in connection with the 114 missing files was passed to the security services, and if so, what action they took.
MI5 responded to the Wanless inquiry by carrying out a search of its own files but said it had not found any relevant to the review.
The home secretary also announced that the Metropolitan police had agreed to investigate allegations by a journalist, Don Hale, that a file of allegations involving prominent people, including MPs, passed to him by Barbara Castle, had been seized from him by special branch officers.
One new Home Office file uncovered by the Wanless review does show that specific allegations of child abuse made by the former Tory MP Geoffrey Dickens were taken seriously by Lord Brittan when he was home secretary, but they did not involve prominent politicians or celebrities.
Wanless says that one relevant 1983 Home Office file, the "Brighton assaults" file, was found after the initial investigation had been completed. It contains correspondence between officials and ministers relating to meetings between Brittan and Dickens in 1983 and 1984, mostly prompted by a desire to respond to a horrific attack on a child in Brighton that had led to front-page headlines.
The file includes a paper setting out the case for and against banning the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) that was presented to Brittan on 31 August 1983. "He is recorded in discussion as accepting advice that, with ongoing police investigation into PIE activities, it was not right to be commenting further on banning the organisation," reports Wanless.
It also contains a departmental briefing for Brittan for a meeting with Dickens on 24 November when he handed over two letters containing specific allegations. In addition, it contains a subsequent letter from Dickens with further enclosed cases for investigation and thanking the home secretary for his "splendid support".
The cases were passed on to the director of public prosecutions and Dickens was subsequently told that two of the cases could form the basis for police investigations.
"There is no mention of prominent politicians or celebrities in the cases under discussion [in marked contrast to media commentary about these meetings at the time]," adds Wanless.
The inquiry also reviewed the evidence of alleged funding of PIE by the Home Office's voluntary services unit and concludes on the balance of probabilities that it did not take place. They say they cannot dismiss entirely evidence from a whistleblower that PIE might have been funded as part of a police or security service effort to infiltrate the organisation but found no evidence to support it.