The Power of the Paedos - another high profile case hits the 'never happened' wall?

[David Guyatt]

Exaro report HERE.

[David Guyatt]

Evidence given in court by a former vice chairman of social services in Greenwich Council was simply ignored.

Only when death arrives does the truth flood out.

So much for the tributes by Conservative colleagues then...

[quote]
Leon Brittan accusation: 'On his lap was a boy of about 12, stark naked'

LEON Brittan was twice photographed in *compromising positions with naked boys, an ex social worker has claimed.

By Tom Savage/Published 25th January 2015


PHOTOS: Chris was shocked by the vile images he was shown [MARK KEHOE]
Chris Fay, the former vice-chairman of social services at Greenwich council in London, said he saw the pictures in 1990 while looking into gay paedophile orgies at Elm Guest House.
Last night Chris said: "I saw it with my own eyes, Brittan sitting with these boys.
"This isn't secondhand or hearsay I saw it."
In the late 1980s Chris, working with the National Association of Young People In Care (NAYPIC), investigated claims of child abuse at Elm Guest House, which closed after a 1982 police raid.
He said the brothel's madam, Carole Kasir, kept copies of abuse photos taken there in a shoebox at her flat.
Last night he described how she revealed its contents.
He said: "Carole showed me eight photographs. Leon Brittan was in two of them.
"In one he was naked except for a frilly apron and cap, a sort of French maid's outfit. On his lap was a boy of about 12, *prepubescent, stark naked. Carole described him as a rent boy from Grafton'.
"In the second picture, Brittan was wearing just briefs. There was a naked eight-year-old sitting sideways on his lap. He had his arms around this boy and another man was standing in the background."
"He was naked except for a frilly apron and cap. On his lap was a boy of about 12"
Chris Fay
Chris was investigating claims that boys from Grafton Close Children's Home in *Richmond, south-west London, were trafficked to the guest house.
Documents made by him and published online by his former colleague Mary Moss name Lord Brittan as a guest house attendee.
Brittan was said to use the alias "Roger" when he booked in.
One of the services Elm Guest House provided was taking abuse photos for the entertainment of perverted punters.
Chris added: "I'll never forget being shown these photographs it was the 23rd of March, 1990. I've still got all the notes I made that day.
"The shoebox contained hundreds of photographs, a mix of Kodak Instamatic ones and normal 35mm.
"The Kodak ones were taken at Kings and Queens' parties, the 35mm ones in the sauna."
Chris said the images were stolen from diabetic Carole in 1990. Two days later she died from an insulin overdose. An inquest ruled it was suicide but friends including Chris are convinced she was murdered.
Chris told us: "At her inquest I said all of this and I named Leon Brittan in court.
"Nothing happened. There was no police enquiry.
"I feel bloody angry it was a huge missed opportunity.
"We had 22 victims contact us at NAYPIC, so this was not a victimless crime.
"I just want justice for the kids. I'm angry he died.
"All the kids at Grafton have been denied justice again."
Chris has *confirmed he has been contacted by police investigating the Elm Guest House allegations.

[David Guyatt]

From The Needle:

Correction And Direction

I have been recently contacted by someone extremely reliable who directed me to a comment left by Justin Sanity on this blog. Effectively that person suggested to me that this comment was more accurate than any other public accounts and that the author, Justin, very obviously knew what he was talking about.
That person also made it clear to me that Leon Brittan was not involved in the primary allegation of sexual abuse at Elm Guest House and that stories that Lord Brittan had been were inaccurate at best, and at worst verging on fantasy.
I accept what that person had to say and I believe that person.
My only interest in the Elm Guest House story from this point onward is to get an answer to the question; Just how did this entire issue become so muddied and damaging to so many innocent people ?'

Found it! I found that article in The Telegraph, by David Barrett, Tim Tate and Christopher Hope, where I first read a claim that the Elm Guest House child victim now an adult living in the US had confirmed Leon Brittan as an abuser:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/c...ictim.html
"Scotland Yard has tracked down a child at the centre of an alleged 1980s Westminster paedophile ring who has implicated a senior political figure, The Telegraph can disclose.
The man now in his 40s, whose identity is known to this newspaper is a successful entrepreneur based in the United States and has given a detailed account of how he was assaulted by the politician.[ LIES! ]
However, the alleged victim who was initially willing to co-operate has so far refused to make a formal statement to British detectives".
"Police are understood to have sent a United States investigator to interview the victim of alleged abuse at Elm Guest House, in Barnes, south-west London, who is now a successful businessman in his early 40s in the east coast US.
A US law enforcement officer, who had recently returned home after concluding a secondment to the Fernbridge team, was asked to interview the man on Scotland Yard's behalf earlier this year.
The alleged victim is understood to have named the senior figure. [Bullsh*t] During his original interview in 1982 the child referred to his abuser working at "the big house" [no, he didn't], which detectives believe was the Houses of Parliament.
The US officer reported back to Scotland Yard that the alleged victim was "ready to spill the beans" [more lies] and advised them to travel to America immediately to conduct a formal interview.
But by the time travel plans had been arranged, the man had changed his mind for unknown reasons and refused to co-operate, The Daily Telegraph understands"
"Fernbridge detectives also interviewed a retired police officer who was involved in the original Elm Guest House investigation and who interviewed the alleged victim at the time.
This newspaper understands the retired detective was reluctant to go into detail about why information about the politician was not included into witness statements at the time or submitted into evidence as part of a potential prosecution. [No, he was "reluctant" to be bullied into stating that the boy said anything at all about an "Uncle Leon" because that is a lie!]
His reluctance, which appears to reinforce the case for an amnesty, is understood to have stemmed from the policeman's fear that he could face disciplinary action, or other legal implications, or lose his pension".
Nonsense! This whole storyline is so obviously fraudulent…I don't know what to say. I really believed there was a sincere campaign to uncover and comprehend the truth, but it is becoming more & more clear to me that the campaign has really been about constructing a web of lies that would justify FRAMING an innocent man for crimes he never committed. I'm just shocked that so many respectable and respected persons publicly support all of this not least of which being Mark Williams-Thomas and Tom Watson. OMG!
The real story: Lee Towsey never mentions Carole Kasir's son, which means he was probably never at Elm Guest House and the whole "little queen" story is another of Fay's fabrications. Kasir's son was taken into care because his parents were convicted of "keeping a disorderly house" and judged to be unfit parents on that basis. Fay might actually have been "at the police station", but he was never a real social worker, so more likely he was there as a friend of the Kasir family. The boy never said anything about "uncle leon" or "the big house", so there never was anything mysteriously omitted from the police report. Op. Fernbridge probably did make contact with him, as an adult living in the US, and no doubt he simply refused to talk to them. Someone decided to take advantage of his total disinterest in discussing the subject with anyone, by falsely claiming that he had "made a full statement" and "named the politician" but later "changed his mind and refused to co-operate".

The Needle

37 Comments

[R.K. Locke]

A long piece but quite interesting:

http://www.tribunemagazine.org/2015/02/e...ossier-mp/

[David Guyatt]

Interesting about St. John Stevas. One moment he was very prominent and in the news and the next, whoosh, he was gone. But his report demonstrates that the intelligence service is the one who has/had solid photographic evidence of the paedophilia these guys were engaged in.

[David Guyatt]

Now that Leon Brittan is dead the Inquiry can start in earnest. The Home Secretary had to go to New Zealand to find someone uncontaminated in establishment protocols.

From the needleblog:

Ben Emerson's Statement Regarding Justice Lowell Goddard's Appointment

Ben Emerson QC

Statement: New Chair For Inquiry
Posted on 4th February 2015
Statement by Ben Emmerson QC, counsel to the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse:
"The Home Secretary is extremely fortunate to have secured the services of Justice Lowell Goddard, one of the most respected and experienced judges in the Commonwealth, to act as Chair of the new statutory inquiry that was announced in the House of Commons this afternoon. Justice Goddard has all the key qualities necessary to lead the Inquiry's work absolute independence from the executive, a proven track record of holding state and non-state institutions to account, and the forensic skills necessary to digest and analyse vast quantities of evidence. She is a judge with a longstanding commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights, both in New Zealand and within the United Nations system. She has the courage, independence and vision required to run a major national investigation into the failure to protect vulnerable children against sexual abuse, which has reportedly taken place on an almost industrial scale in institutional settings in the United Kingdom over many years.
I have personally reviewed the selection and due diligence processes used by the Home Office in the appointment of Justice Goddard. These processes were carried out in unprecedented depth and detail, and meet the highest possible standards of pre-appointment scrutiny. As part of the selection process, the Home Secretary has consulted personally and through her officials with victims and survivors, and she has listened carefully to their concerns and priorities in framing these new arrangements.
As a result of this review, the original panel appointed last September has been dissolved and a new panel will in due course be selected by the Home Secretary in consultation with Justice Goddard, following an objective appointment process conducted in accordance with transparent criteria. Despite a number of difficulties, the original panel managed to do some important groundwork in the short time that it was in place. This work will help to inform the decisions that Justice Goddard will now have to make in framing the inquiry's methodology.
But it is important to stress that this is a completely fresh start. The inquiry that the Home Secretary has announced today will be a statutory inquiry established under the 2005 Inquiries Act. Unlike the previous panel inquiry it will have powers to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence by institutions and individuals. Justice Goddard and her legal advisers will be able to review open and classified sources. This new inquiry will therefore have all the powers it needs to penetrate deeply into the institutions that have failed children in the past, and to identify those institutions that are reportedly continuing to fail children today. And it will do so under the leadership of an exceptionally experienced judge.
This new inquiry will begin its work on a fully professional footing from the outset. Every effort will of course be made to keep the public sufficiently informed about the progress of the inquiry, with as much transparency as possible. However, some of the inquiry's work will necessarily be conducted under conditions of confidentiality which are essential for the effective investigation of such serious and sensitive allegations.
I am pleased to say that the independent Secretariat, which has been working hard to lay the groundwork for this inquiry, will continue to serve as the Secretariat for the new statutory inquiry. The members of this dedicated team have been recruited from across government departments and beyond. They are committed to the success of this new inquiry and will be answerable to Justice Goddard and the new panel, and to no one else. They are, and will remain, fully independent of Government.
I am also pleased to confirm that I have accepted an invitation from the Home Secretary to act as counsel to the Goddard Inquiry. In this capacity I have already had the opportunity to speak to Justice Goddard personally and to begin discussions with her about the challenges ahead. She will be arriving in the United Kingdom next week for a meeting with Home Affairs Select Committee.
I would like to acknowledge the clear commitment that the Home Secretary has shown throughout this process to the success of this new inquiry. In order to ensure that the arrangements she has now put in place are robust and sustainable she has taken a very close personal interest in the process and has met regularly with a range of stakeholders to canvass their views for herself.
All those involved in this process are committed to confronting the scourge of child sexual abuse in this country, shining a light into the murkier corners of some of our most powerful national institutions."

[David Guyatt]

Line to take:

Colour me cynical.

From The Needle Blog:

Commons: Written Statement (HCWS251) Regarding Missing Files

General (Mr Francis Maude) on 04 Feb 2015.
Government Files
I welcome the Home Secretary's announcement today regarding the Inquiry into child sexual abuse in England and Wales.
The Cabinet Office will support the Inquiry and will work with the Home Office to ensure that Departments provide the Inquiry with all relevant information.
As the House is aware, the Cabinet Office last week released to The National Archives a file containing information about a former United Kingdom High Commissioner to Canada, Sir Peter Hayman. This file is now public. This file should have been submitted to the Review by Peter Wanless and Richard Whittam QC. I regret that the file was missed in error and was not submitted at the time. However, a similar set of papers was held in the Home Office and seen by Wanless and Whittam. The complete and un-redacted Cabinet Office file will be made available to Wanless and Whittam if they wish to see it, and the Inquiry. However Wanless has already confirmed that the file would not have changed the conclusions of his review.
As a result of the discovery of the Sir Peter Hayman file, the Cabinet Office has conducted additional searches of its extensive papers and files. Officials have identified four additional relevant files, one of which was marked for destruction pending further checks by the Cabinet
Office and The National Archives. The Cabinet Office already has in place a process for reviewing its files scheduled for destruction. I am ensuring that relevant departments have a similar process in place. These files are being shared with the Inquiry, the Hart Inquiry, the relevant departments, and the Metropolitan Police Service. All the complete and un-redacted files will be made available to Wanless and Whittam if they wish to see them.
The files were found in a separate Cabinet Office archive of sensitive, historic papers. This archive, colloquially known as the Cabinet Secretaries' file, was closed in 2007. It is largely uncatalogued and un-registered; a programme to review it has been underway since last year but remains in progress. Officials assure me that the available titles have now been searched and more detailed searches are ongoing. My officials will work with the Inquiry to ensure it has the assurance it requires that all papers held by the Cabinet Office have been fully examined and that relevant papers are correctly identified and disclosed.

Tom Watson MP

[David Guyatt]

Exaro has an interesting story on Leon Brittan's paedophilia and how the establishment in the form of the late "speaker" of the House of Commons, Bernard Weatherill closed shop to protect him.

[David Guyatt]

This would remove old scabs. It's more than interesting (the word "disgrace" works) that Kincora should be outside the mandate on the new inquiry anyway -- but we know why, don't we.

Kincora scandal: Abuse victim seeks Judicial Review over MI5 link to Belfast boys' home



A former resident of the notorious institution says local inquiry lacks the legal clout to expose the extent of cover-up

JAMES HANNING

Sunday 15 February 2015

A victim of abuse at a notorious boys' home in Northern Ireland will seek this week to challenge the conduct of Whitehall's ill-fated investigation into child abuse.

A former resident at the Kincora Boys' Home in Belfast, supported by other victims, is applying for judicial review into the decision to exclude the home from the London-based inquiry, now chaired by Justice Lowell Goddard from New Zealand. At stake is whether current and former members of MI5 can be forced to give evidence.
Widespread allegations of abuse of residents including claims that abuse was covered up and allowed to continue unchecked for years because police and the British security services were using the home to blackmail people are the subject of a separate inquiry in Northern Ireland, the Historical and Institutional Abuse (HIA) inquiry, led by Sir Anthony Hart.
Critics of the HIA claim it lacks sufficient powers to get to the heart of the scandal, and want Kincora to be investigated by the Goddard inquiry. On Tuesday at the High Court in Belfast, lawyers representing a Kincora victim, Gary Hoy, will challenge the decision by the Secretary of State, Theresa Villiers, to leave the Kincora investigation under the control of the HIA. The lawyers want the decision judicially reviewed. The Government confirmed last week that it will oppose the application.
Campaigners say Kincora should be removed from the HIA and included in the Goddard inquiry because of the purported links with London of some of those who abused boys, and because, they say, the HIA will not be able to compel witnesses to attend nor insist on seeing sensitive civil service documents.
Kincora has long cast a shadow over both Northern Ireland and MI5. In 1981, three men were imprisoned for between four and six years for a number of offences relating to systematic sexual abuse of children over a period of years. Previously, a number of whistleblowers had attempted to call a halt to the abuse, but it continued unabated, giving rise to claims that staff were being protected by the security services. Last year, former MI5 officer Bryan Gemmell told The Independent on Sunday that he had expressed concern but was told by his boss in MI5 to keep his nose out of Kincora. He also said that he had been asked by the same person if he thought a known Protestant terrorist might be susceptible to being blackmailed over his homosexuality "because they had film of him".
Clint Massey, who lived at Kincora as a boy, agrees the Goddard inquiry should examine his former home (Mark McCormick)
Former army press officer Colin Wallace also sought to raise the alarm, but went unheeded.
One Kincora victim, Clint Massey, told The IoS recently: "In those days [the 1970s], there were loads of people over from London. I have always assumed they were senior figures from Whitehall. I certainly heard English accents…. I strongly believe it was an entrapment operation [for the security services]. They hoped to get a handle on the people who visited, to get them to work for them and inform for them."
Last week, Mr Massey gave evidence to the Police Ombudsman, who is investigating the failure of successive police inquiries to get to the truth. Yesterday he said: "The HIA inquiry needs to be able to summon the senior civil servants. When Whitehall says jump, they jump. But if it's based here in Northern Ireland, it won't have the authority." This view was backed by the Parliamentary Home Affairs Committee on Friday.
HIA inquiry chairman Sir Anthony Hart has sought to reassure critics that his inquiry has sufficient powers. It has sought details of all Kincora-related files held by all UK government departments and agencies. It has secured extra funding and claims that witnesses who co-operate with the inquiry will be immune from prosecution, including offences under the Official Secrets Act.
However, victims' solicitor Kevin Winters says: "This case has to be taken by the Goddard inquiry, because the applicants and many others believe there was a cover-up. It has never been properly investigated, and the sense of there having been a cover-up is compounded by a very real perception the Banbridge inquiry is not fit for purpose.
"The HIA is not a statutory inquiry and doesn't have the necessary powers. It is true it can seek to be given those powers, but that would take primary legislation, and we can't know how quickly that would happen or how effective.
"In the absence of a proper inquisitorial inquiry, this case must be taken on by the Goddard inquiry.

The tricks Theresa May has pulled over this inquiry to ensure that sacrosanct aspects remain uncontaminated by any delving speaks volumes about her commitment to get to the truth. First the two "friendly" appointments for Leon Brittan and now Kincora. What else I wonder?

[David Guyatt]

This really is shocking and raises fundamental question about beloved officials veracity and agenda... (story from Dr. Laverty's blog via The Needle)

← Deja Vu? Anglesey's hidden shores

Fantastic Fabrications to Discredit Witnesses of Child Abuse. Believe it

Posted on February 24, 2015by DR Laverty
Richard Webster the author of the Secret Of Bryn Estyn was totally reliant on official documents when it came to "meticulously evidencing" his so-called "research" for the book. Many stupid people have read the book, digested it and believe the authors version of events. I can prove beyond any doubt that many of the documents Webster referred to have been created and or fabricated by officials in Government and or local council. After all you'd remember if you'd visited hell more than once wouldn't you? Examine the docs below and see what they didn't want you to see. Lies, fabrications and untruths. If the powers that be are prepared to go the lengths to create documents of this caliber in order to discredit little Ole me, imagine how far they would go to hide paedophiles in Government. Don't be surprised at the production of these documents. I'm a criminologist with excellent research skills and I've been seeking them for many years. I knew I'd find them one day. They're not originals. They've been created at later stages to support the councils version of non-events. Be sure the insurance companies are somewhere involved too.

The above document clearly states that I was in Y Gwyngyll on the 30.07.1981
However, another document (below) clearly states that I was elsewhere, in Ty'r Felin on the 30.07.1981. Furthermore it states that I was first assessed in December 1977. Impossible, as I hadn't been placed in care until February 1978.

A simple look at my criminal record evidences(I've provided two official pages to confirm) my first court appearance as February 22nd 1978. How could I have been assessed before this date? I couldn't. It's a fabricated statement. The Ty'r Felin stamp is kept in the vaults of some building I imagine.

Below are various examples of me challenging the Barristers at the Waterhouse Inquiry, Lost in Care. Pay attention to my denials and resistance at being told I was somewhere that I wasn't. Red dots indicate my persistent denials. You couldn't write this shit.