Monday, 30 July 2018

Censorship and cover-up

[From UK Column News 24 July 2018]

"The UK conservative government is now clearly operating beyond authority. We have a cabal running the country. Even backbencher MPs have no idea what`s happening in Westminster. So it`s simply the members of the Cabinet Office and the secretive P... Office. which is dealing with the global corporations and international banks with connections through to the Privy Council and this is all secret, certainly to other members of parliament but also to the public. So we have a cabal, many people would say a criminal cabal, running the country. Let`s remember that the fuel for UK politics is the abuse of children."

"Just an amazing headline here from the Daily Mail a few days ago. Forget the bit about the The `drink sodden world` of EU boss sneering at Britain, what we`re really looking at is the main headline. `What a cosy cover-up!`"

"And basically this was pointing out that MPs have voted for anonymity if they`re accused of sexual harassment and if there`s any hint of expenses fraud. And what the Daily Mail article pointed out was that minutes after this vote was taken a list of politicians under investigation vanished from Parliament`s website."

"Now I find this particularly interesting because a few weeks ago we actually made contact with the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner`s office to ask some questions about Mr Keith Vaz , but on that particular day back in June - I think it was the 22nd June - what we established was that this lady....Kathryn Hudson was going to step down as the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner and we were intrigued to see that she was going to be replaced by a new lady. This is Kathryn Stone; and her background is looking after children with special needs before becoming a qualified child protection social worker and mental health expert."

"And this just seemed a fascinating qualification to then move over to be Parliamentary Standards Commissioner. It just seems a little bit too interesting."
Keith Vaz
"Well at the time ... 22 June, we had a look at the Parliamentary Standards web page and one of the things we could see here was `under Investigation by the Commissioner`. We were interested in Mr Vaz; and apparently the Vaz inquiry is confidential. That`s what we were told. No information can be disclosed to the public in the interests of fairness. That is clearly fair to Mr Vaz. I don`t think it`s particularly fair to the public but of course the public doesn`t count. We were told that no comment could be made on whether the video of Mr Vaz forms the base of evidence. This is the video which appeared to show him in a room with some rent boys and there was a discussion of drugs. The inquiry, even though there`s video evidence, could take years."

Mike Robinson: "Was there any explanation as to why."

"No, except I have to say the lady I spoke to was unbelievably nervous as I asked some fairly reasonable and gentle questions. She did say that Mr Vaz had not been suspended and she was also happy to say the first police investigation had been dropped."

"But the important thing here is that even going to the government website I was able to find some information because I knew that something was going on. But now enter 2018. So there was that web page. It`s been replaced by this web page. And what`s significant? Well we have the same designator ... Sorry we`ve got `Complaints and Investigations` but on the original screen on the left we have names on the screen. On the right we just have the Complaints process. So all these names disappear and they`ve been whitewashed out Mike. And the other thing is the Current Inquiries bar has also disappeared from the government`s website. So the MPs clearly circling the wagons now to defend themselves when people come forward with allegations of sexual harassment or expenses fraud."  

"Well Mr Vaz seems to be doing OK because the probe, not investigation - it`s called a probe now, whatever that means - has already lasted two years and nobody knows when this is going to be completed. Now if we remind ourselves what happened: he stood down as Chairman of the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee, looking at matters to do with vice after the Sunday Mirror reported he had discussed buying cocaine with a rent boy (male prostitute). So the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner launched a probe into whether he was guilty of a conflict of interest because he had been leading a review of vice laws at the same time as the allegations. So that`s a very difficult thing for them to establish Mike, even with a video. So years have gone by and we`ve still not got any result but now the whole thing has become totally secret." 

"Something that was quite interesting was that the UK Column had a report, and I would say from a source that we would say was reliable, and in that report it was alleged that one or both of the rent boys who were apparently present at the incident with Mr Vaz were attacked and badly beaten in Poland by persons as yet unknown."

"So that`s the allegation that those rent boys were attacked and beaten very badly in Poland but there isn`t any evidence at the moment who did it. That`s what we are being told. We`ll see whether we get more reports on that."

"So here we are, a report in the Sun: police drop initial investigation, into the Leicester East MP 18 months ago and the new Standards Commissioner Kathryn Stone has told MPs she is referring the case back to the Met. But at the same time they`re apparently also looking into the fact people are not too sure where all his money is coming from."

"So what can we see? We can see our parliament becoming increasingly secretive, to the extent it`s not even worth making an allegation because this will simply stay undercover and you have no idea whether any investigation takes place."

Cliff Richard

"So couple it with Cliff Richard, and we`ve pointed it out before, but basically as a result of incompetence or possibly a planned action by the BBC, we can now see the law rapidly moving towards a position where you cannot make any public allegation against anybody because this will come back on you, in order to protect the identity of these individuals."

"So at least Ian Murray here of the Society of Editors said it had worrying consequences for Press freedom and the public`s right to know ... But of course Tory MP Nigel Evans dismissed those concerns over Press Freedom saying: they [the journalists] are worried that they can`t trash people`s reputations."

Prince Charles and Peter Ball

"And that brings us nicely to the so-called independent child abuse inquiry because in the last few days it`s emerged that Prince Charles`s lawyers have been arguing with the inquiry`s legal team over the manner in which he produces evidence in relation to Bishop Ball who was imprisoned as a result of sexual abuse. So we`re not going to find out really what Prince Charles has got to say but interestingly enough one of the lawyers working for survivors said this: `We wish to register our surprise and concern that the Prince has chosen to put his evidence to the inquiry in the form of a letter as opposed to a witness statement verified by a statement of truth in the normal way that survivors giving evidence to this inquiry have done`. So one rule for the survivors. Totally different one for Prince Charles. And he goes on to say: `Concerns around Charles`s letter include that it may be `less than entirely frank about his personal relationship with Peter Ball and that it contains matters to which he is reluctant to attach a formal statement of truth`. And this lawyer, Richard Scorer, also retweeted this little report by a lady called Linda Woodhead. She said: `IICSA today on the Peter Ball scandal hears of the extraordinary lengths to which Prince Charles`s lawyers went to wiggle out of complying with IICSA`s request that the Prince give a witness statement to the inquiry like everyone else. Even invoking European convention on Human Rights`."

"So obviously Prince Charles desperate that he does not have to give evidence in the same way that survivors or members of the public would. Why would he be so shy?"

"Well this tweet was sent through to me. And I`ve got to say I think the gentleman`s comments fit. So it`s a Brian P Willmot and he says  `Any person who is Not prepared to stand and tell the Truth has something to hide` and it certainly seems that this is the case on this one Mike."

Melanie Shaw

"And perhaps this leads us nicely into Melanie Shaw. And let`s remind ourselves that Melanie Shaw`s local MP is a gentleman called Chris Leslie. Several people contacted me to point out that here was Mr Leslie getting very excited about the standards in prison. So we`re going back to January here, but he said: `Shocking `urgent notification` from Chief Inspector into `fundamentally unsafe` Nottingham Prison, echoing concerns I raised in Commons debate last year: eight suicides recently; 200 assaults in past 6 months; 30% positive for drugs. New Lord Chancellor David Gauke must act now`. But remarkable that this gentleman Mike doesn`t want to act for Melanie Shaw who`s been brutalised by these very failings in other prisons."

Mike Robinson: "And he was even her employer at one point."

"Yes he was her employer at one point and there is a photograph ... where he`s sat next to her on a sofa holding her hand to show his level of support for child abuse victims. But it appears like many MPs Chris Leslie is duplicitous when it comes to actions to protect Melanie Shaw."

"Now I`d like to just look at this excellent letter that Robert Green sent to Christ Leslie and let`s read through."

"`Dear Mr Leslie,

I have contacted you, as have many others over the years, about the disgraceful ongoing plight of your constituent Melanie Shaw.

I do not propose to go through the details of this case, as I feel confident that you have been fully informed about the state`s unrelenting persecution of this poor, defenceless and acknowledged victim of multiple sexual abuse, committed whilst in the supposed `care` of the Nottinghamshire authorities. Indeed, one local authority employee, Andris Logins, has been convicted of  multiple rapes committed at the very care home in which Melanie was placed and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment. His wife, Helen Logins, another Nottingham council social worker, has also been convicted for aiding and abetting her husband.

I and others have been in regular contact with Amnesty International as the evidence suggests that Melanie, during her controversial imprisonment has been the victim of torture, administered by the UK state. The case is, I am told being currently considered by that international organisation...

We now know, due to recent revelations, that the British government is perfectly capable, not only of being complicit in torture, but also even prepared to publicly lie about it, as demonstrated by the misconduct of Jack Straw. At least one excuse, weak though it is, was that such torture was used on suspected foreign terrorists operating outside the United Kingdom.

Melanie Shaw, on the other hand, is a Nottingham woman and UK national who has apparently been tortured in British prisons because of the evidence she is prepared to put before the IICSA, in providing details of serious crimes committed at Beechwood Home that may implicate high-ranking public individuals, including, I understand, a person formerly a colleague of the current Prime Minister.

As Melanie is clearly an absolutely crucial, high-profile witness in the IICSA investigation into widescale child sexual abuse in the Nottingham area, I found it shocking that the inquiry has not already interviewed her, regardless of the incarceration that can only be explained rationally as a means of silencing her.

I have therefore sent key details to the IICSA`s current head, Professor Alexis Jay and her deputy, Liz Long, has written to me to confirm that these details have indeed been read by Professor Jay. There can now be no further excuse for the failure to interview Melanie.

And he ends by saying,  As her elected parliamentary representative, what are you going to do about it?

Yours sincerely,

Robert Green.`"

"So a truly excellent letter from Robert and I think this should provide a lead for many other people to write to Chris Leslie with that key question: what are you going to do to help Melanie Shaw, Chris Leslie?"

"Well if we remind ourselves that IICSA itself still refuses to take evidence from Melanie Shaw or even communicate with her, despite the fact that Melanie has said publicly she wants to speak to the inquiry, despite the fact that contact has been made with the inquiry on her behalf, including, it`s alleged, by Mr Chris Leslie himself, IICSA says `can`t act unless Melanie calls us` but of course Melanie can`t call them because she`s denied phone calls in prison."

"And we`ll finish the section by reminding people, of course, of the untimely haste with which Beechwood Children`s Home was sold off and demolished after Nottingham police fail to carry out a full and proper forensic investigation and, more recently, UK Column has informed people that reports about Beechwood have been pulled from mainstream media sites and the BBC as a result of collaboration between Nottingham City & County Council and Nottingham police."

"So censoring of the news there Mike in order to help silence and cover up abuse of children."


"So we`ll come back to Robert here because this was such a wonderful statement. Robert said this: So Melanie Shaw is desperate to give evidence to IICSA and it has so far refused to take it.  Meanwhile Prince Charles is desperate to avoid giving evidence to IICSA.... What is going on?"


"Well there can only be one answer. We`re witnessing a cover-up by the British government. And if we come back to the inquiry itself, a very big thank you to the person who pointed this out to us. The inquiry commissioned this report. It`s called A Rapid Evidence Assessment: What can be learnt from other jurisdictions about preventing and responding to child sexual abuse. And ... the University of Lancashire has been commissioned to carry out this piece of work by the so-called independent child abuse  inquiry."

"What did they do? They looked at information on the internet Mike."


"Yeah. So we have these people: Lorraine Radford, Helen Richardson Foster, Christine Barter and Nicky Stanely. They carried out this work for the so-called independent child abuse inquiry. Fascinating report. I would encourage people to see it online. Here`s the Executive Summary."

"This Rapid Evidence Assessment was commissioned by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse in England and Wales which is investigating  whether public bodies and other non-state institutions have taken seriously their duties to care for and protect children and young people from child sexual abuse and exploitation. The question for the review was: What can be learnt from jurisdictions outside of England and Wales, about the role of institutions, including accountable state and non-state organisations with responsibility for children in preventing and responding to child sexual abuse and exploitation?"

"What they seem to have done here, Mike, is to produce the answers for a whitewash. `No jurisdiction has everything right. While overall robust research on what is effective is limited, there is plenty of promising evidence that can be developed further to inform work in England and Wales`."

"So we got it wrong. but don`t worry because in the future we can put it right. `Adequately resourced, comprehensive, multi sector approaches that aim to prevent and respond to child sexual abuse and exploitation are likely to be the most effective approaches.` But these are the approaches that have failed. We`ve got a nice circular argument."

"What`s special about the research team? Well I did a little bit of an investigation and I find by an amazing coincidence they`re all linked to NSPCC and in their own report of course they`ve then used a lot of NSPCC information saying how NSPCC is apparently stopping the abuse of children. This is all independent you understand."

Mike Robinson: "And there`s no possibility that the NSPCC could ... be criticised by the independent public inquiry if the independent inquiry was doing their job properly."

Brian Gerrish laughs. "eh Yes And we remember that it was NSPCC that was first of all taking phone calls and there was such outrage amongst the abuse survivors and others that they had to drop the contract."

"Right. So they were running the call centre for the independent inquiry at the beginning and whereas many of the survivors were saying, `well hold on`, the NSPCC was involved in the abuse, or at least helped cover it up in the past; so what are they doing taking phone calls off of us?"

"Yes. ... Well this is what independence is about Mike. But it gets better because I did a little bit of research before the news today on IICSA`s site and here we`ve got their own documentation showing that in Rochdale going back into 1974 - 1989 we`ve got NSPCC taking over child protection from the local authorities. So seemingly here NSPCC must be implicated in the very failings that the independent inquiry is now asking an NSPCC experienced team to report on."

"Good stuff."

"But it`s not a cover-up."

No comments:

Post a Comment