`No child abuse ring in Westminster`, says Jay

[UK Column News 26 February 2020]

"Well, non-news," begins Brian Gerrish. "Let`s start with some critical non-news at least as far as the BBC is concerned. And if you take a look at their website the one thing you can`t see anything about is, of course, the IICSA child abuse report. So in the last couple of days we`ve had information coming out from IICSA. It drifted across the BBC very, very briefly. It didn`t get any prominence and now as we can see from the BBC`s website this is a non-subject. It doesn`t really exist and it`s pointless looking to the BBC to protect children from abuse in UK."

Mike Robinson: "Just to echo that, the Today programme this morning, it got the last ten minutes of the programme. So this is a flaglship news programme ... on British media that begins at 6.00 a.m. in the morning - 3 hours of news in the morning - and the last ten minutes was that."

Brian Gerrish: "Yeah, Radio 4 at 10 o`clock last night was talking about coronavirus; it was talking about Egypt; it was talking about a variety of other topics without a mention. So the BBC, true to form, not interested in getting to the bottom of the abuse of children in UK. Of course, itself culpable, guilty of covering up the Jimmy Savile episode, BBC is not going to talk about institutional child abuse and child abuse in Westminster."

"So how`s the story progressed? Well some of the media have talked about it but what we`ve seen very, very clearly is that the whole emphasis has now moved across onto the Lib Dem peer Lord Steel. He`s implicated in as much as the evidence tends to indicate that he knew but he didn`t take the right action. He`s now stepped down because he said: `If I don`t step down then I`ve got both support and criticism within the party and I don`t want to cause internal problems, so I`m going to step down from the Lords and quietly retire.` But what can we see? Well the whole focus has now drifted across onto Lord Steel. We`re not talking about the perpetrators of the child abuse; we`re not talking about how that child abuse was covered up. But at least Sky News, in contrast to the BBC, did have something to say:"

"The IICSA said MPs including Smith and Sir Peter Morrison were `protected from prosecution.` The report said there was a culture of `failing to recognise abuse, turning a blind eye to it, covering up allegations and actively protecting high-profile offenders including politicians` within Westminster."

"It concluded that politicians valued reputation `far higher than the fact of the children involved`."

Brian Gerrish: "Now that last sentence there, Mike, says a lot about the quality of Britain`s politicians. People could say: `Well that was the situation as was`. What we say at the UK Column is that that is the situation today. It continues."

"But let`s see how the IICSA Inquiry has actually reported on this. And, of course, we need to bring in Baroness Jay and let`s have a look at some of the things that she said in her report."

"So this [is a] key one. `MPs including Smith and Peter Morrison were protected from prosecution` - Remember all the other political names that have been mentioned over recent years in relation to child abuse, well they`re not mentioned at all because this inquiry has been able to focus down on just one or two individuals as part of its downplaying of the whole process. But more on that in a minute."

"`There was a culture of failing to recognise abuse, turning a blind eye to it, covering up allegations and actively protecting high-profile offenders including politicians within Westminster.` That`s a pretty interesting statement. Think about what she`s saying there; not only was the abuse going on,  but people turned a blind eye to it; they covered up allegations and they actively protected high-profile offenders. ... And in my mind that means that ... we had an orchestrated system for protecting people abusing children. We had the abusers and we had the protective system. That to me sounds very much like a child abuse ring."

"But let`s see what else she had to say: `IICSA heard evidence that senior police officers thwarted the investigation into Smith because the case was too political`. That sounds to me like serious criminal activity by the police in order to protect the abusers of children but it`s just one line in the report."

"`The evidence shows that.... his party made efforts to suppress these rumours rather than conduct a formal investigation.... The focus of attention remained `unswervingly on political consequences rather than the welfare of the child`."

"So this is being forced home that the political parties ...are more concerned about protecting their reputation than the children and of course this is the law on its head because the duty of those political parties, probably more than the average individual, is to protect the children."

"She goes on: `Peter Morrison was protected as a member of the establishment`. Well that`s pretty clear cut... and that is repeated several times in the report. So I`ve put that up just to emphasise the constant focus on these two. They`re the only thing that ...they talk about. And this statement is reported several times and the reputation one is reported several times."

"So here we are. `A consistent pattern emerged of failure to put the welfare of children above political status although we found no evidence of an organised network of paedophiles within government`. Well this is all good. But the report itself describes the actions of that very government paedophile network. There were active child abusers in Westminster protected by powerful political and establishment figures, plus it`s admitted that the CPS also protected them and the police helped to protect them. So, Mike, this is just a brilliant piece of whitewash; that you describe a paedophile ring operating in Westminster, and then you say `It wasn`t actually a paedophile ring`."

Mike Robinson: "Yes, but as well as that, if you look at the language `we find no evidence`, well , of course, if you don`t speak to some of the key witnesses then you`re not going to find any evidence."

Brian Gerrish: "We`re going to address that, and you`re absolutely right. But they`re also describing the evidence for the paedophile ring and then saying: `But it`s not a paedophile ring.` It is a deliberate act on common sense and people`s cognitive ability to deal with what`s going on. It`s very very clever."

"So let`s have a look. How did this whitewash get played out? Well, of course, the inquiry has been dragged on over time and as the delay has increased ... that has allowed key witnesses, such as Nick, to be taken off the scene. Many police officers who were involved ... said they believed the evidence. There were some inconsistencies, but we`re not going to hear from Nick again because he`s got 18 years in prison and of course IICSA`s not going to present any of his evidence. Key witnesses - this is your point - including abuse survivors and police whistleblowers themselves [were] denied the opportunity to give evidence. Melanie Shaw, one of the key ones here, she has not been in front of this inquiry, although this inquiry says it has produced the Nottingham Child Abuse report. That report is out but of course Melanie`s testimony is not part of it.  John Wedger, another policeman - there are now a group of police who have come forward and talked about the cover-up of child abuse, including activity by senior politicians and the Home Office, and senior police officers; but those police have not been brought in front of the inquiry."

"John Wedger, as a significant witness,  - I believe there`s about 60 pages of his evidence - he is not included in this part of Jay`s report on Westminster, even though his evidence specifically says that senior politicians in his day had been covering up the abuse of children."

Mike Robinson: "And, of course, there are other survivor groups out there that have refused to take part. It wasn`t that they weren`t invited, but they actually refused, because they understood exactly what type of inquiry this was. They were looking for a proper ... judge led, investigative inquiry rather than a cover-up. So they refused to take part."

Brian Gerrish: "Indeed. Well let`s carry on. Of course what was done, and is continuing to be done, is the division of the inquiry sessions into secret chambers where we have the ... live cameras turned off.  We`ve... got the public excluded.  Baroness Jay said herself that she was going to have special rules for dealing with the investigation into Westminster but the reasons for those rules never fully explained to the public. So on it goes."

"Well of course ... a complete ignoring... of all of the police investigations around Prime Minister Edward Heath. So we know that very brave senior police officer Mike Veal did that investigation into Edward Heath and said that he believed that, had he still been alive, he would have had to ... answer questions about the abuse of children. This doesn`t figure in any of Jay`s investigation into Westminster and she`s declared evidence for a protected Westminster political and establishment paedophile ring but then describes it as` not a ring`. This is just incredible. And then, of course, they then choose an easy scapegoat which is Lord Steel to take the blame and distract the media."

"So the abuse of the children, the suffering of those survivors, just completely dropped from public view whilst everybody starts to feel a little bit sorry for Steel. So we`ll just put her face back on the picture here." 

"`There was and is no child abuse ring`. We disagree. We say that ring is still in post. It`s still exerting power over people trying to come forward and warn about the abuse of children.  But we`ve got to give Baroness Jay credit because this is a masterpiece of a whitewash..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6v7T815BDeY

Positive news about Melanie

Update from Brian Gerrish who has recently visited Melanie Shaw in Rampton Hospital:


"Melanie looks well and I understand she now looks considerably better than when she first arrived at Rampton from prison, where she endured some 19 months in solitary confinement and was very badly treated in a number of ways. "

"I was very encouraged by the positive and caring attitude of the Rampton staff who attended my visit, and I would like to say that I am sure they have Melanie's best interests at heart, and are doing their best for her. Melanie is taking medication, but was upbeat, chatty and clearly knew what her situation was, and what she wanted to achieve to improve her situation."

"Her position is very delicate at the moment as Rampton is a high security hospital and progress towards a more relaxed environment, and ultimately release, will be involved and will take time. Appropriate matters in a medical and legal sense are also proceeding, but I am not at liberty to mention details."

"Having said that, Melanie's conditions in Rampton are steadily improving and she is now able to participate in more social activities that are available, including time working in the garden growing area outside. This is a hugely positive change for her after her protracted time in prison."

Read more: https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/important-update-melanie-shaw-beechwood-abuse-survivor?fbclid=IwAR1PMDBHcUmzkzjNn8f2kHCm1ufnEJRIZdIgvWpHV-E2IkDYVwD9vLh5qKQuk

Beechwood in the news

Melanie Shaw Awareness Day, Manchester 2019

=========================

Meanwhile:

"A woman in her 40s has been awarded more than £20,000 in criminal damages over the sexual abuse she suffered at Beechwood children’s home over 30 years ago."

"The woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was a resident at the home in Mapperley in the 1980s."

"The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, which is a Government agency, has awarded the former resident £22,000 damages."

"This is despite the fact that the people she said had abused her did not face any charges against her..."

"Although the location of Beechwood is within the city boundaries, it was being run by the county council during the time the woman was there."

"The council has already paid out over £2.5m to more than 125 people in civil compensation to people who were in children's homes and foster care."

"Of the civil claims made to both the city and county councils, more than 140 relate to Beechwood."

https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/nottingham-news/former-beechwood-resident-receives-22000-2980031?fbclid=IwAR3eV84pscVvVlVwwRPrMF5Uza5VGlmZDq_h3DqxudvKRXD8c1u-n01c3sA

Outside Rampton secure hospital

[Published on 16 May 2019]

"Melanie Shaw is currently incarcerated at Rampton Secure Hospital, and there are many questions as to who wants her there and how this goal was achieved. Laura Thomas asks questions about this disturbing case."

"Many thanks to local Retford resident Sid Pepper for the filming. Sid is always happy to assist with local causes."

"This is Laura Thomas's 4th video for Melanie Shaw."

Rampton Secure Hospital - https://www.nottinghamshirehealthcare...

Melanie Shaw confined without limit

 

"Melanie Shaw, the woman who was one of the first people to report historic sex abuse at Beechwood children`s home, has been given a hospital order and will stay in Rampton to be treated."

"The 48-year-old was sentenced today, Tuesday April 2, after setting fire to the bedding in her prison cell because she felt her human rights were being abused."

"At Leeds Crown Court she was given a section 37 hospital order, which means that she will be sent to hospital for treatment, rather than to prison."

"But she was also given a section 41 restriction order, which can be added to a hospital order if the court feels the person is a risk to the public - and which has no fixed time limit..."

"Making the hospital order - which needs evidence from two doctors - Judge Penelope Belcher said that 40 pages of reports had been provided by the doctors, providing details of Shaw`s medical history, background, previous convictions and attitude."

"She said: `Both doctors are of the view this lady will respond to treatment, and there is a bed available`."

"`Both doctors are also of the view a section 41 restriction order is necessary. The order should be known as a restriction order..."

"Under the Mental Health Act 1983, as amended by the Mental Health Act 2007, a section 37 hospital order can be granted for up to six months at a time, can then be renewed for a further six months, and then for one year at a time."

"However, if a section 41 restriction order is imposed, for the 'protection of the public from serious harm', this changes the time limit of the hospital order, and has no fixed time limit."

"It means that the person can only be discharged with permission from the Secretary of State for Justice."

https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/nottingham-news/melanie-shaw-given-hospital-order-2711679?fbclid=IwAR3rROcpe8jKaSV6s640IANpvNEYuPWqHt0eecQMQYL6TbCQwi0gm2rB5NE

"It has also been claimed on social media that Melanie is currently not allowed to receive visitors at Rampton, with it being `in the patient's best interests not to have contact with anyone`."

"Nottinghamshire Live has been unable to confirm this, as both the Ministry of Justice and Nottinghamshire Healthcare Trust, which runs Rampton Hospital, say they do not comment on individual cases."

https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/nottingham-news/what-happens-melanie-shaw-now-2723840?fbclid=IwAR3lWT2TM5jkVqNbplmco15dAAZ_xFn5m39cW_VuFyXYCZjYO8DR4exjT5o

Melanie Shaw update

The disappearance of Melanie Shaw

Brian Gerrish is almost certain that Melanie Shaw is no longer being held in HM prison Styal.

"She`s definitely not been released. We are trying to establish where she is at the moment, but this is very very sinister that we`ve now got people simply disappearing inside Britain`s prison gulag to match those secret courts; the redacted information; and, of course, the violence by the state against its own citizens."


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jc6qp79Jrho

UK Column News 25 January 2019

For a recap of recent events regarding the Melanie Shaw case see UK Column News 17 October 2018.

Melanie Shaw case adjourned until February 11

"The sentencing of Melanie Shaw over three charges of prison arson has been adjourned for four weeks."

"The 48-year-old was due to be sentenced at Leeds Crown Court today, Monday, after a jury in the same court in October had found that she had committed three counts of arson being reckless as to whether property was damaged or destroyed."

"The October proceedings were a 'trial of facts' to establish if she had carried out the acts, rather than a formal trial with a 'guilty' verdict', because [she] was deemed unfit to stand trial."

"During today's hearing, which lasted less than five minutes, Judge Belcher said she was not happy with a report that had been supplied by a doctor."

"The judge said the case `can't be dealt with today`."

"She requested further doctor's reports from the defence and adjourned the case until February 11, where she said she would decide on the sentence."

"The judge said: `I adjourn this case for the 11th of February. Reports requested for a hospital order`."

"Shaw did not appear in person for the hearing today. Around 15 of her supporters were in the public gallery for the hearing." 

 "The offences were carried out on February 8 and February 10, 2017, at HMP Foston Hall, Derby; and on June 21 at New Hall prison in Wakefield, West Yorkshire."

https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/local-news/melanie-shaw-arson-sentencing-adjourned-2426844?fbclid=IwAR3dJ_BK8H5BVdbT9zb-73w-eLfPJ4cD-cYXunvcwxUpAt_5K26Lgu2Ym44

Judge Belcher arranges more delays for Melanie Shaw

Bad news for Melanie:

Cover-ups in action

Brian Gerrish from UK Column News 19 October 2018: "Well the big issue that is under the surface of UK government is dynamite. We hear about Brexit at the moment and little else but something far nastier and deeper is at work." 

 

Mike Robinson: "Well yesterday Penny Mordaunt was speaking at the Sexual Exploitation Conference 2018 and, of course, this is following the issues around Oxfam and abuse in the NGO sector, particularly in international development and she said: `Thank you all for your recognition that after the Oxfam scandal we had to grip this issue`. So I thought we`d have a look and see exactly how they`re gripping this issue. They`ve produced a nice little video with quotes from people who have been affected by this" ...

"Penny Mordaunt announced that they were going to prevent abuses happening in the first place. They`re going to listen... when abuses happen; they`re going to respond decisively and sensitively and they`re going to learn from each case that they`re dealing with. So, for example, `DFID and Interpol are launching a pilot of a new system to improve background checks on aid staff. UK NGOs, with support from DFID, are going to test a passport for aid workers to prove their identity, to provide background information on previous employment and confirm their vetting status. They`re going to introduce a disclosure of misconduct scheme across the NGO sector and prevent known perpetrators from moving around undetected.` And a whole host of other things announced which - well what are they doing, putting lip service to this? I don`t think they`re going to do very much and certainly people from the NGO sector agree with that."

"She said ...`If something happens you should report it. But in addition to this there must be action taken. The organisation should dismiss the person so that other men will learn that you cannot go around abusing children in this way... Often no action is taken and that is the problem`."

Mike Robinson continues with the list of proposals: "`The development of a statement of victims rights.` So this is all fantastic stuff. But as I say not everyone was terribly impressed by that, including a former Save the Children employee Alexia Pepper de Caires who intervened during Penny Mordaunt`s speech."

"So let`s just have a quick look at that..."

"So what did Penny Mordaunt have to say? She went on to say `I am very sorry some people feel excluded from this event...`"

"So Brian, quite an important intervention there, and we see this time and again. The key point ... she was making is that Save the Children, who she used to work for, have been given a role within this ... new globalised system of criminal records checks for aid workers; and she made the point they`re still under investigation by the Charity Commission themselves. That alone must demonstrate Penny Mordaunt`s Department of International Development aren`t taking this seriously."

Brian Gerrish: "There`s so much to say on this, Mike. And the pause there is really my brain trying to take this in, because it`s the first time I`ve seen this clip. But what comes into my head is `participatory democracy` where these large charities, NGOs, are no longer acting in that capacity. They`re acting on behalf of the British government. They are considered part of the government and I think the key part of the problem is that we talk about Save the Children as if it was a big international charity. No it`s not. It`s there helping to carry out foreign policy for the British government, so the British government ultimately is going to defend it to the hilt, even if there are people who are going to carry out sex crimes or abuse within that organisation. So an extraordinary intervention but can we expect any more from Penny Mordaunt? No, I don`t think we can."

"Let`s bring David Scott into the programme at this point. Welcome to the programme David. What are your thoughts on what happened there?"

"I thank you. Yes, three quick points. I have seen this last night. I followed a link that described it as an outrageous and concerning security breech. That was the headline and of course I looked at it and it was nothing of the sort. There was no threat. There was someone making a point extremely effectively. The second point here is that Penny Mordaunt clearly had no answer and also we`re seeing a pattern once again of the most inappropriate person or inappropriate organisation being put in charge of investigating wrongdoing. We see this over and over."

Mike Robinson: "Absolutely. Well let me introduce you to Rishi Sunak who is the Local Government Minister... Well, the Local Government Minister has decided that something has to be done about government sexual exploitation at local government level. So the government is going to toughen the rules which ban sex offenders from being elected as councillors at the local council level. [These are] new disqualification rules to prevent people found guilty of serious crimes from serving as counsellors or mayors and so, for example, anybody in receipt of an antisocial behaviour injunction, a criminal behaviour order, a sexual risk order or who is on the sex offenders register will no longer be able to stand for elected office in a community. He says that current conditions make clear that anyone convicted of an offence carrying a prison sentence of more than 3 months is banned from serving as a local councillor but the new measures are going to strengthen this further by bringing disqualification rules aligning with modern sentencing to include the alternatives to a prison sentence..."

"The question in my mind then is when are they going to do something about stopping people with similar problems from standing as MPs Brian?"

"Well, who knows? At the moment the so-called inquiry into Keith Vaz has just gone into the long grass. I think we`re two years into that inquiry. So Mr Vaz was videoed there with rent boys; there was discussion of drugs; that`s being investigated by Westminster, but all of that is now under secrecy rules. So we`re not allowed to know what is happening. And, of course, we`ve had MP after MP - many of them dead, yes, that`s true - but we`ve never got to the bottom of abuses in and around Westminster. And we`re going to mention the so-called child abuse inquiry in just a moment. So there is no delving into child abuse when it comes to MPs."

"Fascinating to see though they are targeting local councillors because we`ve already got the interesting situation where we have officers ... paid to do the job of I believe it`s called Monitoring Officer where they vet the standards of the elected members. So you have essentially a government place man in each council watching the councillors. But who is actually watching the council staff themselves? And the chief executives under vast salaries, of course, are going to do all they can to protect their own organisations. So I think this is starting to dismantle local democracy. I think this is what it`s about."

David Scott: "Well I wonder here if this is just an example of locking the stable door after the horse has bolted? Because we`re talking about excluding people who have been guilty of trafficking for sex: women and girls and boys into the UK; that does rather accept that these people were in the system first off. There doesn`t seem to be any attempt to exclude people who might be sex offenders sort of at source. And I understand that via polygraph and other psychological assessments this is actually really quite achievable but it`s not done. So there`s no real attempt to protect the public here. There`s simply an attempt to prevent the appearance of wrongdoing where you have someone entirely inappropriate getting elected. However, I thought that was something that the democratic process itself should be able to sort out and not where the problem lies."

Mike Robinson: "Indeed."

Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse
 
Brian Gerrish. "Well let`s have a look at IICSA and let`s remember what the government`s child abuse inquiry says: `I will be heard.` The inference there is very clear that any victim or survivor of child abuse will get the opportunity to come forward and to give their testimony at the inquiry. Well, we can tell our audience today - I hope it is a worldwide audience, because this directly impacts on the British government and the values of the present conservatives - that the `I will be heard` motto is simply not true because we now know that victims and survivors of child abuse will not be heard. And I`d like to thank this gentleman, Martin Noakes, who has shared the communication that he`s had from the IICSA inquiry. Let me read it to our audience:"

`Dear Mr Noakes,`

`Thank you for contacting the inquiry via email on 10 October.`

`The Chair is aware of Melanie Shaw`s evidence and the representations made about the relevance of her evidence to the inquiry. In light of the evidence already available to the inquiry both in documents and from other witnesses attending the hearing, the Chair does not consider it necessary to hear from her at the hearing.`

`The Chair does however recognise the importance of the experiences and perspectives of all those who make an allegation of sexual abuse during their time in care and the inquiry is preparing summary tables setting out details of the allegation of abuse and the complainant`s perspective of the response to it. Where someone has made an allegation to the police and/or the Council in relation to Beechwood this is included in the summary tables. All complainants, victims and survivors of child sexual abuse are entitled to anonymity in the inquiry`s proceedings unless they expressly choose to waive it and so will be anonymised in the summary tables,`

`Yours sincerely,

Correspondence & Engagement Team, Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse.`

"David, I`m going to throw this one at you. I do not think I have ever seen such a clear document showing the absolute intent that this inquiry will produce the best cover-up the British government has ever done to date because we are not going to allow the survivors to speak. If they do speak they`re going to be anonymised which of course dilutes their evidence and we`re going to produce tables which set out rough numbers of complaints and where they were. This is a cover-up which is just breathtaking."

David Scott: "It`s an astonishing response. The Chair is aware of everything regarding Melanie Shaw. The Chair does nothing. The Chair does not consider it necessary to do anything; to act. Melanie Shaw, solitary confinement, driven away from sanity it seems to be the objective, a series of questionable procedures at every stage, but we don`t need to hear from Melanie Shaw... It`s just ... there`s been so much child abuse, what we`ll do is summarise it in tables because that means that any one piece of evidence isn`t that critical, because there`s so much of it that all we need to do is give a general flavour of what is happening. Any one piece of evidence that might be concerning, say, a senior serving politician for example, that one piece of evidence is only a small amount of the total. So we`ll lose that because we`re looking at the bigger picture. This is what`s happening. This is cover-up in action. I`m astonished it`s so blatant."

Brian Gerrish: "Somebody in our chat box has said I thought anonymity was optional. That`s technically correct. People can decide whether they want to be anonymous or not. However, it now seems that the report is going to be based on anonymity. But of course the other thing we`ve got to remember is that where the local councils... have made compensation payments that has automatically come with a gagging order."

"I`m going to come back on to that but we`ll put this up on screen. It is clear that the conservative government now is running this massive cover-up of child abuse and as we said a few days ago... we were receiving very good information that they`re so panicked by the amount of information coming which is leading back to abuses in Westminster, around Westminster by MPs, that the bet is that IICSA will actually close down the Westminster part of its so-called inquiry."

"I tried to summarise just some of the key points here: but basically we invite survivors forward on the basis that they`ll be heard; we then refuse to hear them. And to be absolutely clear on this, IICSA has not received any of the testimony from Melanie Shaw. That is an absolute fact. The bulk of her testimony has not actually been revealed publicly in any case. So you refuse to hear those people. You deny them access to the panel. You refuse to hear professionals such as the police who have evidence of abuse and cover-up. We know that`s true because of John Wedger, former MET police officer, has been denied access to the panel. He was promised he could go on one of the panels and IICSA has now said they`re only going to deal with chief constables. We`ve got a government that`s approved gagging orders that come with the compensation payments and that directly stifles criminal evidence. If these people can no longer speak out about criminal abuse being acted on them then we have got a complete ... stifling of law in this country."

"And then what are we going to do? We`re going to produce anonymised statistical tables as findings which will essentially assure that no individuals are ever found guilty of the crimes. It is mind boggling but to be expected because as the UK Column and indeed many other alternative media outlets have said time and again child abuse is the fuel by which blackmail works within the British government and to keep that blackmail working you`ve got to keep the child abuse happening..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WEjDNBhPjs&t=1169s

The inhumane treatment of a child abuse survivor and whistleblower

[UK Col 5 October 2018]

"What better place to go than IICSA, ... Theresa May`s child abuse inquiry because it`s just been talking about its findings in Nottingham and [it has] mentioned Beechwood children`s home, of course where Melanie Shaw was abused; and then Melanie became the lead whistleblower. So Sky news here says, `One of the most notorious children`s homes in Nottingham, known as Beechwood, has been singled out by the inquiry for special investigation. There were 136 allegations of sexual abuse from children there between the 1960s and the 1990s,` and, of course, this is a special investigation of Beechwood because the lead whistleblower Melanie Shaw has never been called to give evidence to that inquiry. On the contrary, the inquiry has done everything it possibly can to make sure that Melanie has not appeared at the inquiry. They`re not interested in speaking to Melanie and as their media lady said to me in a slightly agitated state, `What do you expect us to do? Break into the prison, Styal, in order to get Melanie`."

"Well what`s going on here I think is becoming pretty clear. It`s John Mann MP.  He said. `It is a total betrayal; the system didn`t work for them, the institutions didn`t even co-operate and hardly talked to each other. It is quite astonishing how they were let down... This is institutional failure but we need to learn for the present and the future`."

"I thought I`d just slap a label across this. No, no, no Mr Mann, it is not `institutional failure.` This is criminal activity;  and the evidence is easy to see, that institutions fully co-operated in the abuse and subsequent cover-up. So I`m not sure what Mr Mann`s plan is here. He is apparently representing three of the abuse victims. I called his office before we became live today in order to see what he had to say about the fact that the lead whistleblower Melanie Shaw hadn`t been called but there was nobody to answer the telephone. We`ll try him again this afternoon."

"BBC is on the bandwagon. Now remember of course that this is the same BBC that has removed all of their earlier articles about Beechwood and the abuses and those that featured Melanie Shaw; but they are telling us that `three witnesses who gave evidence on Tuesday had all been through branches of Beechwood community home in Mapperley`."

"`The facility is one of three case studies for the Nottinghamshire branch of the inquiry, which opened at Trent Bridge on Monday. A woman in her 50s, identified only as D7, said she grew up in Mansfield and went into care in the 1970s. She recalled being attacked `on several occasions` by John Dent, a social worker who lived on site`."

Brian Gerrish refers to a picture of Melanie Shaw: "So there, remarkably, this particular victim of Beechwood she said that children were not only abused but murdered on that site and has been completely blocked so far from this inquiry."

"David, I predicted a very long time ago that IICSA would be a cover-up. I believe...that even more. This is a very carefully crafted government cover-up, as to the scale of the abuse, and the links through to high level abusers in the establishment and the political system in Westminster. And the fact that [they] are now reporting on Beechwood without even interviewing the lead whistleblower says to me that I`ve been correct. Sorry to be a little bit arrogant there. What do you feel about IICSA?"

David Scott: "Well look what it`s doing? It`s now been running for how many years? Exactly how many shocking headlines have we seen ? How many ... politically connected people [have] been charged? How many have resigned in disgrace? How many changes have been made? There`s been nothing. What it is is a nice quiet gentle ease out from where we were three or four years ago where we had daily headlines about people like Leon Brittan, what he was up to with small boys, and a general view that the people who rule over us have shown themselves to be utterly corrupt. And now this is just easing the public down gently. So there`ll be some lessons to be learned. There might be a few low level people thrown to the wolves but what`s going to change? I don`t see any momentum here for change."

Brian Gerrish: "But of course you need the abused children because as you`ve demonstrated if you have the abused children who go through life damaged and suffering, the state can then use that to bring in controls over parents who do look after their children."

"But this little part of the story gets worse because it was kindly pointed out to us that the Independent Monitoring Board had recently produced a report on HM prison Styal where Melanie has of course been held. This is the Board; it`s independent; it`s always important to tell people that; it`s an independent Board `appointed by the Secretary of State from members of the community in which the prison or centre is situated`. Now I spoke to a very nice lady at this organisation this morning and I questioned her about this report. I`ve been invited to email the Board although I`m not to know who`s on the Board at the moment. But why did I have questions? Well I had questions because the report that they wrote has concluded that prisoners are overall treated fairly in the prison although a small number with poor English are at a disadvantage. `Are prisoners treated humanely? The view of the Board is that prisoners are treated humanely by staff in the prison. However conditions are adversely affected by the poor state of the buildings.`"

"So overall this is a good review for this prison. But when we get into the report there`s some interesting things there. `Five women have spent between 31 and 42 days on the... segregation unit under Rule 45 or Rule 49. A sixth woman arrived on the Unit under this provision on 7 November and, despite several unsuccessful efforts to begin a return to normal location, remains there at the time of writing, with appropriate authorisation. The unit is not ideal for anyone to spend more than a few days`."

"Now some people suggest that this particular person that they are referring to is Melanie Shaw. I believe that could well be true. But I simply asked the question of the Board: If people were spending a long time in a unit where you should only be for a few days, how is this humane? And they seemed to get rather confused by my question. Hence the invitation to email them."

"I`ll just add in this from the report, because if you go into the depths of this report they`ve got a massive increase in self-harm and mental health issues that`s occurred over the last few months. And it`s interesting that the prison governor has recently had to step down, although the Ministry of Justice at the moment will not tell anyone the reasons she`s been removed from the prison; so HMP Styal ... is effectively out of control; it doesn`t have a proper governor. The government who appoints people who do the inspection isn`t saying why this lady has been removed but we seem to have another report smoothing the waters, although conditions in that prison are pretty unpleasant."

"And I`ll just put this image up which I did tweet out yesterday."

"But as I watched Theresa May cavorting on stage in front of her adoring conservative audience, I thought: `Yes, this is the dancing queen that was of course responsible for putting Melanie Shaw in prison and Melanie has finished her jail term but is still - I think it is 3 months later - is still in prison, still not receiving the [care for her] mental health needs that she deserves.` So well done Theresa May."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4SRjkdEBUY

Melanie Shaw and a `trial of facts`

[UK Column News: 17 October 2018]

"We don`t normally start with an apology but I`ll give the apology. We`re going to show you a little bit of what Google has been doing but this is in relation to the court case of Melanie Shaw. So let`s have a look."

"Fascinating that after months and months and months of nothing about Melanie Shaw on Google. When you search her story, you search Nottingham child abuse, you search for Beechwood home, all of the information had gone down, nothing of the original story from the Nottingham Post or the BBC or any of the other so-called mainstream media, including the big named papers, of course, the Telegraph and the Guardian, absolutely nothing. Melanie`s now been through a particularly vile court hearing and suddenly she`s all over the internet. Just a coincidence Mike?"

Mike Robinson: "Yes, so first and second on the front page there. But has Melanie been through a court case ?"

"Well we`re going to have a little bit of a discussion about that. Let`s just look at what`s come out so far and we`ll go to the Nottingham Post because they`ve obviously taken great delight in reporting this. And so here we are; here`s the headline: `Jury decides that Beechwood whistleblower Melanie Shaw set fire to her cell three times. The defence offered no evidence in the case. Shaw was deemed unfit to stand trial so a finding of fact was conducted in her absence. The jury of five men and seven women took less than an hour to find that Shaw did the acts. They were instructed to reach a not guilty verdict on a further count of arson`. So quite interesting reporting here Mike because they do say that she was absent but then the whole style of the article, it`s as if what was said had come out of the mouth of Melanie Shaw."

Mike Robinson: "Well OK. But the first thing you notice here is they`re talking about a `finding of fact`. We`re going to talk about this a little bit later."

"Indeed. So let`s just put some of the key points up on the screen."

"So Melanie was found guilty of the arson charges. Now I understand the sentencing is on the 15th November 2018. I have seen the 12th of November reported in some places but I think it`s the 15th. People are very welcome to correct me if I`m wrong. Melanie was not well enough to attend Leeds Crown Court nor did she testify by video. She was simply not present at her own court hearing which was allegedly called a `trial of facts`and the defence offered no further evidence."

"Now what was actually going on here Mike? A lot of people who attended the court case were totally bemused at how there could be a court case with a jury and no Melanie called. I also believe there was no psychiatric expert in court to explain why Melanie wasn`t present. That may not be correct but I believe that was the case. So what was this trial of facts?"

Mike Robinson: "Right. So the question is what is a trial of facts?Because the last time we heard about a trial of facts was with respect to Lord Janner here in the Guardian. Lord Janner case: what is a trial of the facts?"

"And it says here `The defendant cannot put forward a defence; there can be no verdict of guilty and the court cannot pass sentence. In a trial of the facts the jury is asked to decide on the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution lawyer and by lawyers who put forward the case for the defence whether or not the accused did the facts that he or she was charged with. Because the defendant cannot put forward a defence there can be no verdict of guilty and the court cannot pass sentence. All the court can do is make a hospital order, a supervision order or an order for the defendant`s absolute discharge, where a finding of guilt is made but no conviction is registered and no order given`..."

"Now this article about Janner is from 2015 but I just wanted to follow that up with the BBC article Fraud MP Margaret Moran given supervision order. And that says that a judge had ruled that an ex-Labour MP was unfit to stand trial for mental health reasons and so could not receive a criminal conviction. The jury heard the case at Southwark Crown Court in November in her absence. She was given the supervision order and the order is to be supervised by Southampton City Council."

"So if we go back to the middle paragraph of the Guardian article it says all a court can do is make a hospital order, a supervision order or an order for the defendant`s absolute discharge."  Referring to the Melanie Shaw case Mike Robinson says: "Discharge is unlikely to be the case, so it`s got to be the other two. If it`s a hospital order then that`s what they get Brian because it puts Melanie into the psychiatric system which is where they`ve wanted her all the while and of course that would be indeterminate in terms of length of incarceration. And if it`s a supervision order then in that case she would be supervised by the very local authority that supervised the abuse that she suffered in the first place. This is pretty obscene."

The discussion continues on UK Column News at 6.02 minutes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OH_eObNOiVQ 　

Parenting by the state

UK Column News: [5 October 2018]

Indoctrination in schools

Brian Gerrish: "Well, change of subject and an introduction to David Scott, but let`s just have a look very briefly at this. Several people sent this into us. It`s a youtube video clip which shows a teacher at a primary school encouraging, teaching, showing very small children how to write letters to ask a man Thomas to marry them. And the significance of this is that the boys are writing the same letters that the girls are. So the teacher says a couple of clips from the [start] of the video `You`re going to tell Thomas it`s a brilliant idea to marry you`. "

"So this school is teaching children about LGBT relationships from the earliest age ... and of course you rapidly learn what`s going on because the teacher says that the children can be more accepting at this age and if you get the information into the children they accept it now . Then you don`t have a problem trying to convince them of what they should accept and believe in later years."

"I looked at the clip several times; it`s utterly fascinating... because what this teacher is doing is indoctrination and she knows it`s indoctrination but she thinks this is acceptable."

"David, I know this is going on with a vengeance north of the border as well."

David Scott: "It certainly is; and we`re seeing it state funded. One of the odd things is this year there has been LGBT `pride marches` all round Scotland. There was one in Perth. There were two at the weekend; one in Inverness and one in the western isles, if you can believe that. And the western isles one, there was a bit of controversy because the western isles counsellors were refusing to fly the `pride flag`. So these are being state funded, well funded, and then what you find is that in each local authority there are agents pushing the agenda. They are often extremely militant LGBT agency activists but they are in state funded organisations, state funded jobs, and very often teaching the teachers or in similar areas of control over the wider education system."

Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs)

Mike Robinson: "Right David, we`re going to move on to ACEs and we`ll find out what ACEs are in one second when we look at a short video clip." 

"So we`ve got a short video here and then we`ve got some stills..."

Mike Robinson: "So David, ACEs and their consequences can be prevented?"

"Yes, so this is the latest thing to come out of America and it`s all over Britain. It`s all over western Europe. This is the new thing. It`s not that new; it`s ten years - no, it`s twenty year old research; but it`s suddenly become the flavour of the month. There`s been a film called `Resilience` which you can`t get to see. It`s been shown to all of the Scottish government employees - made by James Redford - and this is describing what is termed as the `science of hope` if you can believe that; and the `science of hope` goes to show how we`re going to transform society by government action. You have to be hopeful; you have to be optimistic and you have to - well, what do you have to do?"

"And they then go on to show correlations between adverse childhood experiences, and adverse experiences in early life, and negative outcomes, which on average is true; and we`re aware - you know, people in the Fresh Start foundation, particularly so, we`re aware of people who, for example, take to alcoholism in order to self medicate because of childhood abuse. This is true; this happens."

"But there`s something wider happening here because what they`re doing is they`re looking at the statistics of the population as a whole and then they`re taking that and changing it into a decision as to how they`re going to influence the lives of individuals and it becomes government policy and it starts going into some very strange and very totalitarian areas. So that`s what we want to explore here."

"This next slide: this is from the Centre for Disease Control (CDC) in the United States; so this is a government organisation in America. They`re pushing this forward and you see here: `Parent Training today`. So this is one of the areas that is going to be pushed. They`re going to have state appointed parent trainers. So this is going to reduce the independence of parents within family life in the family unit very significantly..."

"So having identified - initially there`s ten ACEs: emotional abuse, emotional neglect, physical abuse etc etc,  although those numbers are growing now. There`s never any limit... The CDC have identified five things they`re going to stop ... happening. So the first one here is `Strengthening economic supports for families`. Now this means strengthening government subsidies for single parents, essentially."

David Scott then puts forward the view: "Economic support means state economic support, wealth transfer and, of course, it`s welfarism that has been the biggest corrosive effect on the family and has caused most of the society wide decay for those who are most vulnerable. "Scott further suggests: "So essentially what we`re doing is we`re going to double down with everything we`ve been doing - we don`t know what else to do - and we`re going to do more of it."

"Next we`re looking at `changing social norms`... So the bedrock of society is the family with traditionally one parent, usually the man providing; and one parent, usually the mother in the more nurturing role. Well, we`re not having that; we`re going to change that; because the state has now stood in the role of the father for providing for the children.  We don`t need fathers quite as much; there are a lot of single mothers and we`re going to make that the norm. We`re not going to think anything ill of that; we`re going to destroy any social propulsion towards a more stable society basis of the family..."

"Then we`ve got `quality child care and education early in life.` Odd diagram that. This is a little girl playing chess with a wheelchair bound old lady. It may be her grandmother; we`re not sure. So that might be an excellent thing to do. We`re not quite sure who`s looking after who there. Then after that, we`ve got `Enhancing parenting skills.` "

"There`s two nice lesbian mothers here, very slim. They`re outside `24-HOUR URGENT CARE parenting class`. `This way.` So we`re going to teach people how to parent. The state`s getting involved in this as well. And then most creepy of all, we`ve got `Intervening to lessen harms and prevent future risk.` So the state - actually it`s not very good at making the trains run on time and repair holes in the road - is going to prevent future risk. It`s going to look into the vibrant dynamic complex world of - you`re a family - and it`s going to decide if you provide a future risk to your children. And if you do ... then they will act to prevent that and there`s no use arguing..."

Named person scheme

"This is where it`s going. It`s very similar to the Named Person scheme It`s very similar to all of the huge lists of `parenting outcomes` and `risk indicators` we have in the Named Person scheme. It`s a slight re-branding of it. It`s based on similar American-based pseudo-science and it`s everywhere."

Mike Robinson: "Sorry David, it strikes me that in some way it`s related to `social credit` which is something that Dr Graham Downing was talking about to Ian Crane on Humanity versus Insanity last night. We`re going to play that programme after this, if you`re watching the UK Column live stream. But, you know, what you`re saying is there`s some kind of measurement made of whether you are a capable parent or not; and if you`re not, the state is going to intervene, potentially up to the point of removing the children."

"... Of course, we know that the state is the worst parent of all. So this is the bizarre thing. The last defence for children is the family unit and this is assaulting the family unit. So it seems superficially plausible but when you actually analyse what it`s doing it`s all acting against children."

"Now the next slide here is: Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs). This is from the Scottish government website. The initial ones were from America... It`s been parroted in Scotland. Now they`ve put a saltire on it and they`re going to say this is really important. Scotland to lead the world. No, no no no. Scotland`s just doing as it`s told as it always seems to do these days."

"Now some of the other things that are coming out - it`s called the `theory of everything` OK, so the idea here is this explains everything. This explains everything about your life; this explains everything about your future. And there`s always a pyramid. We don`t seem to be able to do these without using pyramids to explain things diagramatically."

"So here`s the pyramid for ACEs. Now this, as you see, goes from conception to death. Right, so this is the `theory of everything`. So you see that down at the bottom you`ve got adverse childhood experiences ... and that allegedly causes disrupted neurodevelopment which allegedly causes social, emotional and cognitive impairment which allegedly gives rise to the adoption of behaviours which then allegedly cause disease and social problems and an early death. So there you go..."

"Now I was having a quick look at some of the Scottish government support for this. Nicola Sturgeon was at a conference in March this year. She was reflecting on the powerful impact the `Resilience` documentary had on her and emphasised the importance of considering tackling ACEs, as ACEs were one of the most important ...[?] currently taking place across Scotland. So it is being pushed by her own government. And her old friend professor Sir Harry Burns*, the man with all the slides in the World Bank... He told the audience of the original study and the accidental realisation that many of them attending who had been to the clinic had been sexually abused in childhood and he says here - there is a core truth to this, right, that you`ve got a lot of abuse; you`ve got a lot of, particularly sexual abuse, but rather than tackling that what we`re doing is we`re using it as an excuse to build the state into an every more powerful vehicle for controlling society. That`s what`s happening here."

"Now the next little bit is just a shocker. This is from the Journal of Applied Philosophy and it is awful, and it is Licensing Parents Revisited. Now this is one of the most disturbing and in many ways ignorant articles I think I`ve ever read. .. He first of all makes the case for licensing professionals and it`s all positive. You know people in the professions may harm those they serve either directly or by failing to fulfil their fiduciary duties and the harm can be significant so we need the state to get in there and regulate. Now we don`t because there are contraindications here but what he ignores is that licensing is very often used by professions to limit access, to ring fence money and to drive up fees. It is not what he`s claiming but he skirts over any real negative effects and then goes on to make the case, well now parenting is ... important, and then we should license parents because we need ... to ensure parents are competent; and then he briefly looks at the fact that we don`t really know how to do that. It`ll be OK."

"And then he looks at the right to have children which he`s not very impressed with. He says ... `she may think she has a right to her children whereas people do not have a right to be professionals` and the conclusion is: `Does a parent have a right to rear the child under her control without interference from the state?` And there`s a false choice here between a parent who might be abusive and one with no state involvement at all; or complete control and the case for independence of family life is broken down and the conclusion is `yes` we have a good case for licensing parenting. This sort of thing which seems crazy I think is on the way in..."

Brian Gerrish: "David, I`ve got to say that as you went through that this is clearly coming in. It`s coming in as policy; that policy coming in through the civil service, but very often we can see that a lot of it originates with the United Nations. But this is very very dark and sinister stuff.  One of the points you`ve just made is that `we allow the abuse of the children to take place` because ultimately this form of control over parents and families can be brought in as an excuse over the top of it." 

 

================

(The abuse that is allowed to take place is then covered up. As an example, towards the end of the programme there is a discussion about the Melanie Shaw court case)

HERE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4SRjkdEBUY

* Sir Harry Burns speaking at a conference below:  http://alicemooreuk.blogspot.com/2015/12/scotlands-wellbeing-will-be-envy-of.html

Guilty: 3 different fires in 3 different cells

"A jury spent less than an hour before deciding that Beechwood whistleblower Melanie Shaw set fire to her cell three times after she said her human rights were being abused."

"The 48-year-old former resident of the children's home in Mapperley has frequently said she suffered serious abuse there, and was one of the first people to speak out about that abuse."

"A jury today (Tuesday, October 16) found Shaw - who was deemed unfit to stand trial - had committed three counts of arson being reckless as to whether property was damaged or destroyed."

"She committed the offences between February and June 2017..."

The defence offered no evidence in the case."

https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/local-news/jury-decides-beechwood-whistleblower-melanie-2114818

ROBERT GREEN`S REPORT FROM COURT:

Yesterday, Monday 15th October 2018, a trial of fact was held at Leeds Crown Court before Judge Penelope Belcher.

Melanie was deemed unfit to plead and the purpose of this hearing was to allow prosecution witnesses to be cross-examined before the jury. The jury could not find Melanie guilty or not guilty, but its members were required to decide whether or not the evidence placed before them was factual. They also had the right to defer a decision, should they feel that they required to hear evidence from the defendant before making up their minds.

The case was to last two days, but I am unable to attend on the second day.

My report is, of course, based on my own opinions. Others present have every right to express theirs, but I shall attempt to be as fair and balanced as I can be. There are those genuine supporters of Melanie who believe that the trial should not have taken place at all, but as I lack sufficient knowledge on this subject to have a view on this, it would be unwise of me to comment.

There are two points that I would like to emphasise to begin with.

Firstly, I have no issue whatsoever with the conduct of Judge Belcher. She was firm, fair and very clear with her views and instructions.

Secondly, I did not have the opinion that the prosecution witnesses were being either untruthful or evasive. That was not my impression, although I could be wrong.

After the lack of space for the public that occurred at the previous hearing on 28th September, I had asked the helpful and courteous Court Manager, Michelle Dunderdale, to request that the judge would provide a court with the largest amount of public seating for this hearing. I was pleased to find that the court with the largest public area had been provided.
 

Members of the public asked if I could request, on their behalf, permission to record the trial and be allowed to take notes. I relayed these requests to the Clerk of the Court, who was also helpful. She asked what was the purpose of the written notes and what would happen to the contents. I replied that due to the wide and growing public interest in this extraordinary case, both domestically and internationally, the details were to be published on the internet. I stated that recordings would be helpful to the judge and the Court, as conflicting accounts of proceedings, some of them inaccurate, had been distributed worldwide. The Clerk said that she would explain all this to Judge Belcher.

When the judge addressed the court, she declined the first request, on the grounds that the hearing was being formally recorded anyway, but agreed to allow notes to be taken and then to be placed on the internet. She did warn, however, that she expected such information to be accurate and would come down very strongly if they were not, especially if any attempts to threaten or influence members of the jury were made.

There were four counts of arson to be made against Melanie, three at HMP Foston Hall and one at HMP Newhall.

The first was said to have occurred on 8th February 2017 and the second and third within an hour of each other on the 10th February 2017. The fourth, at Newhall, was dated 21st 2017.

On the first occasion, Melanie was said to have stated, after the alleged fire in her cell had taken place, that `It`s only concrete, I wasn`t harming anyone.`

The witnesses said that the fire was started by use of a lighter. Lighters were permitted for prisoners at that time.

The same reasons were given by two other officers who were present at the two alleged incidents on 10th February 2017, one at around 3pm and the other an hour later. When asked by the defence QC if Melanie had been examined to check if she was in possession of a lighter, the answer given was `No.`

Thus, if the statements are accurate, Melanie Shaw set fire in the three different cells at the same prison within 48 hours, by the use of the same implement, a lighter.

I believe that any reasonable person would wonder, if the first case of arson by lighter was correct, how it could possibly be that Melanie could have been allowed to continue to be in possession of a lighter on the two subsequent occasions. On the face of it, it may be considered that negligence by prison staff had occurred that may have placed the life and health of Melanie Shaw at risk as well as other prisoners.

This may also be said of the staff at Newhall, provided that they were aware of Melanie`s previous alleged history. Unfortunately, the defence did not pose this obvious question to the two officers from that prison, despite the fact that they too believed that the fires had been started by a lighter. Indeed, in a written statement, Yorkshire Fire Services` Chris Oxley confirmed that the Newhall fire had been started by a naked flame.

I think it fair to say, based on the prosecution`s own evidence, that even if the first fire at Foston Hall could be attibuted to Melanie and her use of a lighter, the following three would never have occurred but for the gross and disturbing failures of prison staff.

With regard to the Newhall fire, it was stated that when Melanie was asked about the incident, she said `It wasn`t me, it was Lorraine, she was in the cell with me.` The officer, Richard Brackenbury, said this was impossible as Melanie was the sole occupant of the cell and that at that time, the prison did not hold an inmate of that name.

This may be an indication of Melanie`s state of mind at the time - but why was she then continually allowed possession of a lighter, moreover, in the presence of self-evidently flammable material?

The final witness was DC Gary Weatherall, who had interviewed Melanie over the incidents. The two QCs, the judge and all members of the jury were provided with written copies of his report and the officer then began to be cross-examined by the proscutor.

Suddenly, Judge Belcher stopped the proceedings and ordered DC Weatherall and the jury to leave the court.

She then challenged the prosecutor about something she had seen in the report relating to an allegation of sexual assault against Melanie of which the judge was clearly unaware. Judge Belcher was also concerned that the entire jury had just seen copies of this document. The prosecutor stated that on 7th August 2018, it had informed the court that this charge had been dropped, which was true.

The judge ordered the prosecution to ensure that up-to-date copies of the report were to be made available, in a legible form she said was missing from the originals, by the next day`s hearing.

Judge Belcher decided to make the following formal court statement.

`I find Melanie Shaw not guilty of sexual assault.`

After the close, I addressed Mr Rafiq, the defence QC. I said that it could surely be construed that given the blatant persecution by the state in order to silence Melanie, it is possible, though perhaps not probable, that drugs may have been unlawfully administered to Melanie whilst in prison or that her medication had been withheld, in order to affect the balance of her mind, which may have occurred at Newhall, based on the evidence presented and the fact that she had been left in possession of a lighter.

I also reminded him of Melanie`s behaviour in court on 7 August and Judge Phillip`s failure to have her physically examined immediately by an appropriate medical expert, a failure that may have had ramifications for future court hearings, quite apart from the fact that Judge Phillips placed Melanie back in the care of those who may have recently committed a criminal offence against her. My formal complaint against the judge remains unresolved. I also drew Mr Rafiq`s attention to the financial offer made to Melanie by Nottinghamshire Council in order to prevent her from making allegations about very serious crimes committed by those connected with accepted Beechwood atrocities, an offer that Melanie, on a matter of principle that may have served to pervert the course of justice, nobly and unselfishly declined.

Mr Rafiq told me that my comments would be passed on, presumably to Judge Belcher.

Robert Green.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/302194089973223/permalink/974622556063703/