`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

Stories that make the news and those that don`t

 

James English talks to Anna Brees, a former BBC journalist, about journalism in general and topics such as the cover-up of Westminster paedophiles.

 

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

 

Her book, `Making the News in 2018`, discusses why some stories get heard and others do not.

"Reflecting on my own experiences of working in a newsroom as a newspaper and TV reporter from 2000 until 2011, and, more recently, observing the impact of producing TV-style reports on my mobile device and boosting them on social media, this book is about the power of the message, the money to deliver it, and the instinct of truth and trust that follows."

"When I worked as a journalist, we didn’t have the all-encompassing social media presence in quite the same way as we do today. Journalism was an absolute necessity and existed as a point of contact, a person or organisation who collated and disseminated news. So, as I write this book in 2018, the question I pose is, do we really need journalists anymore?"

Assange court appearance

Craig Murray blogs about the recent court appearance of Julian Assange who is showing signs of psychological deterioration:

"The effort then seemed to become too much, his voice dropped and he became increasingly confused and incoherent. He spoke of whistleblowers and publishers being labeled enemies of the people, then spoke about his children’s DNA being stolen and of being spied on in his meetings with his psychologist. I am not suggesting at all that Julian was wrong about these points, but he could not properly frame nor articulate them. He was plainly not himself, very ill and it was just horribly painful to watch. Baraitser showed neither sympathy nor the least concern. She tartly observed that if he could not understand what had happened, his lawyers could explain it to him, and she swept out of court."

Read the full account below:

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/10/assange-in-court/

Prosecution failures in Scotland

[UK Column News 10 May 2019]

"This is the Times here: `..Child abuse inquiry to look at Crown Office `failings`. Is it really going to do that?" asks Mike Robinson, "Or ... is that just another throw away headline?"

"That`s an excellent question," is David Scott`s response.  "... Now there have certainly been Crown Office failings... `The Crown Office is organised crime` is a phrase that keeps coming up. The Crown Office... are the only means of any prosecution in Scotland. All prosecutions go through the Crown Office; therefore anything that`s not prosecuted, [that is] held up, [is the responsibility of] the Crown Office; it`s a completely obscure organisation."

"We don`t have any access. It`s all confidential. We don`t know what`s happening in there and of the cases that the police investigate, that are considered to have a good prospect of successful conviction, forty percent of those are decided by the Crown Office to not be cases they want to take forward, and never see the light of day in a court room. Forty percent is in this discard pile. So there are many things about the Crown Office that are very worrying."

"Now there are also many things about the official inquiry that are very worrying."

From the article: 

"The official inquiry into historical child abuse in Scotland is expected to investigate alleged failures by prosecutors to protect vulnerable children in care."

"The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service admitted that it was likely to be the focus of future investigation by the Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry."

"Officials conceded that the body may have been `deficient` in the past. `It is anticipated that future stages of the inquiry will require the institutions charged with the investigation and prosecution of crime to face up, candidly and critically, to the practices and policies of years gone by` a spokesman said."  

Remarking on the statement, `The officials conceded that the body may have been deficient in the past,` David Scott added: "Notice it is always in the past," and further on in response to `It... will require the institution charged with the investigation and prosecution of crime to face up candidly and critically to the practices and policies of years gone by, he commented: "Again always painted as `it`s perfect now, but it wasn`t then`. And there`s no explanation as to how this miraculous change ever happened."
 
The article goes on:

"It comes after John Halley, a lawyer appointed to the inquiry, suggested that vulnerable young people in care were being let down raising his concerns about child trafficking through prostitution of children in care in a report sent to Lady Smith, the inquiry`s chairwoman. Mr Halley cited several cases that never came to court despite evidence of trafficking and sexual abuse of children in care,` the Sunday Times reported. `Some victims were linked to senior figures within the legal establishment... And Mr Halley said `I will not be complicit nor tolerate cover-up and failure to report or investigate systemic failures."

In addition, David Scott informs listeners and viewers that Mr Halley put the following statement on twitter: 

"I have been absent from work since 28 October 2016. On 10 October 2016, I was diagnosed with bowel cancer. On 31 October 2016, I underwent a right hemicolectomy in surgery lasting some 4 hours at Borders General Hospital, Scotland. Between 6 December 2016 and June 2017, I underwent 8 cycles of chemotherapy. I have been unable to return to work since then."

"Prior to and after my diagnosis of cancer, I have held appointment as Lead Junior Counsel to the SCAI [Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry]. On 1 April 2019, I submitted a detailed `Note` running to in excess of 17,500 words, on Child Trafficking Through Prostitution of Children in Care in Scotland to Lady Smith, Chair of the SCAI. By letter dated 15 April 2019, Julie-Anne Jamieson, SCAI Secretary, informed me that Lady Smith has decided that the Note is comprised of material that I ought not to have been working on. I refute that entirely. I was instructed and I did investigate and report. The Note sets out a summary of my remit, important facts, allegations, inferences and sources for investigation by the SCAI. It is clear to me that Lady Smith has decided that the SCAI will not investigate the material detailed in the Note."

"Since 1 September 2016, I have had to suffer disability discrimination, harassment and victimisation by Lady Smith. I will deal with that in an application to the Employment Tribunal when I am well enough. However, I will not be complicit in, nor tolerate cover-up and failure to report or to investigate systemic failures, including prosecution policy failures, which appear to have perpetrated injustice on vulnerable young people in care in Scotland. I will not permit the serious allegations, detailed in my Note, of past child exploitation, and failures to report suspicions of child exploitation, by lawyers, judges, public figures and others, to be ignored."

"I have today reported by Note to Mr Graham Fraser, Procurator Fiscal for Scottish Borders Area. I understand that the Procurator Fiscal will report the Note and its content directly to the Lord Advocate if, having considered its content, he is satisfied of the duty to do so. I have felt compelled to immediately report the Note to the Procurator Fiscal in the public interest. However this is spun the facts remain."

"In order to ensure necessary safeguarding of our children going forward, Scotland and our survivors of child abuse require the truth."

Returning to David Scott, he remarks: "So Lady Smith has been asked to investigate the Procurator Fiscal Service because the Procurator Fiscal Service has let down the survivors of child sexual abuse."

"Meanwhile the Procurator Fiscal Service has been asked to investigate a case where Lady Smith has let down the survivors of child sexual abuse. And out of this we hope for truth and justice."

"It does not look good."
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-9NPzoKYuA

 

For more cover-ups, see UK Column`s article HERE which refers to the tape which Lady Smith refused to release to now deceased child abuse campaigner Robert Green.

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

The cover-up of child abuse by the whole system

Talking about the David Steel suspension and referring to a previous photograph of him with Cyril Smith, Brian Gerrish says: "I chose one of their photographs there as the backdrop because this sums up British politics, doesn`t it? It`s all jovial old boy network where they`re all upstanding right honourable people. And on the left we have the seasoned campaigner. On the right we have the new boy on the block, who`s been brought in. Obviously, that`s a very young Steel in the picture."

With reference to Lord Steel`s remarks at the child abuse inquiry in connection with what he knew about Cyril Smith, Brian Gerrish continues: "And the point that you`ve just made is this: It is effectively what Lord Steel had to say `It had nothing to do with me`. This is utterly incredible... Somebody said a few minutes ago in our chat box: `It`s all coming to the surface` and I think a certain amount is."

"Let`s see what he really said. Lord Steel said he had assumed that Smith had committed the offences, but ... he took no further action because: `It was before he was an MP, before he was even a member of my party. It had nothing to do with me`."

"So it`s almost as though if you get selected to be in a party you`re immediately in the boys` club and you`re protected from anything you`ve been involved in, prior to that. These are amazingly deceptive words that are coming out from this man."

"And, of course, everywhere we probe into politics in UK we`re coming up with the abuse of children. So let`s go on through. He said: `I had already told the inquiry in writing that in my opinion he had been abusing his position in Rochdale Council [that is to gain access to council-run children`s homes], but that had been properly a matter for the police and the council, and not for me as he was neither an MP nor even a member of the Liberal Party at the time`."

"But the statement we`re constantly getting from MPs when you take issues of child abuse to them is: `Oh it`s not in my constituency, you`ll need to go and see the MP [in] whose constituency this crime has taken place`. We`ve experienced this from many many MPs across all the parties. They attempt to hide from doing something about criminality by saying it isn`t in their constituency or `Oh well it`s not in my party`..."

"Lord Steel also described recommending Smith for a knighthood in 1988 and said he did not pass on any allegations about the sexual abuse of children because `I was not aware of any such allegations other than the matter referred to... which appeared to have been fully investigated`."

"David are we to believe that our MPs and senior politicians are so naïve? I can`t accept that. I believe that these people knew. They knew full well. They probably didn`t want to get dirty and touch the tarbaby..."

David Scott responds by asking: "Who were his colleagues at this time? We had Clement Freud; we had Jeremy Thorpe; we had the fat man. It was a very strange company, the Liberals, at this time. Very odd indeed. The nature of the excuses - Yes, it`s partly: `It`s not my concern; I don`t want to know;` partly political cowardice. But also there`s a strange legalising mindset `Oh this has been properly investigated by the authorities therefore I couldn`t possibly comment; it wouldn`t be appropriate`... Very good reasons to do nothing."

Brian Gerrish: "Well we`re going to have a look at some of the ways in which child abuse and the investigation of child abuse is shut down, but let`s carry on with what this good man had to say..."

Lord Steel is reported to have said:  "`I was reinforced in my view by reading the previous report of the inquiry sent to me today, which says inter alia `the Crown Prosecution Service found that the advice which had previously been given could not be faulted (given the law and guidance in place at the time) and that the Honours Scrutiny Committee had seriously considered his nomination for a knighthood and sent a `warning of risk letter` to Margaret Thatcher as PM and that clearly she took a similar view as he was granted the knighthood`."

"So now the smear starts to track around. I knew, or I thought he`d been doing something; certainly I understood enough ... that he was trying to get access to children - but not really my responsibility - but I did point it out to Margaret Thatcher, but she didn`t do anything either. Therefore it must be alright. So we now see the trail leading back into the Conservative party and Margaret Thatcher, as we`ll see in a minute, when we come on to Ted Heath.  But David, this is becoming child`s play, to watch a political system absolutely squirming as more and more evidence comes to the surface, that senior politicians had not only been abusing children, that their whole political system has been covering up that abuse."

David Scott: "Yes. It seems to me that the only thing you need is someone to blame it on. There`s no other requirement. `I have a minimum degree of plausible deniability. I will not actually be criminally convicted over hiding this information. Therefore I hide it. Is that where the bar is ? It seems to be. And I come back to: HE NOMINATED THE MAN FOR A KNIGHTHOOD."

"Correct.."

"This is just disgusting."

"It`s disgusting. It`s as disgusting as Boris Johnson and to me his comments ... mm ... yeah.... So follow it through because we`ve got more to come. Let`s go on: `It`s unfortunate that some sections of the media have chosen to extract certain passages of evidence and present them without the full context. The inquiry has a serious and sensitive job to undertake and spinning evidence to generate sensationalist headlines only serves to distract from the panel`s search of the truth`."

Mike Robinson reminds listeners and viewers: "But the panel isn`t searching for the truth."

There`s a slight laugh from Gerrish: "I`m coming there Mike. But here, what is he doing? He`s using the key bit of now trying to turn the whole .... thing on its head. It`s the nasty media who are spinning the truth by actually telling the truth. But as you`ve said, quite rightly, if we take that last comment there, he said er `spinning evidence to generate sensationalist headlines only serves to distract from the panel`s search of ... the truth`. But the panel is not searching for the truth because the panel has said so. So we`ve got Ms Jay herself saying: `This investigation is not examining the truth or otherwise of the individual allegations`."

"So I don`t know why Lord Steel should have his knickers in quite such a big twist because the panel is not investigating anything ... What`s he so frightened of ? I DON`T KNOW."

"Well let`s bring in the leader of the Lib Dems because Vince Cable has been remarkably silent. I could not find anything that had been reported in the media - maybe I missed it - but I couldn`t find anything where the leader of this illustrious Lib Dem party has commented on the matter. And David I think it`s very interesting that at least the party north of the border have the courage to actually say: `Well you know we`re going to deal with this matter`."

"So follow on through... We better bring in Nick Clegg and remember that back in 2010 Nick Clegg was leading the tributes to [quote] `larger-than-life ex-MP Sir Cyril Smith`. He said he was deeply saddened to hear of his death. He praised the veteran figure who was famous for his distinctive appearance and frequent television appearances - there`s a nice link into the BBC - But a little bit later, 2013, we got the Guardian reporting that Nick Clegg ignored letters from lawyers where victims were coming forward and talking about what Cyril Smith had been up to. And then here we`ve got the [Evening] Standard ... April 2014 where Clegg is trying to claim that he had no inkling of Cyril Smith`s `repugnant actions`. We are to believe that Nick Clegg led this very small party where I`m sure nobody could sneeze without the rest of the party knowing about it, but he didn`t know."

"And what now happens to Nick Clegg?  Well let`s remind ourselves that he`s now earning a million pounds a year working in Facebook and supposedly Facebook is now working hard to protect children. But Nick Clegg couldn`t do that when he was ... leader of the party, so is he going to do it within Facebook? Well I don`t know."

"I had a little look at Facebook`s commitment to child safety - and it`s only child safety online - it`s not actually protecting children - but it said at the bottom of the block of text: `For more information visit Facebook`s Family Safety Centre` which I did, but unfortunately that page was not available..."

Mike Robinson interjects with: "They`re not taking it seriously..."

"Well here he is: Nick Clegg, July 2014: `Allegations of Westminster paedophile ring are a `police matter` - Now we know what happens when people report it to the police, such as Jon Wedger, a policeman himself - the whole thing is shut down. So basically he`s saying he wants the truth to come out and justice to be done. `We`re dealing with allegations of such a serious criminal nature`. But a year before he was saying he didn`t know anything about it."

"Then there`s comment from Lord Brittan: `Initially stated yesterday that he had asked officials to look into the issue, and did not recall being contacted further about these matters by Home Office officials or by Mr Dickens (MP Geoffrey Dickens who prepared a vast document on abuses of children by politicians.) Brittan went on to say: `The Home Office independent review is entirely consistent with the action I set out in my earlier statement. Whilst I could not recall what further action was taken 30 years ago, the information contained in this report shows that appropriate action and follow-up happened`."
 

 

"Well if you consider cover-up appropriate action they did a very good job. Here he is, the Tory who discovered Nick Clegg. So Nick Clegg was one of Leon Brittan`s European boys. He was trained up in politics in the European system by Lord Brittan. This is a very very close little relationship. David, just a brief comment because I`ve got a little video clip that I want to show and then we can discuss it further."
 
"Do I not recall the Dickens dossier which exposed a good deal of this ended up in the hands of a north England local newspaper editor who was then incriminated by people including Cyril Smith."

"That is absolutely correct. But in fact the worst intimidation came from security services and senior police who told him that if he didn`t get rid of his information he was likely to have a very bad life. And of course that journalist was happy to talk about this openly a couple of years ago. He was silenced by the state from exposing the abuse of children by British politicians."

David Scott. "That`s the critical point... it`s the apparatus of the state that is being deployed by the likes of Cyril Smith for their own ends."

"Correct. So let`s just have a look at this little video clip..."

"This is Sonia Poulton and Bill Maloney who confronts Nick Clegg... Just watch what Nick Clegg does. You`ll see that very quickly..... he`s off."

 

i

"What did Bill Maloney say? `Nick ... four years ago I asked you what you were going to do about institutional paedophile rings operating in this country. Now... your reply to me was I don`t know what you mean by institutional paedophile rings ..."

"So I`ll leave our audience to think about that and Nick Clegg`s reactions."

"But I was slightly, I think, upset by some of the Lib Dem material where they were reporting Lord Steel`s membership suspension here. They closed the web page to comments. So clearly the public is not to comment on this issue. But when I looked at the Lib Deb party itself they are using this little image of a little girl to advertise the party. David, I saw this, and I thought: is it me being a little bit over-sensitive because of what`s happened? Why would you need an image of a little girl in order to advertise the Lib Dem party ?" 

 

"I don`t know. It`s a very strange choice..."

"Now we`re very short of time but let`s bring this in because going back to 2013, the UK Column produced: `Who nominated Jimmy Savile for his Knighthood?`"

"Let`s have a look at what we established..."

"Following a request for information on Jimmy Savile by Freedom of Information the Commission responded:" 

"Information request for `who nominated Jimmy Savile for a knighthood and the identities of those who offered letters of support`."

"Thank you for your correspondence dated `7 January 2012 in which you state you wish to have disclosure of who nominated Jimmy Savile for a knighthood and the identities of those who offered letters of support. You have stated that The Honours Committee is unable to provide this information, which you believe to be in the public interest."

"The Cabinet Office administers the honours system and details of that process are published at https://www.gov.uk/honours. However Honours Committees are not directly subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FoIA) as the UK honours system is overseen by the Cabinet Office Honours and Appointments Secretariat."

"And finally we were told this:"

"Additionally there is a specific exemption under Section 37 of the FoIA in regard to information relating to the conferring by the Crown of any honour or dignity and further guidance can be found on our website at the `Freedom of Information Act Awareness Guidance No 26: Communications with Her Majesty and the Awarding of Honours and Nature of the honours nomination process and the public interest`."

"So we have got a secret system there running right to the monarchy itself which is prepared to protect people who abuse children and are given awards. This is a little bit obvious in my opinion, David, that we have the full collusion of the state here."

==================== 

The programme ends with a discussion of the Times article: `Shamed politician`s daughter has job looking after Rotherham abuse victims`.

 

"The daughter of a disgraced politician who was implicated in the Rotherham sex-grooming scandal has been placed in charge of a support service for the town`s abuse victims. Norsheen Akhtar runs child sexual exploitation (CSE) programs for Rotherham Rise, a charity that receives most of its funding from the council. Her father Jahangir Akhtar, resigned as the council`s deputy leader in 2013 after he was implicated in the scandal."

 
"And I think it comments on her brothers there but I can`t remember exactly what was said. Now to me this is the circling of wagons. This is people desperately trying to protect themselves."

Mike Robinson: "Now just as a final comment While we`re talking about Rotherham and Rochdale - these are two areas where in recent years Asian paedophile rings have been in operation and there`s been a lot of scandal about that, but what Cyril Smith demonstrates because he was Rochdale counsellor and Rochdale MP is that the issue of child abuse in Rochdale has been one that`s gone back decades before any Asians were there. So, you know, the Asian paedophile rings could only have operated - and this has been a point that we`ve been trying to make for a very long time - could only have operated with the support of people within the councils and the police in those towns and so Cyril Smith demonstrates that, doesn`t he?"

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZrf1tMP2xA

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.

Establishment corruption

John Wedger - Police WHISTLE-BLOWER on CHILD ABUSE in UK [AV9]

"I am a retired Police Detective who specialised in child abuse investigations. Whilst serving on Scotland Yard's Vice squad I uncovered a well organised and established child prostitution network involving children aged 9-14 years, all of which were subject to care orders. I disclosed the sheer extent of this vile criminality and those involved. I was then threatened and bullied in an attempt to silence me. I made an allegation of corruption against a senior police officer for the cover up and as a result I endured an horrendous campaign of bullying. I nearly lost my home, job, liberty and placement of my children for my efforts as a whistle-blower."

"I now work with victims and survivors in order to help them gain the justice they deserve as well as campaigning with other whistle-blowers to change the law to give us the adequate protection we deserve."

"I served for 25 years in the Metropolitan Police. I also brought up four children alone. I have gained international, national and local recognition for my role as a whistle-blower. I now work with anti child abuse campaigners , victims/ survivors of abuse and police whistle-blowers."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyvpuwb08RA&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR22mRMQaANFkPWYNRiJPFl7fth02cFQ-v2GzuMyhUr_wSI9L0Nq671lzwY

　

Vulnerable children are being tricked by the transgender agenda

"An astonishing 17 pupils at a single British school are in the process of changing gender, The Mail on Sunday can reveal."

"Most of the youngsters undergoing the transformation are autistic, according to a teacher there, who said vulnerable children with mental health problems were being ‘tricked’ into believing they are the wrong sex."

"The whistleblower says few of the transgender children are suffering from gender dysphoria – the medical term for someone who feels they were born in the wrong body – but are just easily influenced, latching on to the mistaken belief they are the wrong sex as a way of coping with the problems caused by autism."

"Earlier this year, The Mail on Sunday revealed that a third of youngsters referred to the NHS’s only gender identity clinic for children showed ‘moderate to severe autistic traits’..."

 

 "She was advised to keep parents and other teachers in the dark if a pupil claimed to be transgender..."

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6401593/Whistleblower-teacher-makes-shocking-claim-autistic.html

Lady Smith and the altered transcript

 [UK Column 19 October 2018]

"Well let`s move on to Robert Green. And of course Robert Green was the man who stayed with the Hollie Greig abuse case where Hollie had been abused and clearly there was no justice coming forward. It took Robert Green to stick with the case to report the facts and ultimately to go to prison for his efforts in trying to protect children from child abuse. This has now reached an interesting stage because although many people probably think everything around Robert has died down, Robert has been campaigning for justice for himself as to what was and was not said in court."

 "And we`ll just pop her up on screen. Briefly, Judge Lady Smith is now north of the border supposedly running the Scottish inquiry into child abuse. What`s the link between this lady and Robert Green ?"

David Scott: "This is very interesting. Lady Smith picked up the reins of the Scottish independent child abuse inquiry... after everyone else led by the chief Susan O`Brien QC resigned, citing government interference and lack of independence. So lady Smith is now the sole director of this inquiry. She replaced the three people formally running it and is there personally directing how it proceeds. Lady Smith is the person who was asked to review Robert`s complaint that the Judge in this case, Sheriff Principal Edward Farquhar Bowen, had made racist comments during the sentencing...[hearing in 2012] These comments were entirely omitted from the transcript provided to Robert of the sentencing and comments. That transcript came from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service... She wouldn`t let Robert listen to the tape but she listened to the tape of the hearing and she assured Robert that there was nothing to be concerned about. It transpires that`s not true."

Brian Gerrish: "Right, so we can show a little bit of the documents here to show people how this trail works. 1`ve got to say up front that of course, at the moment, what was said and what wasn`t said in court is not in front of us as evidence, so what the sheriff did and didn`t say we are trying to track down... The important thing about this is how the system itself seems to be manoeuvring and obfuscating around the information."

"So the first document... is from the Crown Office in Scotland... Tell us about this document."

David Scott: "So this was given to Robert Green on his release from prison. He was complaining that the Sheriff had made racist comments during the sentencing and hearing, and that this showed bias, this being grounds for appeal. [The] document [is] on Crown Office notepaper and it`s as you see quite brief. We`ve actually covered this in detail in the Column many years ago because it`s quite strange as well. But even stranger is that we`ve now, after some considerable negotiation and exchange, found that the original tape is still held. It`s in the archives of the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service and after some discussion they agreed to provide initially a written transcript, a new written transcript, of the same comments. So when we see the new written transcript ... we find that it doesn`t match. "

Brian Gerrish: "[The] Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service has now come into it. Have I got the right one?"

David Scott: "That`s correct, yes. Now it doesn`t match. Now indeed it doesn`t match very closely at all. It`s sort of like the first one was a sort of paraphrase. The second one has clearly been transcribed directly from some sort of record, we don`t know exactly what, and lo and behold there`s an additional sentence in the new transcript that was entirely omitted from the original document - and what Robert has been saying for six years."

Brian Gerrish: "So we can bring this new sentence on screen. And what we`re saying here is that this has never been seen before. Suddenly, we`ve got this sentence which has now appeared in a second version of what is claimed to be the transcript."

David Scott: "It`s a very interesting sentence. So this was omitted from the accurate record that was provided by the Crown Office and was confirmed by Lady Smith. And the sentence says: `Let me tell you that we in Scotland are more than capable of identifying our own deficiencies without the assistance of someone with your background`. Now this is interesting on many levels. Not only was it omitted entirely from the initial record but it covers exactly the ground, or subject area, that Robert Green and the six or seven other witnesses in court that day all said was covered by the sentencing comment. It just does it in a way which is neutered. It calms it down; it reads like what the Sheriff maybe wishes he said. It doesn`t comply, tally closely, with what has been reported to me by numerous witnesses ... But it covers the same ground."

Brian Gerrish: "To emphasise this we`re going to show - we`ll bring it up on screen - what members of the public who were present at the hearing allege that the Sheriff said to Robert Green: `You are either stupid or misguided, probably both, to think that you, a Welsh-English man, can come up to Scotland to tell us how to run our justice system. I am telling you that WE run the justice system just fine.` So that`s what members of the public who were present allege was said."

"I`ll just jump back and show again what is now being said the transcript shows. `Let me tell you that we in Scotland are more than capable of identifying our own deficiencies without the assistance of someone with your background`... I was told shortly before we came on live for today`s news that in England it is normal procedure that although somebody is actually there taking down the transcript as the trial takes place, that transcript goes ultimately to the Judge to be - what`s the word - verified."

Mike Robinson: "Sanitised?"

Brian Gerrish. "Sanitised ! Before it is released to the public as the true version of events. I don`t know whether the same system works in Scotland but, of course, if it does this makes life very interesting indeed."

David Scott: "Well it`s an excellent question because we`ve been told by the Scottish Courts & Tribunals Service that this transcript is verbatim, taken from the tape that was recorded in court. Now they`ve offered Robert the chance to listen to the tape. So far they`re refusing to give him a copy of the recording for forensic examination but they have offered to allow him to listen to it. So that`s going to happen..."

Brian Gerish: "OK, now you have written some letters on this subject. You thought that this one that you wrote some time ago to Lord Gill was of particular importance because you were coming back to the significance, the legal significance, of this event. We still don`t know what the true facts are but this is giving a flavour for it by having a look at the dangers of bias in court cases and you found this very powerful case precedent."

"Back in the 1980s, a Sheriff whilst relaxing at Ayr curling club, pronounced that the coal miners, then on strike, would not receive legal aid if they came into this court on breach of the peace charges. Some of the miners later appealed his decision, on quite different grounds, to refuse legal aid. The matter went to the Court of Session. The Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Ross, concluded that the Sheriff had not brought his prejudice into the court and that his decisions had been correct in law but that this was not enough. `There must not be even the appearance of bias,` Lord Ross said. `There is nothing to suggest that at the trials the Sheriff acted unfairly. What the Sheriff failed to note was that the interests of justice required not merely that he should not display bias but that the circumstances should not be such as to create in the mind of a reasonable man the suspicion of the Sheriff`s partiality.` Lord Ross found for one of those appealing."

"The inescapable conclusion is that the statements by Sheriff Principal Bowen concerning Mr Green`s nationality failed to live up to the standard required by Scots Law and defined in the statement by Lord Ross. The logical implication is therefore that the court records were altered not for public relations reasons, or to save the Sheriff the embarrassment of an unguarded remark, but to avoid Mr Green having grounds for appeal; an appeal Mr Green could well have won given the previous stand made by the Court of Session on this subject."

David Scott: "Yes, this is a 2014 letter from me to the head of the judiciary in Scotland, the Lord President of the Court of Session. I write here pointing out that - now as I`ve said we`ve got six or seven separate witnesses, all of them reasonable men and women, who came away from that court convinced there were grounds to doubt the Sheriff`s impartiality. These people are on the record... Their records incidentally were offered to Lady Smith who refused to receive them."

Brian Gerrish: "OK we`ve got a slide here, effectively your summary of this, which I can read out...."

Brian Gerrish: "Really David, you are saying that if the public are not entitled to know what really took place in the court hearing and who said what, there is no justice north of the border and there is certainly no justice for Robert Green."

David Scott: "It must been seen to be done; it must be ... as the quote there from Lord Ross made absolutely clear; there must be not even a hint or suggestion in the mind of a reasonable observer the system is less than scrupulously fair. It seems that in Robert`s case we`re failing that by a country mile."　

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 　

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/