Patrick Rock/ Protection Officer/Johnson Family/Sir Simon Milton/Ian Greer

Patrick Rock resigned as Deputy head of Cameron’s policy unit

No.10 aide Patrick Rock resigns after being arrested over child abuse image allegations.Rock was one of Cameron’s Downing Street fixers.

The two had worked together as SPADs to Michael Howard and Rock was very much part of the old special adviser network.

Michael Howard is a member of the highly secretive organization ‘Le Cercle'[15], which has deep ties to many intelligence agencies and has a long history of links to many of those involved with organized child abuse, along with shadowy covert acts such as media propaganda, arms dealing and on the ground military action, generally funded by offshore shell companies.

Michael Howard is a long time friend of Jonathan Aitken, global arms dealer and one time head of Le Cercle.

link

In 2001 the Purdews of Champneys (friends of Sir Jimmy Savile and Keith Vaz) briefly acquired Inglewood health hydro from agents of Saudi prince Mohammed bin Fahd. Inglewood had been the scene of allegations, published in the Guardian six years earlier, that then defence minister Jonathan Aitken, a director of the spa, had tried to arrange girls for a Saudi prince and his entourage.

The report led to the notorious libel action brought by Aitken ultimately culminating in his being sentenced to jail for perjury.

link

Former Tory MP Jonathan Aitken, once a director of Champneys Inglewood. He was accused by former employees of acting as a ‘pimp’ by requesting call girls, once for a sheikh and once for a group of Arabs.

Then he was embroiled in a legal dispute with former brothel keeper Lindi ‘Miss Whiplash’ St Clair, who claimed that she was thrown out of Inglewood partway through a course.

And though Aitken met his future wife Lolicia at Inglewood, he also cheated on her with bondage prostitute Paula Strudwick, telling her to collect the right sort of birch branches from the woods outside the estate for sadomasochistic sex games. You’d have thought someone would have twigged what was going on.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/columnists/article-259644/PS.html

Jo Johnsomn

appointed by David Cameron as Parliamentary Secretary at the Cabinet Office (in addition to his role as an Assistant Government Whip)

Irk Hudson ‏@IrkHudson

I asked (Jo Johnson) ex-head of Cameron’s Policy Unit if taxpayers are funding a protection officer for Patrick Rock. @tom_watson

 Asked if taxpayers are paying for protection officer for Rock Why does your bro not answer?

Embedded image permalink

Family: Boris Johnson (second right) with father Stanley (left), sister Rachel (second left) and brother Jo (right), at the launch of his book 'The Churchill Factor: How One Man Made History', at Dartmouth House yesterday

Family: Boris Johnson (second right) with father Stanley (left), sister Rachel (second left) and brother Jo (right), at the launch of his book

Stanley Johnson at another book launch with Norman Lamont (left) and Leon Brittan (right)

Norman Lamont:

Before entering Parliament he worked for N M Rothschild & Sons, the investment bank, and became director of Rothschild Asset Management.
The day after his dismissal from the Treasury, Sir Samuel Brittan (Leon’s brother) wrote in the Financial Times that history was likely to record him as one of the better Chancellors

………………………………………………..

Boris Johnson and Sir Simon Henry Milton

Sir Simon Henry Milton (2 October 1961 – 11 April 2011) was a British Conservative politician.He lately served as London’s Deputy Mayor for Policy and Planning, and before that was a leader of Westminster City Council and Chairman of the Local Government Association.

Milton was a director of Ian Greer Associates, a parliamentary lobbying company “with close links to the Tory party” which was at the centre of the Cash-for-questions scandal in the 1990s.

Deputy Chairman Simon Milton was helping Ian Greer and Associates Simon Milton is now dead but his partner Robert Davis is still a Westminster Councillor.
 

Ian Greer, political lobbyist, has died aged 82. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/12001034/Ian-Greer-lobbyist-obituary.html

 photo ian greer 1_zpsblxxtjyd.jpg

 photo greer 2_zpst9cpodh5.jpg

image

We all know Ian Greer, controversial lobbyist and close pal of Simon Milton , fled to South Africa following the cash for questions scandal in the nineties.

Was this the only reason he fled?

Maybe not.

Ian Greer has set up a charitable organisation for adults and vulnerable children affected by the Aids crisis in South Africa.

According to ‘Ground Up’ :

The Helderberg Street Peoples’ Centre in Somerset West cares for poor and marginalised people. It is a soup kitchen, but it also offers counselling and support to people with drug and alcohol problems, amongst other things.”

The HSPC website claims:

” In 2001, Ian Greer brought together eight churches of different denominations to help the poor and destitute in the community, by forming the Helderberg Street People’s Centre, now known as HSPC.

How very noble of Greer to devote so many years of his life to supporting the destitute and vulnerable people of South Africa.

But what’s this?

The Make A Difference Trust is proud to work with Mr Ian Greer and the highly dedicated team of carers and volunteers at the Helderberg Street Peoples Centre in the Western Cape: South Africa.

Through support from the Yves Guihannec Foundation as well as the many individuals who have donated funds towards this worthwhile programme, we have been able to truly make a significant difference in the lives of so many”.

Is this the same Yves Guihannec Foundation which is run by tax avoidance expert Robert Venables Q.C. and which has never produced any accounts for the Charities Commission?

It may well be.

… Ian Greer…

… lots of probing questions.

Lots of questions about Dolphin Square.

Lots of questions about Simon Milton.

Lots of questions about Derek Laud.

Lots of questions about vulnerable children.

Lots of questions about the Yves Guihannec Aids charity.

Lots of questions indeed.

https://thecolemanexperience.wordpress.com/2013/05/01/charitable-ian-greer-and-the-operation-pallial-connection/

1969: When Ian Greer met Peter Righton

https://bitsofbooksblog.wordpress.com/2015/01/30/1968-1970-albany-trust-peter-righton-antony-grey-and-ian-greer/  n.b. YORK uni Conference

At the time Greer, who thirty years later would achieve notoriety in the Cash for Questions scandal… was also working for the Mental Health Trust. In 1966 in a surprising detour from his political aspirations, Greer’s name had been passed to Lord Butler and Sir Evelyn Rothschild and he had accepted an appointment as National Director.

In his June 1995 statement to the Parliamentary Select Committee on Standards & Privileges Greer gave a more detailed account of his invitation to head up the Mental Health Trust, hand-picked by Lord Butler (former Home Secretary at the time Sir Ian Horobin MP’s prosecution for abuse of boys, promoted to Deputy Prime Minister in Macmillan’s Night of the Long Knives during) and Sir Evelyn De Rothschild.

Real Stories Gallery ‏@HIVstories
although telegraph mentions he was in SA, doesn’t show pics or expand on his charitable work there.



DISCLAIMER: THE POSTING OF STORIES, COMMENTARIES, REPORTS, DOCUMENTS AND LINKS (EMBEDDED OR OTHERWISE) ON THIS SITE DOES NOT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, IMPLIED OR OTHERWISE, NECESSARILY EXPRESS OR SUGGEST ENDORSEMENT OR SUPPORT OF ANY OF SUCH POSTED MATERIAL OR PARTS THEREIN.

Advertisements

Developments: St Francis’ Boys Home / Jimmy Savile/ Purdews/ Henlow Grange/Vaz

Between 1868 and 1974 Shefford was the site of St Francis’ Boy’s Home (orphanage) that was situated on High Street next to the Roman Catholic Church.   Savile used to regularly visit St Francis Boys Home.


13 September 2016

Cruel and vindictive regime’ of Shefford boys’ home carers, court hears

James McCann trial:

James McCann, 80, is accused of 52 charges of physical and sex assaults on 26 boys.

Priest in charge, Father John Ryan,

was ‘most evil man’

The alleged offences took place at St Francis children’s home in Shefford, Bedfordshire in the 1960s and 70s.

One man, scoutmaster Christopher Cahill, 73, ran a scout troop specifically for boys at the home between 1965 and 1966, when he was aged 23 and 24.

He pleaded guilty to offences of indecent assault relating to four boys at the home earlier this year, jurors were told.

link

link


Two men charged with abusing 26 boys at Bedfordshire boys’ home

Friday 20 November 2015

Two men have been charged with abusing 26 boys – some as young as five years old – at a Shefford boys’ home in the 1960s. The 25 boys were aged between five and 16.

The 18 sexual offences and 48 physical offences are alleged to have taken place at St Francis’ Boys Home, in Shefford, between 1963 and 1974, Bedfordshire Police said.

A 79-year-old man from Swaffham, Norfolk, is charged with 66 offences – 18 sexual and 48 physical – which are alleged to have taken place at St Francis Boys’ Home between 1963 and 1974.

 A 73-year-old man from Bedford has been charged with six sexual offences against four boys aged between 11 and 16.
 Both men will appear at Luton Magistrates’ Court on November 30.
 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Background:

SHEFFORD BOYS HOME: Mystery of the missing police files and Jimmy Savile clipping

July 17, 2013

A COMPLAINT to Bedfordshire police has been made by a former resident of a boys home concerning missing files relating to previous inquiries.

Former residents of St Francis Boys Home in Shefford, which was run by the Catholic Church, are taking a ‘class action’ against the church over claims they were both physically and sexually assaulted.

Fr John Ryan

As reported by Bedfordshire on Sunday, one of the priests alleged to have abused children in the 1950s and 1960s, Father John Ryan, was twice interviewed by police concerning these allegations, in 1997 and 2003.

This newspaper interviewed Father Ryan in 2006 and put these allegations to him but he made no comment. He died in 2008.

 We also reported that there were accusations that boys who had run away from the home were taken back by police officers, and subsequently received even greater punishment and abuse.

Damian Chittock, who won damages from the church concerning abuse, has complained about the missing police files.

Bedfordshire Police said they have received a complaint and it was being investigated.

The police started a new investigation this year, after more former boys complained about abuse at the former orphanage run by the Northampton Diocese of the Catholic Church.

Damian Chittock said: It seems to me incredible that two files concerning very damning allegations can go missing. I worry about how seriously the police are taking these matters, which have blighted people’s lives for decades.”

Steve Lowe, group editor, said:“I believe more in the cock-up than conspiracy theory but losing both sets of files is worrying.

We also found that there was a picture of Jimmy Savile attending a VE commemoration day in Shefford, in April 1985, in the local paper of the time. He visited the home often, as there is a Catholic Church attached and Savile was a committed Catholic.

“We went to Bedford library and it had every copy of this paper since it started publishing until the present day, apart from the first half of 1985, which had gone missing.

“Another cock-up I guess but they do seem to be mounting.”

https://theneedleblog.wordpress.com/operation-greenlight/east-england/central-bedfordshire/st-francis-boys-home-shefford/

…………………………………………………………………………………

October 13, 2013

…This was the second time Father Ryan had been arrested as he was interviewed in 1997, following earlier complaints of both physical and sexual abuse at the home.These records also went missing. The files are relevant to a ‘class action’ legal case being taken against the church by many other former boys at the home, as Father Ryan is now dead and the statements could have been used in court.

Mr Chittock said: “I find it incredulous that your officers cannot find these files, that not only

include witness statements from at least three victims, but also the interview with Father John Ryan and 40 old boys that were interviewed in the original investigation in the 1990s.”

http://www.bedfordshire-news.co.uk/Missing-Shefford-boys-home-abuse-case-files-destroyed/story-21724458-detail/story.html#ixzz2hnZa317H

Jimmy Savile link to ‘abuse’ orphanage prompts MP’s concern

20 February 2014

Ms Greening, MP for the south London constituency of Putney, Roehampton and Southfields, said in a letter to Mr McIntosh she had written to the Chief Constable “asking her to open a new investigation into the matter, including into a potential link with Jimmy Savile”.

She said she had also written to Home Secretary Theresa May over concerns Mr McIntosh had raised about the police inquiry into the orphanage and missing police files.

Mr McIntosh, who lives in Roehampton and went to St Francis in the early 1960s, said he was concerned about why files relating to a previous investigation went missing for months.

Bedfordshire Police started an investigation into new claims of abuse last May. In October police said it was thought the files had been destroyed but the following month police located the files.

Mr McIntosh said he wanted to know why the files from the 2002 investigation had gone missing and why the 2002 investigation failed to produce any prosecutions.

In a letter to Mr McIntosh, Ms Greening said she had written to Mrs May to “highlight your general concerns about previous investigations”.

Mr McIntosh said: “I hope it puts pressure on the police to be more efficient. There are a lot of questions to be answered. Why were the files not found?”

Since Savile’s death in 2011, hundreds of people around the country have reported abuse by the former presenter of Top of the Pops.

Mr McIntosh, who says he was physically abused at the home, said there are reports Savile was seen visiting the home in the 1950s.

He said he was also pleased Ms Greening had written to Ms May about the possibility of bringing a corporate manslaughter charge against the orphanage over the alleged abuse.

Last year (2013) a 77-year-old man, from Thetford, Norfolk, was arrested on suspicion of historical physical and sexual abuse at the home, while a 71-year-old man has been interviewed in connection with the investigation.

The home, which was run by the Northampton diocese of the Catholic church, closed in the mid-1970s.

The BBC has spoken to a number of former boys’ home residents who allege abuse at the hands of priests Fr John Ryan in the 1960s and Fr Wilfred Johnson in the 1950s.

The Northampton Diocese of the Catholic Church, which ran the home, has said it “deeply regretted” any hurt caused, but has stressed the “claims are not proven”.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-26258129

June 16, 2013

Bedfordshire on Sunday can now reveal that Savile used to regularly visit St Francis Boys Home.

He frequently stayed at Henlow Grange health farm, so much so that a wing at the spa was named after him.

Local Shefford historian Audrey White, 83, was photographed with Savile at the Shefford VE remembrance celebration in 1985.

Audrey said: “We thought he might be at The Grange as we knew he was a frequent visitor so we phoned the health farm and he was there, so we invited him to our celebrations. Mr Savile was very nice and said he would come along. He arrived on Sunday morning with two other men and agreed to be photographed with me and my husband. He stayed for a while, drew a poster for us and even made a donation”.

The Grange was first opened by Leida Costigan in 1961 as The Beauty Farm School of beauty and physical culture, the first of its kind in the country.

Savile has been accused of sexually assaulting minors while at The Grange and of molesting a former chambermaid of the health farm, who was 18 at the time.

A new children’s ward in Stoke Mandeville hospital, funded by Savile, was named St Francis Ward.

Another former boy spoke to us this week about the abuse at the home, especially by Father Ryan.

We interviewed Father Ryan in 2006 where he said he remembered some of the boys named to him but would not comment on allegations of abuse.

He had been arrested in 2003 and never charged and died in 2008.

Neither the Catholic Church nor Henlow Grange would comment.

Henlow Grange to High Street, Shefford
 Henlow Grange to High Street, Shefford

Savile, Henlow and Shefford, East Bedfordshire

5th November 2011: :

Jimmy was a regular visitor at Champneys health spa in Henlow, first visiting in the 1960s. He became a close friend of the owners, Stephen Purdew and his mother Dorothy. When a new bedroom wing was opened in 1985 it was named after him.

Stephen Purdew said: ‘He was a very significant family friend loved by everyone.

“Many people in the Henlow area will have very fond memories of this great man. My mother and I will miss him dearly.’” [Farewell to top TV Presenter, Biggleswade Today, 5 November 2011]

Dorothy Purdew’s autobiography:

‘Mid-1980s’: Two Yemeni girls of 14 or 15 arrive (or ‘are delivered’), who are ‘clueless’ and there is no contact with their parents, only communication with a London doctor and they stay for 6 months, lose about 4 stone each and become fluent in English

“On another occasion in the mid-80s we had two teenage girls from Yemen delivered to us. A fleet of cars arrived with the pair... I don’t know why they were over here , it was all very mysterious and whenever there were any problems or dramas we had to call this London doctor who acted as the go-between with their parents.

They ended up living with us for six months… ” (LRC p.151)

 photo b1339f2b-6e2e-4a98-b74b-0806b4317ee4_zps6d41f09c.jpg

Dr Venu, Keith Vaz MP, busineman Stephen Purdew and Michelin chef Sriram Aylur

Keith Vaz, the Labour MP for Leicester East, has a long-standing connection to the Purdew family, who own Champneys, including charitable and business links in addition to a close personal friendship. 
……………………………………………………………………

Child sex abuse victims got death threats after inquiry published emails

Survivors of child abuse say they have received death threats after the chairman of a Commons committee released scores of emails containing the identities of four abuse victims.

In a letter to the home secretary, the victims, who have been campaigning for changes to the independent child abuse inquiry, condemned the decision by Keith Vaz, chair of the home affairs select committee (HASC), to place the emails which contain the victims’ names and disparaging comments about them, on the committee website.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/29/child-sex-abuse-victims-emails-commons-committee

via Alun:
You couldn’t make it up: Keith Vaz says CSA inquiry which has just lost weeks of data is most appropriate place for information to go.

DISCLAIMER: THE POSTING OF STORIES, COMMENTARIES, REPORTS, DOCUMENTS AND LINKS (EMBEDDED OR OTHERWISE) ON THIS SITE DOES NOT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, IMPLIED OR OTHERWISE, NECESSARILY EXPRESS OR SUGGEST ENDORSEMENT OR SUPPORT OF ANY OF SUCH POSTED MATERIAL OR PARTS THEREIN.


Directors of The Prince’s Trust /Diplomats/Paedophiles

Roger Howard Benson who did high profile work with disadvantaged youth for the Prince’s Trust charity has been jailed for five years for sexually abusing a 14-year-old girl.

Friday 13 November 2015– the only “msm” news report on this newsworthy item. From The Telegraph & Argus  – the daily newspaper for Bradford, West Yorkshire, England and no images available of “high-profile” figure Roger Benson.
Former Director of Prince Charles’ Prince’s Trust is a convicted paedophile

Roger Benson had labelled her “a malicious nutcase and a liar” when he was arrested last year and he did not confess his guilt until she gave evidence in his trial last month.

Judge Jonathan Rose said Benson’s denials had made the girl’s already dreadful abuse worse.

Benson pleaded guilty to five offences of indecent assault that took place on three occasions in September 1986.
…………………………………………………………………………………………….

MR ROGER HOWARD BENSON of KEIGHLEY, born in 1938

Mr. Benson was ‘head hunted’ for the post of Director of Operations, with The Prince’s Youth Business Trust.

Director
THE PRINCE’S YOUTH BUSINESS TRUST
March 1980 – October 2001 (21 years)

Director
YOUTH ENTERPRISE SCHEME (N. IRELAND) 16 May 1986 to 24 March 2000 (14 years)

…………………………………………………………………………………………..

Mr. Benson has had a varied career in industry, education and charity work. Through night school, while undergoing an apprenticeship as a textile designer he won a scholarship to Leeds University to read Textile Technology. After a short period at Courtaulds, he began a career in the academic world, which saw him rise quickly through the ranks to become Head of Hotel, and Institutional Management, at Leeds Polytechnic, which became Leeds Metropolitan University.

Benson has undertaken consultancy/research in small business development with 8 European/North American countries, and with the ILO. He has held many national and international posts, including being the President/Chairman of the Hotel, Catering and International Management Association. (1991 to 1995)

Mr. Benson promotes InBiz in its relationships with the Local, Regional and National Government.


At the time of the assaults, in 1986, Benson was working for the Prince’s trust. The girl told a school friend and the police were alerted but Benson denied the allegations and was not prosecuted until 29 years later.

east india club
East India Devonshire Sports And Public Schools Club Limited in London’s exclusive St James’s Square

Roger Benson was also Director of East India Devonshire Sports And Public Schools Club Limited
5 May 2004 – 11 May 2011

– One of Britain’s most historic private member’s clubs and one of the richest clubs, with hefty cash reserves.

Members of this private men’s club have included: Prince Albert (patron), Lord Mountbatten, Lord Randolph Churchill, Denis Thatcher, the husband of Margaret Thatcher, Lord Coe and Nigel Farage.

While Benson was director of the club, the treasurer was stealing money and was later convicted of fraud.

………………………………………………………………………………………………..
haywood
Another Director of The Prince’s Trust – Sir Harold Haywood

Sir Harold Haywood, who also happened to have been Prince Charles most trusted charity aide, responsible for the Prince’s Trust. 


Cassandra Cogno
 
Harold Haywood alterations on paedophile document


 

Harold Haywood’s son:

“My father was very involved with the royal family during the Prince’s Trust days in the 1970s and 1980s but remained a close friend and adviser to the Prince.

“I recall my father and late mother, Amy, frequently attending events at Buckingham Palace, including one to celebrate the forthcoming wedding of Charles and Diana just two days before it happened.”

In 1985 Haywood took the Prince on a ‘plain clothes’ visit to a youth hostel and to charity centres in Soho’s red light district.

Sir Harold Haywood was Director of The Prince’s Trust 1977-88
Paedophile Roger Benson started with the prince’s trust in 1980 when Haywood was director. Benson was ‘head hunted’ for the post of Director of Operations with The Prince’s Youth Business Trust – wonder if Haywood appointed Roger Benson?

Haywood appointed Jimmy Savile as vice-pres of a youth club

via strider
SAVILE AND CHARLES

For almost twenty years,from 1955-1974, Haywood occupied one of the top positions at the NAYC National Association of Youth Clubs, first leading as Education and Training Director, and then Director of Youth Work.

 PRINCE IN SAVILE COVER-UP Daily Star Sunday 12-05-13, p6

PRINCE IN SAVILE COVER-UP Daily Star Sunday 12-05-13, p7

via cassandra cogno
Under Haywood’s NAYC directorship, Sir Angus Ogilvy, husband of Princess Alexandra was appointed President, with Jimmy Savile as Vice-President; a slew of celebrity attended fundraising events were organized, new headquarters were built on premises at Devonshire Street.

savile angus
Angus Ogilvy and Jimmy Savile

In his autobiography Savile wrote: ‘Princess Alexandra is a patron of a hostel for girls in care (Duncroft). At this place I’m a cross between a term-time boyfriend and a fixer of special trips out.’

………………………………………………………………………………………………

Sir Harold Haywood’s time as Chairman of Albany Trust

From 1974 to 1977

Haywood is chairman of Albany Trust – during this time he coaxed into existence a booklet entitled Paedophilia: Some Questions and Answers along with fellow Albany Trustees, members of the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE’s Keith Hose and Tom O’Carroll) and the Paedophile Action League (PAL).

It was abandoned after a trustee saw a draft and branded it monstrous.”

One of the Booklet’s stated aims was to argue for the positive social benefits paedophiles brought to society:

“… about paedophilia, and to argue that those involved represent no special threat to society, but on the contrary are often a force for social good.”

1975-1976: Haywood & Napier, Albany Trust & Nucleus at Earl’s Court

Haywood was busy convening an exciting new ‘informal’ venture at Earl’s Court, gathering a group of colleagues together to form a ‘Working Party’

Paedophile Information Exchange’s Charles Napier took a leading role.

On Monday 22 August 1977, just before Harold Haywood departs Albany Trust to create the Prince’s Trust for Young People for Prince Charles, Charles Napier is discovered by Kensington & Chelsea Council to be the Treasurer of the Paedophile Information Exchange. The response of Nucleus … They require Napier to take a holiday to get over the stress and only resign his official position not his membership of PIE.

https://bitsofbooksblog.wordpress.com/2015/02/14/haywoodnapier/

napier whittingdale
Charles Napier and half-brother John Whittingdale MP

Tory MP’s half-brother Charles Napier sentenced to 13 years over ‘prolific’ child sex abuse
Tory MP’s half-brother who was known as ‘Rapier Napier’ by his pupils and helped run Paedophile Information Exchange is jailed for 13 years for HUNDREDS of sex assaults on young boys in the 60s and 70s

Abuse scandals probe widens: The man (Charles Napier) who may hold key to UK’s biggest paedophile network ever

righton and napier

Paedophiles: PIE treasurer Charles Napier and PIE founder Peter Righton lived on Lord Henniker’s estate.

“Peter Righton, former Executive Committee member of the Paedophile Information Exchange, author of various freely available writings advocating sex with children, and senior figure in the social work profession, took up residence on Henniker’s estate, Thornham Magna, following Righton’s conviction for importing and possessing pornographic material featuring children in 1992.
righton
Numerous groups of children were brought from Islington and elsewhere to Thornham Magna on day trips and it is feared that they were the victims of abuse at the hands of Righton”

henniker
Henniker was Director of the British Council (1968-72)

Charles Napier was employed by the  British Council


Charles Napier and Richard Alston

Napier, a British Council teacher used diplomatic privileges to smuggle child-pornography into Britain.

He bragged of easy access to young boys and how he could send obscene images back to Britain in diplomatic bags.

hayman
Diplomat Sir Peter Hayman was caught sending paedophilia-related materials

A correspondence of an obscene nature between Sir Peter Hayman and number of other persons. The papers involved an obsession about the systematic killing by sexual torture of young people and children.

Lord Henniker and Sir Peter Hayman were at Stowe School together and both worked for the Foreign Office.
Alston brothers:

richard and robert alston
Convicted paedophile Richard Alston (left) and brother British diplomat Robert Alston

Richard Alston and Charles Napier

Convicted paedophile PIE member Richard Alston abused children with Napier and Righton

“The court heard that Righton and Alston’s friend Charles Napier would also be present for some of the meetings with the boy.”

Diplomat Robert Alston was educated at Ardingly College (as was Peter Righton and Richard Alston) Robert Alston is Chairman of Governors at Ardingly College. The school has its own Masonic Lodge, Ardingly College Lodge, which is a member of the elite Freemason “Public School Lodges” Council. 

Robert Alston served as British Ambassador to Oman between (1986–1990), and as British High Commissioner to New Zealand and the Cook Islands, non-resident High Commissioner to Samoa, and Governor of the Pitcairn Islands between (1994–1998)

Pitcairn Islands…

pitcairn

In 2000, police investigating the rape allegations of a 15-year-old girl uncovered a trail of child abuse dating back at least three generations. Scarcely any of Pitcairn’s 47 inhabitants were untainted by the allegations, and barely a girl growing up on the island had escaped abuse.

For Britain, the case raised embarrassing questions about its supervision of the colony, now known as an overseas territory.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The Martin Allen case linked to Westminster paedophile ring

 Diplomats, royals, government ministers, business executives and Margaret Thatcher were frequent visitors to Stoke Lodge in the late 1970s

stoke lodge martin allen

Stoke Lodge, the Australian high commissioner’s residence in London. The Allen family lived in a cottage in the grounds.

The Allen family lived in the caretaker’s five-bedroom cottage in the grounds, separated from Stoke Lodge by just a few metres across a wrought-iron low-level fence about one metre high.“It was quite secluded where we were; people didn’t have any reason to come down there unless they lived there, really,’’ Kevin tells Inquirer.

The well-heeled jewellery family, the De Beers, were neighbours, so, too, the Showerings, who owned Allied Breweries, and there was an Arab king to the right.

The street, Hyde Park Gate, is particularly famed as Sir Winston Churchill lived and died there.

We would often go into the garden and speak to visitors at Stoke Lodge,” says Kevin. “My mum and I even stood at the fence and chatted to Prince Charles and Princess Diana once when they visited.”

Martin took a photograph of Margaret Thatcher and her husband Denis when they were leaving one of the receptions at Stoke Lodge.

Kevin’s bedroom was at the far end of the cottage, but Martin’s was halfway along the hallway, directly overlooking the ambassadorial residence.Since November last year, when police started fresh inquiries into the historical abuse of children by the VIP pedophile gang, Kevin has started his own digging.

What has shocked him, apart from what he believes is an apparent disinterest of the police in re-examining Martin’s disappearance, are the staggering links the Australian high commission had to men who would later be revealed as some of the country’s most vile pedophiles.

Kevin says it was standard practice for the high commission to supplement its regular drivers with stand-in and casual drivers from a particular chauffeur firm located just across the Thames.

His research has revealed that this chauffeur firm had, at various times, employed Sidney Cooke, whose gang the “Dirty Dozen’’ would later be convicted and jailed for the torture and murder of three young boys in the 80s. Jimmy Savile’s chauffeur, David Smith, who killed himself last year before standing trial on sex charges, is believed to have had links to the same car company in the late 70s. Cooke and his pedophile cohort are understood to have been some of the drivers who would pick up young care-home boys and rent boys in the expensive cars and deliver them to organised ­orgies in Barnes, Pimlico and ­Kensington.

“All about at the same time as Martin’s disappearance, all of these pedophiles were linked to the (known pedophile) houses and a couple of them worked for the one car company that Australia House used as subbies if they didn’t have enough drivers,’’ says Kevin, blinking back tears.“Cooke and a few other infamous multi-murdering people worked for this car company.”

https://spotlightonabuse.wordpress.com/2015/02/01/a-missing-boy-and-the-australian-high-commission-in-london-31-01-15/

 

Image result for prince's trust and prince charles

Prince’s Trust ‘covering its backside’ over child migrant abuse, David Hill says

Former Australian ABC managing director tells UK inquiry the youth charity set up by Prince Charles had child abuse files years before expressing abhorrence

10 July 2017

The former Australian ABC managing director David Hill has accused a youth charity set up by Prince Charles of “covering its backside” by denying it had known of serious abuse suffered by child migrants sent to Australia.

Hill told a UK national inquiry in London on Monday that the Prince’s Trust had recently criticised the Fairbridge Society over the physical and sexual abuse suffered by children who were sent to its farm schools in Australia.

Fairbridge had high-level connections in the UK, including royalty, when it was running the Australian schools in the 1950s and 60s. Fairbridge was absorbed in 2011 by the Prince’s Trust, a youth charity set up by Prince Charles in 1976

Hill told the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse on Monday that he was sent to a Fairbridge farm school at Molong in NSW in 1959.

In May the society heard from many former child migrants about the appalling treatment they received at institutions run by Fairbridge, the Christian Brothers in Western Australia and other church and charity groups.

It heard that children were forced to work barefoot on farms or in quarries, their schooling was inadequate, their food substandard and they were regularly beaten and in many cases sexually abused by their so-called carers.

Hill said Fairbridge had in the past routinely lied and denied any wrongdoing when confronted about the abuse. He said the Fairbridge files had been with the Prince’s Trust for the past six years and contained many references to abuse.

Hill noted that the inquiry had received a letter from the Prince’s Trust in recent days expressing its abhorrence of the abuse suffered at Fairbridge farm schools. But he said he suspected the trust of cynicism as it had not previously acknowledged such abuse despite it being in the records they held.

“I can’t help thinking that the Prince’s Trust is simply covering its backside,” he said.

Hill was one of nearly 7,000 British children in state or charity care who were sent to Australia up until the 1970s, supposedly to improve their prospects. He said a 1956 inspection of Australian institutions had resulted in a blacklist of places that were deemed “unfit for children”.

But because the Fairbridge Society had royal and aristocratic backing the blacklist was torn up and its farm schools continued to operate.

That meant “hundreds more children, including me and many as young as four”, continued to be sent into conditions “harsher than at adult prisons in Australia”, Hill said.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/11/princes-trust-covering-backside-child-migrant-abuse-david-hill

Princess Diana, in intimate confessions recorded on video by her voice coach,   described her sex life with Prince Charles as “odd, very odd”. 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/princess-diana-parents-earl-spencer-never-loved-her-sex-tapes-channel-4-remarriage-countess-footage-a7870856.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/Research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=26253401&privcapId=23733077&previousCapId=23733077&previousTitle=InBiz%20Limited

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/features/10658118/What-ho-Jeeves-Theres-trouble-at-the-old-boys-club.html
http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/Prince-pays-tribute-Sir-Harold/story-11586668-detail/story.html#ixzz3rlKWs0PP
https://bitsofbooksblog.wordpress.com/2015/02/10/sirharoldhaywood/
https://bitsofbooksblog.wordpress.com/2015/02/14/haywoodnapier/
https://ianpace.wordpress.com/tag/lord-henniker/
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103569364
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/tory-mps-half-brother-charles-napier-sentenced-to-13-years-over-prolific-child-sex-abuse-9942651.html
http://www.ukcolumn.org/oldforums/index.php?p=/discussion/7233/p-i-e-paedophile-information-exchange/p12

https://thecolemanexperience.wordpress.com/2013/03/09/the-british-council-charles-napier-and-the-diplomatic-bag/

https://thecolemanexperience.wordpress.com/2013/05/26/mi6-british-diplomats-william-hague-dolphin-square-and-the-vip-child-abuse-connection/

http://www.cbetta.com/director/roger-howard-benson


DISCLAIMER: THE POSTING OF STORIES, COMMENTARIES, REPORTS, DOCUMENTS AND LINKS (EMBEDDED OR OTHERWISE) ON THIS SITE DOES NOT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, IMPLIED OR OTHERWISE, NECESSARILY EXPRESS OR SUGGEST ENDORSEMENT OR SUPPORT OF ANY OF SUCH POSTED MATERIAL OR PARTS THEREIN.

NSPCC and Childline – Whom Do They Protect?

Mike Wall appears to be trying to set up a dubious-sounding organisation called ChildLine offering telephone counselling to run-away young people.
And Roger Cook did a sensible public service…to the series – in warning listeners.

The Guardian

London, Greater London, England

Saturday, February 9, 1980 – 13

Esther Rantzen letter to Jimmy Savile

Foreword by Princess Diana, introduction by John Major, and a very strange contribution from JS. About 300 words about sleeping through Christmas Day and not realising it.


Also a contribution from Alan Freeman about how he devised “Youth Club Call” for his radio show.

Man tells of agony at the hands of BBC paedo ring involving DJ Alan Freeman and evil pal Jimmy Savile


 


Vicount Ian Kerr CGC‏ @IanKerr

BBC’s Esther Rantzen…….. ”a series of functions”


Truthseeker1‏ @thewakeupcall09

I never shielded sex pervert, says Esther

Daily Express 29-11-91

Not Jimmy Savile, Nicholas Fairbairn – another one… Alex Standish

ESTHER AND THE PERVERT SHE DIDN’T EXPOSE

ESTHER AND THE SEX PERVERT TEACHER

Alex Standish

Charity slur hurt Diana says Esther Daily Express 30-11-91



Convicted paedophile teacher Mark Standish aka Alex Standish


Truthseeker1‏ @thewakeupcall09

Mark Standish aka Alex Standish was a producer for BBC’s Panorama

Synopsis – That’s Life – The Scandal of Crookham Court 13-01-91

genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/76293fe187924a


 Image result for a secret life rantzen
Esther Rantzen A Secret Life
The main character Lucy Strong is self-obsessed and has no empathy with any of the other characters, only considers her own feelings. She also moans about being a ‘celebrity’ but then happily uses her ‘celebrity’ to further her own career.
.a sub-plot of abuse…about a pedo ring that reaches into the media..government..shipping boys out to pedo parties from a boys school

More recently …In 2007 a paedophile was fundraiser of the year at the Pride of Andover awards where he was congratulated by Esther Rantzen.
Update 5 Mar 2017

5 Mar 2017

 THE founder of an Andover children’s charity – caged for a string of horrific child sex crimes – has had his sentence slashed by top judges in London.

As previously reported by the Advertiser, Ronald Nicholson Bennett, 73, of Launcelot Close, was jailed for 16 years in October for five crimes against two girls.

The offences took place more than three decades ago and caused “life-changing devastation” to the victims.

But after an appeal on Tuesday, three senior judges in London cut the “excessive ” term to 14 years.

Bennett founded the now-disbanded Brave Hearts children’s charity and had refused to go into the witness box to defend himself during his trial.

In 2007 he was fundraiser of the year at the Pride of Andover awards where he was congratulated by Esther Rantzen.

http://www.andoveradvertiser.co.uk/news/15129650.Andover_rapist_jail_term_cut_by_judges/?ref=twtrec

Lord Justice Sir Peregrine Simon

Justice Simon – William Goad

Andover rapist, Ronald Bennett, jail term cut by judges

He had gone on to serve the community for over two decades with charity work, he told

Lord Justice Simon,

Mr Justice Soole and

Mr Justice Blake.

Justice Blake.

Judges hand-picked for special cases where establishment links need to be covered-up…

5 Mar 2017

Lord Justice Simon, Mr Justice Soole and Mr Justice Blake cut paedophile’s jail term.

THE founder of an Andover children’s charity – caged for a string of horrific child sex crimes – has had his sentence slashed by top judges in London.

As previously reported by the Advertiser, Ronald Nicholson Bennett, 73, of Launcelot Close, was jailed for 16 years in October for five crimes against two girls.

The offences took place more than three decades ago and caused “life-changing devastation” to the victims.

But after an appeal on Tuesday, three senior judges in London cut the “excessive ” term to 14 years.

Bennett founded the now-disbanded Brave Hearts children’s charity and had refused to go into the witness box to defend himself during his trial.

In 2007 he was fundraiser of the year at the Pride of Andover awards where he was congratulated by Esther Rantzen.

http://www.andoveradvertiser.co.uk/news/15129650.Andover_rapist_jail_term_cut_by_judges/?ref=twtrec

The idea that we keep the political and judicial systems apart in this country is sound. No one would want a crooked government being able to lean on the courts to make sure decisions always went the “right” way. But when you study this week’s decision to cut 10 years from the sentence handed down to Roy Whiting, the killer of Sarah Payne, you might come round to see the justice in my idea for a radical overhaul of our legal system.

To highlight the legal lunacy of the decision made in the High Court by Mr Justice Sir Peregrine (Simon)

Simon, unfortunately it is necessary to remind you of the continued depravity exhibited by the predatory paedophile whose case he has seen fit to support….

…what was going on in Mr Justice Simon’s head when he made that shocking decision to uphold the rights of a child murderer.

The judge “has form” in puzzling verdicts though; five years ago he took two years off the sentences of three Real IRA terrorists jailed for a bomb plot and refused a bid to increase the minimum tariff for William Goad.

Now aged 60, he was dubbed Britain’s vilest paedophile having abused hundreds of boys. As a consequence, he

http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/180658/Who-would-vote-to-let-paedophiles-be-set-free-early

Paedophile Army sergeant who raped a young girl has jail term cut by top judges

February 22, 2017

A paedophile army sergeant who raped one young girl and committed sex attacks on another has had his jail term cut by top judges.

Alan McCurry, 67, who served in the 4th Battalion Mercian Regiment, based in Farnborough, abused the victims during the 1970’s and 1980’s.

McCurry lived in South Cerney, Gloucestershire, after leaving the Mercians in 1982. And he later served as a chef in a Territorial Army division of the Merseyside-based King’s Regiment.

He was arrested after one of the victims plucked up the courage to go to the police in 2010.

The sick ex-soldier was jailed for 15 years in July 2015 at Colchester Military Courts Centre.

He was convicted of two counts of rape, four of indecent assault and one of indecency with a child.

 

Lord Justice Simon, at London’s Criminal Appeal Court, cut his sentence by a year.

Justice Michael Soole

Justice Holroyde / Sir Timothy Victor Holroyde

The judge, sitting with Mr Justice Holroyde and Mr Justice Soole, also heard McCurry’s bid to get his convictions overturned.

Lord Justice Simon commented:

“These were very serious offences with a devastating impact on the lives of the victims,” he added.

But aspects of the 15-year sentence were “unlawful” and the overall term had to be cut by a year.

http://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/paedophile-army-sergeant-who-raped-a-young-girl-jas-had-his-jail-term-cut-by-top-judges/story-30155484-detail/story.html

Adam Rickwood was the youngest person in modern times to take his own life whilst in custody, at the age of just 14 in Hassockfield Secure Training Centre.

The notorious Medomsley run by the Home Office where much child sexual abuse had occurred had been knocked down. [HT @RandolphTrent]

It was replaced by the Hassockfield Secure Training Centre
It was a custodial centre run by SERCO Home Affairs Ltd, and the monitoring and enforcement of the contract and placement of children was performed by the Youth Justice Board.

Before: The Hon. Mr Justice Blake

Between R(On the Application of Carol Pounder)

v.

HM Coroner for the North and South Districts of Durham and Darlington

Youth Justice Board

Serco Home Affairs Limited

Lancashire County Council

https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/02/14/adam-rickwood-1-r-v-hm-coroner-and-others-22-jan-2009-high-court-of-justice/

 Justice Holroyde

British court refuses to extradite suspected American paedophile

UK judges say Roger Giese, a fugitive from FBI since 2007, can only be sent to US after assurances his human rights will not be breached

The two judges at the high court in London made it clear that if no assurance was given, they would refuse to hand over Roger Giese, 40, to stand trial in California, where he is charged with sexually abusing a boy under the age of 14 from 1998 until 2002.

The former choirmaster has been living in a village in Hampshire under a different name and working for a PR company.

Giese is wanted in Orange County, California, for allegedly committing “lewd acts” with a child. He is alleged to have befriended the boy in 1998, when he was working as a voice coach for the All-American Boys Chorus. He fled the US eight years ago just as he was about to stand trial.

An extradition request from the US was certified by the Home Office in May 2014, and Giese was arrested on 4 June last year. But magistrates court district judge Margot Coleman refused the request last April.

Lord Justice Aikens and Mr Justice Holroyde stated in a joint written judgment that Coleman was right to conclude that extradition would be “inconsistent” with Giese’s ECHR rights. The judges said that if no assurance was given “in due time”, the US government appeal for the right to extradite must be dismissed.

According to a Daily Mirror investigation, Giese set up home with a new partner in the Hampshire countryside. There was no suggestion she knew about his past. Together, the pair built a PR company with clients including the travel firm (Savile-linked)Thomas Cook.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/oct/07/british-court-refuses-to-extradite-suspected-american-paedophile

(Lord Alistair McAlpine involved)

US alleged paedophile Roger Giese set for extradition

  • 14 August 2017
  • From the section Hampshire & Isle of Wight

An alleged paedophile who was on the FBI’s most wanted list can be extradited to the USA, a judge has ruled.

US national Roger Giese, 42, is wanted for trial in California, charged with sexually abusing a boy under the age of 14 between 1998 and 2002.

His counsel had argued conditions in US prisons and an extended custody threat meant he should not be sent back.

The Secretary of State will now make a final decision on the case.

District judge Margot Coleman said she had thought a “great deal” about the case before ruling against Mr Giese at Westminster Magistrates’ Court.

Mr Giese emptied his bank account and fled to the UK on the eve of his trial in 2007, leaving his family behind.

He is wanted in Orange County after allegedly befriending the child when working as a voice coach for the All-American Boys Chorus in 1998.

As well as child sex offences, US Federal authorities also issued a warrant for Mr Giese’s arrest on a charge of “unlawful flight to avoid prosecution”.

The married former choirmaster was eventually traced to a Hampshire village where he was living under a different name, working for a PR company, and cohabiting with a woman who knew nothing of his true identity.

Since 2014, a series of extradition battles have been fought after the Home Office certified a request from the US.

Mr Giese’s removal was previously blocked by High Court judges on human rights grounds.

He now has 14 days to appeal against the decision.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hampshire-40927609

ChildLine/Hillary Clinton speech Stock Photo
13th May 1999
America’s First Lady, Hillary Clinton at the New Connaught Rooms in London, to address the ChildLine conference, a major international conference on children and the law hosted by ChildLine, the UK children’s charity.

link

Clinton & Cherie/Rantzen Stock Photo

13th May 1999


30 Years of ChildLine: Reflections from a Witness Seminar

2016

Speakers elaborated the nature of voluntary action, and the motivations and contexts that facilitate or disable the establishment of a service such as ChildLine.  Many paid tribute to Rantzen’s role in pushing through the introduction of ChildLine, including in her work at the BBC and forging links with BT. Rantzen was also instrumental in persuading parliamentarians to provide funding to the untested charity.  Panellists also talked about the role of chance in the establishment and success of a charity.

ChildLine/Clinton & Blair laugh Stock Photo

MacLeod recalled Rantzen meeting Cherie Booth at the hairdresser in 1992, and was able to persuade her to get Hilary Clinton to speak at a ChildLine conference on children and the courts.

link

hillary-lolita-express

Report: Bill Clinton Wasn’t Only One to Go to ‘Sex Slave Island,’ Hillary Went with Him–‘Six Times’

The source for this claim is Erik Prince, the founder of the security firm Blackwater (yes, that one.) In an exclusive interview at Breitbart News, Prince first states that the NYPD is “ready to make arrests in Weiner case.”

Prince pivots from the Weiner laptop investigation to claiming that Hillary Clinton accompanied Bill Clinton and billionaire convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein to “sex island” (aka “sex slave island”).

“They found State Department emails. They found a lot of other really damning criminal information, including money laundering, including the fact that Hillary went to this sex island with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Bill Clinton went there more than 20 times. Hillary Clinton went there at least six times.”

link

Mr. Clinton flew on the billionaire’s convicted paedophile, Jeffrey Epstein’s infamous jet more than a dozen times — sometimes with a woman whom federal prosecutors suspect of procuring underage sex victims for Mr. Epstein. Fox News reported Friday that records show Mr. Clinton declined Secret Service protection on at least five flights.

The network’s investigation reveals Mr. Clinton flew on the Boeing 727 “Lolita Express” 26 times, more than doubling the previously reported 11 trips.

Bill Clinton … associated with a man like Jeffrey Epstein, who everyone in New York, certainly within his inner circles, knew was a pedophile.

Why would a former president associate with a man like that?” said Conchita Sarnoff of the Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit Alliance to Rescue Victims of Trafficking, Fox reported. Ms. Sarnoff also authored a book on Mr. Epstein titled “TrafficKing.”

Mr. Epstein was arrested in 2005 and signed a plea agreement in 2007 with the U.S. Attorney’s Office, accepting a single charge of soliciting prostitution. He agreed to a 30-month sentence, registered as a “Tier 1” sex offender with the U.S. Virgin Islands and paid dozens of young girls

link

A MAN who sexually assaulted a girl of five in a swimming pool at Esther Rantzen’s country home was jailed for 18 months yesterday.


Update:

5 November 2016

 

NSPCC rejects plan for ‘mandatory reporting’ of suspected child abuse

link

Update:

Oct 23 2016

Founder of a children’s charity who received a prize from campaigner Esther Rantzen has been jailed for 16 years for child sex offences

Ronald Bennett, 72, was convicted of five counts of historic sexual abuse in the 1980s

  • Ronald Bennett, 72, was convicted of five counts of historic sexual abuse 
  • Founded Brave Hearts charity in 1991 and got award from Rantzen in 2007
  • Victims, in the 1980s, range in age from 14-16, and he was arrested in 2013

Founder of the disbanded Brave Hearts Children’s Charity Association, based in Andover, Hampshire, Bennett preyed on young girls and targeted vulnerable families.

In 2007 he was named fundraiser of the year at the Pride of Andover awards where he was congratulated by presenter Esther Rantzen

Image result for ronald bennett andover awards 2007 rantzen

Pride of Andover: The winners and highly commended from the first awards ceremony.
Ron Bennett, Fundraiser of the Year;

18 Oct 2007

BROADCASTER and journalist Esther Rantzen presented the prizes at the first ever Pride of Andover Awards during a very special evening at The Lights

Pride of Andover awards

Inspired by journalist Dick Bellringer of the Andover Advertiser and with the help of numerous local businesses and media partners, so far we have awarded a Pride of Andover Award to more than 100 local people!

Since 2007 we have been honoured to have the founder of ChildLine and The Silver Line, Dame Esther Rantzen present the awards.

The journalist and TV presenter has commented about the community spirit of Andover and the extraordinary people she has met over the years.

You should know you have a town to be proud of with outstanding citizens who really do care for each other,” Esther told a packed audience at The Lights in 2012.

link

The original charges relate to offences which allegedly took place in Hampshire and East Anglia between 1983 and 1997.

The recent allegations are said to have taken place in Hampshire between 1981 and 1987.

link

Ronald Nicholson Bennett
Ronald Nicholson Bennett
THE shamed founder of a Hampshire children’s charity has been jailed for 16 years for historic child sex offences – including rape – after refusing to go into the witness box to defend himself.
When Adrienne Knight, mitigating, opened the case for the defence Bennett chose not to take the witness stand to defend himself having given no comment interviews following both arrests in 2013 and 2015 but his wife and son were called to give evidence in his favour.
Image result for Brave Hearts Children’s Charity Association in Andover
Brave Hearts’ Children’s Charity Association was formed in the Andover Chantry Centre  in 1991, by myself – Ron Bennett, I was a security officer at the time.

Much needed local support has come from the editor of the Andover Advertiser, who  “has given such a lot of support” by publishing letters and photographs and helping raise awareness of  Brave Hearts child appeals since the charity began.

…support children under sixteen, resident in Hampshire, Andover, Salisbury, and the Wiltshire district, who need help due to distress, financial hardship, family crisis, physical or mental handicap, or infirmity

link

24 May 2007

THIS week the Andover Advertiser is proud to launch the first Pride of Andover Awards, presented by TV broadcaster and journalist Esther Rantzen.

Sponsored by HSA and Stannah, and part of Andover Vision, with backing from Testway Housing, Test Valley Community Services and Test Valley Borough Council, the aim is to honour individuals who give up their time to help others or improve the community – or those who excel in their chosen activity.

Ron, a retired security officer at the Chantry Centre shopping precinct in Andover, had eight volunteers working for him, from a planning engineer to teenagers, as well as the unstinting help of his wife Sue and Joe Scicluna, the editor of the Andover Advertiser

The money is drawn from direct donations as well as fundraising activities, such as holding duck races, and working as car park attendants and security assistants for special occasions at Highclere Castle and events such as the lawnmower races.


The NSPCC, a charitable organisation whose purpose is to protect children (ostensibly), is sponsoring a debate about non-recent (read vip) child abuse investigations being witch hunts

From the NSPCC

Tomorrow at NSPCC @DAaronovitch & Peter Spindler debate “Have non-recent child abuse investigations become witch hunts?” #DaretoDebate


“I told Esther Rantzen about paedo Jimmy Savile 18 years ago”

rantzen and wanless
Some of the gang: Wanless, Amaechi and Rantzen

……………………………………………………………………………………………

John Amaechi NSPCC Ambassador

Formerly Amaechi was involved in convicted paedophile Jerry Sandusky’s charity, The Second Mile

In November 2011, when the Sandusky scandal broke, Pennsylvania radio host Mark Madden predicted: “I will use the only language I can—that Jerry Sandusky and Second Mile were pimping out young boys to rich [Second Mile] donors.”

……………………………………………………………………………………………

Peter Wanless, NSPCC Chief Executive

Wanless review ‘fails to find Dickens’ dossier

That information was said to contain the names of MPs and police officers who were suspected of being child abusers.

And yet… lo and behold…”File linked to child abuse surfaced the day after Leon Brittan died”

………………………………………………………………………………………………
Gerald Ronson, the vice-pres of the NSPCC is related to Leon Brittan

Even though Leon Brittan has not been cleared, Peter Wanless tweeted this:

leon brittan wanless lie

……………………………………………………………………………………………….
Dame Alun Roberts ‏@ciabaudo

In the light of the NSPCC giving David Aaronovitch a platform, was this really just a slip-up by Peter Wanless?

………………………………………………………………………………………………..

and then there’s …Sir Rodney Walker who was a guiding light of the NSPCC’s Full Stop campaign,

sir rodney walker

Sir Rodney Walker bought Jimmy Savile’s Scarborough apartment to use as a holiday home for his family

savile-midland-bank-nspc-save-the-children

Jimmy Savile helped the Midland Bank to fix it for twelve of our best known charities with the launch of its care card. ..including NSPCC, Save the Children, and The Spastics Society

The Guardian

London, Greater London, England

Wednesday, May 31, 1989 – 13

……………………………………………………………………………………………….

 

nspcc andrew

NSPCC promoter Prince Andrew – friend of convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein

Duke of York faces questions over sex scandal friend’s flights to Sandringham


The Duke of York is facing renewed questions about his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein after it emerged that the convicted paedophile landed his private jet at an RAF fighter base during a visit to Sandringham.

Prime Minister Tony Blair, celebrity Cilla Black and the Duke of York, at the launch of the NSPCC’s (National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children) Full Stop campaign at the Theatre Royal in London.

………………………………………………………………………………………….
rantzen
ChildLine Founder Esther Rantzen CBE

FAIRBAIRN

Rantzen hooked up with Nicholas Fairbairn – member of establishment paedophile ring

Fairbairn has been subject to several accusations that he sexually abused a number of children

Fairbairn has also been linked to a paedophile ring involving former MPs Cyril Smith and Sir Peter Morrison

Image result for ronald bennett and rantzen 2007 award

…………………………………………………………………………………………..

howarth
Rantzen hired Val Howarth to run Childline.

Val Howarth was a social worker in Lambeth, of all places

Throughout the 80s and early 90s, both Islington and Lambeth borough councils ran children’s homes that had been infiltrated by paedophiles.

Islington had paedophiles, pimps, or child pornographers in all 11 of its homes. Lambeth had a paedophile ring operating in up to 25 of its homes, and over 200 children were believed to have been victims of sexual abuse.”

Esther Rantzen’s sister Prisccilla Taylor, was also a social worker in Lambeth and was trained by Val Howarth. Howarth was blamed for a child’s horrific murder. (Jasmine Beckford)

She was social services director in Brent at the time.

howarth

howarth loses job

Article below written by Esther Rantzen:

…in 1984, another little child died, in Brent. It was such a horrific murder that it led to an enquiry …. heartbreaking details of the torture she suffered throughout the few short years of her life

The director of social services, Valerie Howarth, was immediately blamed by Brent council and punished. Until then Ms Howarth had been regarded as a high-flyer in the world of social work, but she left Brent, and lost the prestigious job she had been lined up for as head of Cambridgeshire’s social services. By 1986 she was unemployed.

That was the year I launched ChildLine. As chairman of a fledgling charity I knew I needed to find a skilled chief executive …

My sister Priscilla Taylor is a social worker and I asked her advice. Valerie Howarth had trained Priscilla when they both worked in the London Borough of Lambeth. My sister reminded me that in spite of her notoriety Valerie was a skilled and experienced social worker. Would she be prepared…to go back into…child protection, …? I met Valerie and asked her. She thought about it, and agreed.

At the last moment a colleague came to me and begged me not to make the appointment: “It will destroy ChildLine” she predicted. When the appointment was announced, one tabloid newspaper ran an attacking headline accusing ChildLine of stupid callousness, in employing “the Beckford director”. I rang the editor who agreed to run an interview with Valerie, to talk about her hopes for ChildLine. … In the event the interview was favourable.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/baby-p/10424062/Sharon-Shoesmith-villain-Victim-Or-someone-who-got-it-wrong.html

More on Brent Council:  Led by Valerie Howarth

Brent placed girls in Kendall House & Bishop James invited the then Brent leader  Howarth 2 help find KH review panel

 

1980 London Borough Regional Planning Committee

Meeting to discuss Kendall House

Apologies were received from Dr Peri.

Take note Wandsworth didnt attend. I know what view they held on Kendall House. Def number 1. Wandsworth a heavy user of Kendall House

Kendall house in Gravesend

 Kendall House was a private children’s home for girls based in Gravesend, Kent.

Until 1986,it was run and funded by the Church of England, overseen by the Joint Council for Social Responsibility for the Dioceses of Rochester and Canterbury. Girls who were placed there were aged between 11 and 16 years.

link

Young girls at a Church of England children’s home were drugged, sexually abused and bullied for two decades, a shocking report revealed.

An independent review laid bare the horrors of the now-defunct Kendall House between 1967 and 1986 where girls as young as 11 were left “broken”.

link

About 2.5 billion pounds of the Church’s portfolio is invested in shares listed in Britain or overseas, including in drug companies GlaxoSmithKline (GSK.L) and AstraZeneca (AZN.L)

link


Valerie, now Baroness Howarth of Breckland…one of Tony Blair’s “people’s peers. Her
assistant director (family services), Dennis Simpson, went on to become social services director in Southwark and headed the 1999 Joint Review of Haringey social services, published three months before Victoria’s death.

howarth

ChildLine’s Chief Executive Valerie Howarth OBE knew paedophile Peter Righton:

righton and howarth

Righton of P.I.E. was well known to Valerie Howarth, the Director of Childline – “He’s an adviser to all sorts of organisations. He was Director of Education at the National Institute of Social Work, …pretty much a national figure in child care”

Dame Alun Roberts ‏@ciabaudo

Peter Righton and his mate Napier lead straight to the heart of government as V Bottomley and Whittingdale know:
………………………………………………………………………………………………

ross caplin
Esther Rantzen’s cousin, Sarah Caplin, with whom she started Childline, is married to Nick Ross – Nick Ross admits he would ‘probably’ watch child pornography

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19850416&id=Vu89AAAAIBAJ&sjid=10gMAAAAIBAJ&pg=5408,3277045&hl=en
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19850416&id=Vu89AAAAIBAJ&sjid=10gMAAAAIBAJ&pg=5408,3277045&hl=en

Protectors of children???

No longer a slave‏ @C70214921
I wondered if childline was a way to filter out those who were reporting celebs and Govt or am I being cynical?
Perfect ruse. Kids frightened to tell parents, phone Rancid, they filter out and never goes to court, or even as far as the police.

Copies of Correspondence between Childline and NSPCC and copies of letters from abused children to Childline were shared with Office of Chief Rabbi

Chief Rabbi – is friends with Greville Janner/Prince Charles/Margaret Thatcher etc

Gerald Ronson – exec of NSPCC

Gerald Ronson & wife Gail are close with chief rabbis the rabbi visits Ronson in jail

WildCat‏ @calamiTcat

 
 

Diamond Lights‏ @Diamond__Lights
Sir Nicholas. Fairbairn –  Her lover and paedophile.
Stuart Smith‏ @StuartBenSmith
And the more you hear the more likely Dunblane was definitely a cover up for the police and court officials, sheriffs and MP’s.
WildCat‏ @calamiTcat
ALL MEMBERS O SPEC SOCIETY.. *ALL* LINKED 2 DUNBLANE
 

Misc

Image result for Patricia Knatchbull and father mountbatten

Lord and Lady Louis Mountbatten with one of their daughter Patricia Mountbatten later Knatchbull

Patricia Knatchbull presents check to charity Stock Photo

Patricia Knatchbull presents check to NSPCC charity 1980

She is the third cousin of Queen Elizabeth II and first cousin to Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh and is a godmother to Prince Charles, Prince of Wales.

link

link

Truthseeker1‏ @thewakeupcall09:

Lord Louis Mountbatten former chauffeur Norman Nield exposed him

Meanwhile, in New Zealand, there have been such newspaper headlines as, “‘Uncle Dickie’ the Sex Pervert” (N.Z. Truth, Sept.  8, 1987), since Mountbatten’s former chauffeur, Norman Nield, started revealing details of the late Lord Mountbatten’s alleged sexual exploitation of boys.

Paedophile Lord Louis Mountbatten


Image result for mountbatten on boat

Edward Prince of Wales and his cousin Lord Louis Mountbatten “relax” in a canvas swimming pool on board H. M. S. Renown during their 1920 Empire Tour.

Lord Louis was a great grandson of Queen Victoria and the uncle of Prince Philip (consort of Queen Elizabeth II). Mountbatten was also a promiscuous bisexual who was famously rumored to have had an affair with Edward VIII (who was Prince of Wales at the time) when he accompanied him on his Empire tours (see photo above).

link

Related image

Image result for mountbatten and queen elizabeth

The Queen. Like any human being, she is subject to the influence of those around her. While he lived, Lord Mountbatten was a persuasive counsellor, and he formulated the plan for Prince Charles’s unusually rigorous education.

http://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/26/magazine/an-informal-look-at-the-royal-family.html?pagewanted=all

Grandson of Lord and Lady Mountbatten on his family’s long relationship with India

 

Christmas 1968, outside the front door of Broadlands, the last Viceroy of India’s home in Hampshire

Christmas 1968, outside the front door of Broadlands, the last Viceroy of India’s home in Hampshire

Ashley Hicks, son of Lady Pamela Hicks and grandson of Lord and Lady Mountbatten, on his family’s relationship with India: From his grandfather holidaying there with the Prince of Wales to his grandmother’s platonic love affair with the former Prime Minister of India… And the new film, Viceroy’s House, about his grandparents, starring Hugh Bonneville

This was Christmas 1968, outside the front door of Broadlands, my grandparents’ home in Hampshire, where we spent every Christmas until my grandfather died. I am the five-year-old boy who is not looking at the camera but instead admiring his cousin Philip Knatchbull, who because he was older, was my great hero.

In the picture are a mixture of relatives and staff. Next to me is my sister, Edwina, and in the centre of the group under the doorway  is my grandfather, Louis Mountbatten. My mother, Lady Pamela Hicks, is at the very end on the left. (My dad had been standing next to her but took this photograph, hence the gap.)

My mother had  a conventional early childhood, but then her parents took her out of school and said, ‘We need you to come to India. You’ll be able to help us to win over the young people, and it will be a marvellous experience for you.’

My family has a long relationship with India and when my grandfather went there in 1921 with the Prince of Wales, my grandmother Edwina (who was dead by the time this photo was taken) bought herself a ticket to Delhi, aged 20, which is fairly brave.

The Prince of Wales even lent them his room to have a drink in so my grandfather could propose.

They returned to India in March 1947, when Mountbatten became Viceroy. It was the great dramatic event of my mother’s life and she was unique among any Viceroy’s children in that she saw some Indian culture.

Lady Pamela Hicks with her daughters India and Edwina in 2007

They had Indian food in the Viceroy’s house for the first time and my grandmother insisted on at least half the guests at meals being Indian.

Jawaharlal Nehru (third from left), leader of the Indian independence movement and later the first Prime Minister of India

Prime Minister Nehru was my grandmother’s great friend – they had a platonic love affair. Nehru’s sister told me that it was impossible that he and my grandmother could have had sex because  he was impotent – and had been for years.

I think that is probably true, but they had  this intense, romantic feeling for each other.

Last year we had dinner with Hugh Bonneville, who is playing my grandfather in the film Viceroy’s House.

The first thing Hugh said was, ‘Lady Pamela, I have to apologise because your father looked like a movie star and I’m afraid I don’t.’

After lunch, my mum said to him, ‘Now Hugh,  just salute, will you?’  So he saluted, and she said, ‘Oh no, a little bit quicker, a bit nearer the forehead…’   She was trying to get him to do a proper naval officer’s salute, the way that my grandfather would have done – it was the only thing she was really concerned about.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/2017/02/17/lady-mountbattens-grandson-prime-minister-nehru-had-platonic/

News - Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and Esther Rantzen at the headquarters of Childline - London Stock Photo

31 May 1990

Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher points to an instructional board used in the training of telephone counsellors at the London headquarters of Childline, the free national helpline for children in trouble or danger. With the Prime Minister during today’s tour was Childline chairwoman and TV personality Esther Rantzen (background, on right).

Lord Mandelson of children’s charity NSPCC & in convicted paedophile’s Jeffrey Epstein’s phone book

Peter Mandelson lobbied Tony Blair for alleged paedophile Lord Janner to receive a peerage, it has been claimed.Janner, 86, was elevated to the House of Lords six years after being publicly accused of child sex abuse in a high-profile court case.The Labour grandee, who escaped historic child sex abuse charges last month because he has dementia, has also boasted how his ‘friend’ Gordon Brown helped him get into the Lords.Considering it would be ‘splendid’ to be made a peer, he consulted his ‘valued friend’ Lord Mandelson, who told him: ‘

You’ll have to talk to Tony. I’ll ask him.’Janner made an appointment to see the then-Labour leader in his Commons office a week later.Lord Mandelson emerged as he was going in and smilingly said to him: ‘I’ve just been reminding Tony of the reason for your visit.’Mr Blair reportedly told Janner during the meeting: ‘I shall do my best to get you there [the Lords]. It’s not just that I’m fond of you, which I am. It’s not just that you’ve helped me a lot, which you have. It’s because you deserve it. But I can’t give you any guarantees. If we win the election, there should not be a problem.’

On the day Labour won the May 1997 general election, Cherie Blair hugged Janner and offered words of condolence over his wife’s recent death. However, he heard nothing more about his longed-for peerage so spoke again to Lord Mandelson, who said he would ‘keep an eye on it’.

He said he also raised the subject with his ‘old friend’ Mr Brown, who had just become chancellor.Janner claimed that Mr Brown replied: ‘Hasn’t Tony said that he’s going to do it? I’ll have a word with him about it … I have a special relationship with Tony and can talk to him about anything.’ His name appeared ‘soon after’ on the first list of new peers appointed by the Labour Government.


Image result for Martin McMillan OBE

Mark and Charlotte Pelling with Pat and Martin McMillan

Chairman Martin McMillan OBE

Martin McMillan is a Cheshire entrepreneur who lives in Sutton near Macclesfield, Cheshire. He built his own business in Publishing and Advertising sales. He sold the Company in 2005. Martin enjoys shooting and playing golf. He is a long established fund raiser, formerly NSPCC Chairman of the North West Full Stop Appeal, currently Deputy Chairman of Halle Concerts Society. In 2011 he became a trustee of the Cheshire Community Foundation. Martin is married to Pat McMillan, Chair of the Cheshire Ladies Philanthropy Club and Deputy Chairman of Lyme Green Settlement.

link

HRH meets NGS representatives

Before leaving, Her Royal Highness addressed the guests and signed the visitors’ book, and was presented with a rambling rose bush by Mr & Mrs Robinson.

Martin McMillan, Chairman of the National Gardens Scheme, said “It is a privilege to have Her Royal Highness visit one of the beautiful gardens in our scheme. Many thousands of people visit our gardens every year, and it must be one of the most enjoyable ways of raising money for nursing and caring charities and supporting those who need our help. We are delighted to be able to increase our support for Carers Trust this year.”

link

nspcc-pat-mcmillan

Children’s charity boss who praised shamed Stuart Hall quits

NSPCC branch chair resigns after supporting Hall during his child-abuse trial

19 JUN 2013

link

Wigan Athletic chairman Dave Whelan wrote a reference in support of Hall's charity workHall was jailed for 15 months

NSPCC volunteer and Wigan football club chairman give glowing character references for former BBC star Stuart Hall, 83, as he is jailed for abusing girls as young as nine

1999

Rolf Harris trial: Esther Rantzen ‘I am profoundly shocked’

30 June 2014

Veteran entertainer Rolf Harris has been found guilty of 12 counts of indecently assaulting four girls in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.

One of the victims was a childhood friend of his daughter, while another was aged seven or eight.

Broadcaster and founder of ChildLine Esther Rantzen told the BBC that she was “profoundly shocked”.

rolf-harris-childline-plates

 If you want to get filthy rich, get into charity.
The CEO of Save the Children is Helle Thorning-Schmidt. She earns approx £230000 per year. She is married to Stephen Kinnock! Says it all!!
And she’s Denmark’s former PM. Remember her at Mandela funeral-took selfies with Cameron & Obama.
Charities have now become a way of freeloaders to receive huge wages & pensions
Sadly Most charities are run as a business & the people at the top take MASSIVE Annual Wage Packets & of course Lots are Friends of Friends
David Miliband earns £425,000-a-year as head of refugee charity International Rescue via

if you don’t mind, “is paid”. Earns? I doubt it.

 
 https://youtu.be/8VF04Xds_c0
 Ye and that’s what’s happening at Grenfel now

 https://twitter.com/westham_pete/status/887325889289220097


Dame Alun Roberts‏ @ciabaudo

Read how Alex Standish grassed on other paedophile teachers at his school to save his own skin – and Rantzen’s role!

 

Esther Rantzen is a patron of the National Association for People Abused in Childhood (NAPAC) and who is best known for presenting the BBC television series That’s Life!, she too is founder of the child protection charity ChildLine but it seems that Rantzen knew more about children being sexually abused than she let on. And in most cases, never spoke out, allowing the abusers to continue to their vile acts.

esther

Here we look at several key moments in Rantzens career that bring several questions about not only her conduct but also her knowledge of and seemingly closeness to children being abused.

Sections on this page include :

1: Firstly lets have a look at her association with Jimmy (so-vile) Savile. Rantzen DID know of rumours and did nothing

2: Here we look at a “incident” at Rantzen’s country home – Child abused, pervert jailed

3: Mark Standish – Was he protected ? Rantzen knew that Alex Standish, a School Teacher was a paedophile. She did a investigation into his school. She just didnt pass the evidence on

4: Ben Fellows which includes Rantzen ignorance – Ben refers to a party in a house in the New Forest attended by the founder of a child protection charity (Esther Rantzen). At the party  Ben was given drugs, alcohol and was propositioned by men and women all night. Ben ended up passed out in the garden. Ben was aged just 15 at this time and Rantzen knew 

Firstly lets have a look at her association with Jimmy (so-vile) Savile

Rantzen said, “I heard the rumours almost immediately. It was always said that he behaved inappropriately with children, but rumours are not evidence.“

But Rantzen was told of percific abuse carried out by Savile, but not only did she do nothing, but she also now denies the very conversation. So Rantzen’s integrity was called into question because she chose not to pursue the rumours she heard, of acts of unacceptable sexual behaviour by Savile, particularly during her time at the BBC. 

1

Esther Rantzen with Jimmy Savile, pictured in 1988. She has since said she found him ‘creepy’ and ‘odd’

Rantzen has denied hearing specific allegations, and expressed her concern that public criticism of her role could threaten her work as the patron of charities concerned with child abuse. So, it seems Rantzen was more worried about self preservation than child molesters abusing children. Yet in October 2012, Rantzen reiterated her belief that television star Jimmy Savile was guilty of sexual abuse.

Speaking at the Cheltenham Literature Festival, she told a hushed audience ‘it seemed to me to be absolutely clear’ that the late television presenter abused children. 

Does it not seem strange that Rantzen who presented That’s Life!, a show that boasted of doing investigations and exposing corrupt members of society, knew about Savile “rumours” but did not think of looking into any of them ?, and further more In 1968 Rantzen started an affair with Desmond Wilcox, who was the head of her department and was married at the time to her friend Patsy who also worked at the BBC. After several years they decided to live together, and informed BBC management of their relationship. Management’s solution was to move the entire production team of That’s Life! out of Wilcox’s department. The new arrangement meant that Rantzen and Patsy were now working in the same department, causing both women concern. Patsy Wilcox had always refused to divorce her husband, but agreed when Rantzen became pregnant. After Rantzen and Wilcox married in December 1977, BBC management moved her back into General Features department run by him. So if Rantzen did have concerns about Savile, her husband and boss would surely not of stopped her from investigating the beast.

Here we look at a “incident” at Rantzen’s country home

July 1994

Man jailed for pool sex assault on girl

A MAN who sexually assaulted a girl of five in a swimming pool at Esther Rantzen’s country home was jailed for 18 months yesterday.

Robert Gillings, 63, of Addlestone, Surrey, was earlier convicted on two counts of indecently assaulting the girl, after a trial at Guildford Crown Court.

Ms Rantzen, television presenter and ChildLine campaigner, was not present at her house in the New Forest, Hampshire, at the time of the assault last August but had lent it to friends. Gillings, a former British Airways engineer, and his wife were invited by the girl’s parents to visit them there.

The victim had told the court Gillings repeatedly assaulted her before the New Forest visit. ‘He had said that if I told mummy he would kill her,’ she said.

Judge John Bull said the incident at Ms Rantzen’s home was the culmination of a year of repeated assaults. Because both charges against Gillings were of a sexual nature against a five-year- old entrusted to him

Mark Standish – Was he protected ? The below article had been sourced from another website courtesy of Chris Spivey We hope not to offend anyone by the language used but we wanted to copy and paste the whole article 

Well, well, well. What have we here then?

It seems that Esther Rantzen wasn’t covering up for another paedophile – despite what the Sunday People would have you believe. I say that because Rantzen sued the Mirror Group and the Sunday Peoples Editor, Richard Stott for claiming she did.

Course, there was no denying that Rantzen knew that Alex Standish, a School Teacher was a paedophile. She just didn’t tell anyone about it… She was leaving that to the Police since they also knew… And also did nothing. Hmmm.

The following Express article is a report on the subsequent libel trial, dated Friday, November the 29th, 1991. Rantzen got a result and was initially awarded £250,000 damages, later reduced to £110,000 on appeal.  

So, lets recap.

Esther Rantzen admitted to knowing about Jimmy Savile being a raving monster loony sex case nonce… But did fuck all about it.

The former child actor Ben Fellows alleges that Rantzen was also at a perv’s party where he was plied with drink, drugs and chatted up by paedophiles. Ben further alleges that despite Rantzen knowing that he was only 15 years old at the time, the goofy bitch never intervened.

In 1994 a 5yr old girl was molested by an old fella in Rantzens swimming pool…  But that was fuck all to do with her either.

And now we have her being accused of  shielding another sex monster. Hmmm… Never far away from the thick of it is she… Just saying.

Below the article there is a copy of the court ruling, which has all the relevant facts. Had this court case taken place today, I doubt that she would have been so lucky. 

Libel trials have been known to get it wrong, don’t cha know. Just ask Bruce Grobbelaar, Lord Boothby, Jeffery Archer, Lance Armstrong and John Major, to name but a few.

Mark Standish was eventually convicted in March 2012. Click here for his conviction. Mark Standish, 48, was a tutor at a notorious boarding school in the late 1980s which came to national prominence when three of its teachers were jailed for 10 years for grave sexual offences against its pupils. Standish gave evidence for the prosecution against Crookham Court School headmaster Michael Gold and two other teachers at the original trial in 1991

mark-standish

Esther: I don’t lie to Editors.

TELEVISION personality Esther Rantzen angrily denied that she was a liar.

Trembling with emotion, she said in the High Court: “It is not my habit to lie to newspaper Editors for whatever purpose.”

The outburst from Miss Rantzen, 51, presenter of that’s Life and founder of Childline, came during the third day of her libel action against The People. She/is suing over articles which said she kept quiet about an alleged child abuser because she owed him a favour.

Charles Gray, the paper’s QC, accused her of making false claims to Richard Stott, then editor of The People, to stop him publishing the story linking her to suspected pervert Alex Standish.

Miss Rantzen demanded: “You are saying I lied?”.

Mr Gray replied: “I am saying you made statements that were false…”

Miss Rantzen answered angrily: “You are saying I lied to Mr Stott”. “It is inconceivable I would ring up Mr Stott as editor of The People and lie to stop him publishing an expose about Alex Standish.”

She insisted she phoned because she believed a police investigation into Standish would be “blown out of the water” if The People printed its stoiy.

She said the Department of Education and Science, also investigating teacher Standish, had asked if the That’s Life team could do anything to stop The People running the story on February 3.

Miss Rantzen said she was always concerned about Standish who in her view was not fit to be in charge of boys aged 7-16.

”I thought he could have been a very dangerous man,” she said. “It was absolutely crucial that the police be allowed to discover whether that was the case.”

A recording of the conversation between Miss Rantzen and Mr Stott was played to the court.

Miss Rantzen, who said she had not known the call was being taped, complained that Mr Stott had shouted at her and was belligerent.

She said she would have preferred to sit down and discuss the matter properly rather than have a quick phone call in a stressed 15-minute break from rehearsals.

She said: “If I had realised I was going to become the major target of his newspaper, I would have asked him if we could do that.”

The trial continues.

Rantzen v Mirror Group Newspapers (1986) Ltd. [1993] EWCA Civ 16 (31 March 1993)

Cite as: [1993] EWCA Civ 16, [1993] 4 All ER 975

This judgment is cited by the following judgments:

  • De Rossa v. Independent Newspapers [1999] IESC 63; [1999] 4 IR 432 (30th July, 1999)
  • O’Brien v. Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd. [2000] IESC 70 (25th October, 2000)

This judgment cites the following other judgments:

  • [1972] AC 1027
  • [1987] 1 WLR 1248
  • [1990] 1 AC 109
  • [1991] 1 QB 1
  • [1991] 1 AC 696

1986-11-06

JISCBAILII_CASE_TORT

 The royal courts of justice

royal_courts_justice

    Neutral Citation Number: [1993] EWCA Civ 16
    Case No:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
(Mr. Justice Otton)

    Royal Courts of Justice
    31st March 1993

 

B e f o r e :LORD JUSTICE NEILL
LORD JUSTICE STAUGHTON
and
LORD JUSTICE ROCH

____________________

 

  ESTHER LOUISE RANTZEN
Respondent (Plaintiff)
  and
 
  (1) MIRROR GROUP NEWSPAPERS (1986) LTD.
 
  (2) BRIAN RADFORD
 
  (3) RICHARD STOTT
 
  (4) MIRROR GROUP NEWSPAPERS PLC
Appellants (Defendants)

____________________(Transcript of the Shorthand Notes of the Association of Official Shorthandwriters Limited,
2 New Square, Lincoln’s Inn, London WC2).____________________MR. RICHARD HARTLEY QC and MR. GEOFFREY SHAW QC
(instructed by Messrs Herbert Smith) appeared on behalf of the Respondent (Plaintiff).
MR. CHARLES GRAY QC and MISS HEATHER ROGERS
(instructed by Mr. Cruddace Esq., Solicitor to Mirror Group Newspapers) appeared on behalf of the Appellants (Defendants). 

____________________HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
____________________Crown Copyright ©

JUDGMENT (Approved)

LORD JUSTICE NEILL: This is the judgment of the Court.
On 16 December 1991 after a trial in the Queen’s Bench Division before Mr. Justice Otton and a jury Miss Esther Rantzen was awarded the sum of £250,000 as damages for libel in respect of articles published in The People newspaper on Sunday 3rd February 1991. It will be seen that the action came on for trial with commendable speed.
The Defendants in the action were the publishers of the newspaper, Mr. Richard Stott, the editor of The People, and Mr. Brian Radford, a journalist who wrote the two main articles complained of.
The articles of which Miss Rantzen complained were

(a) An article written by Mr. Radford which was published on the front page of The People under the headline “ESTHER AND THE SEX PERVERT TEACHER” “A People Investigation”.

(b) An article by Mr. Radford published on pages 4 and 5 of The People under the headline “ESTHER AND THE PERVERT SHE DIDN’T EXPOSE”.

(c) An article by another journalist published on page 5 of The People under the headline “Her Hot Line to save kids from sex abuse”.

(d) The leading article published on page 6 of The People under the heading “VOICE OF THE PEOPLE” “The wrong line, Esther.”

For the purposes of this judgment it is not necessary to set out the text of all four articles. It is sufficient to reproduce the text of the article on the front page and the leading article.
The article on the front page contained a further heading “She knew horrifying secret but didn’t tell his school.” The article then continued:

“A teacher who helped T.V.’s Esther Rantzen to expose child abuse at a boys’ school hid a horrifying secret. He was a pervert himself.

Esther knew the truth about depraved religious studies master Alex Standish.

But the That’s Life star, who set up ChildLine to protect victims from abuse, didn’t tell the school where Standish taught about the danger he posed to pupils. Nor did she warn any of the parents.

Esther wasn’t the only one to keep quiet. She and the police had known about Standish for two years. The Department of Education also knew. But nothing was done to stop Standish teaching.

When Esther spoke to The People, she said that Supt. Mike Hames, Head of Scotland Yard’s Obscene Publications Squad, had asked her: Please leave it to me.’ She was angry at our decision to publish our investigation and suggested it would jeopardise police enquiries into Standish.

But yesterday Mr. Hames backed The People. He told us: ‘I’m totally behind what you are doing.’”

On the left hand side of the article on the front page was published a photograph of Miss Rantzen with the words “ANGRY: Esther objected to our report, saying it could endanger police enquiries.”
On the right hand side of the article was published a photograph of Mr. Alex Standish with the words “TEACHER: Depraved religious studies master Standish enjoyed wearing uniforms.”
Underneath the article the following words were published:
“THIS MAN SHOULDN’T BE ALLOWED NEAR KIDS – Pages 4 & 5.”
The leading article on page 6 was in these terms:

“When Esther Rantzen set up ChildLine, she did so to protect children from adult abuse.

Assaulting children is the nastiest of crimes. Thanks to ChildLine hundreds, perhaps even thousands, have been spared the ongoing agony of ill-treatment.

Many others at risk can take comfort in knowing that help is only a phone call away and for that Esther and ChildLine deserve our praise and our gratitude.

That was why we were astonished to discover Esther’s attitude to the sordid secrets of teacher Alex Standish. Standish helped Esther and her ‘That’s Life’ team to expose the goings-on at Crookham Court boys’ school and bring the guilty men to justice. Yet, as we reveal today, Standish is a pervert himself, a sadistic fantasist, who is unfit to have any child in his care. And Esther knew it.

But when he got another job at a boys’ school in Orpington, Kent, neither Esther nor the Thames Valley Police, who also knew about him, felt they should tell the school authorities.

The police argue that because there was no evidence of a criminal offence they were not in a position to warn Standish’s present employers of his sick taste in amateur pornography.

Esther has no such excuse. And what she did, or rather failed to do, was a gross error of judgment. Her defence was that she and the police were waiting for worse to happen. Whether it did or didn’t is immaterial.

ChildLine is there to look after children. Not to use them as bait for a paedophile.

What The People publishes today will ensure that Standish never teaches children again.

The last question put to Esther by the Editor was what would SHE say to parents, if, as a result of her inaction, a child had been abused?

Three times she was asked. Three times she wouldn’t answer.

WHY? BECAUSE SHE COULDN’T.

NO HIDING PLACE FOR VILLAINS.

Just over a year ago, we branded two policemen as cowards for failing to help three colleagues from being beaten up by a drunken mob. The two P.C.’s sued us for libel.

Last week a High Court jury decided we were right and they were liars.

The People is proud of its motto to be frank, fearless and free and we will continue to expose public servants who fail in their duty.

CON-MEN, LIARS, HUMBUGS AND HYPOCRITES – YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.”

In the pleadings served on behalf of Miss Rantzen it was alleged that the articles by Mr. Radford on the front page and on pages 4 and 5 of The People bore the following meanings:

(a) That the plaintiff, knowing that Alex Standish was guilty of sexually abusing children, protected Standish by keeping that fact a secret because of his past services to her as confidential assistant in preparing a programme about the sexual abuse of children at Crookham Court School, thereby abandoning all her moral standards and in particular her publicly professed concern for abused children;

(b) That the plaintiff, knowing that Alex Standish was guilty of sexually abusing children, and notwithstanding her position as founder of the ChildLine Service for sexually abused children, took no action at all in respect of what she knew.

(c) That the plaintiff knowing since 1988 that Alex Standish was guilty of sexually abusing children at Crookham Court School and knowing since early 1989 that he was teaching at Cannock School, took no action in respect of the risk thus arising at Cannock School.

(d) That the plaintiff’s public statements and activities on behalf of sexually abused children, given her misconduct and culpable admissions as set out above, were insincere and hypocritical.

(e) That the plaintiff untruthfully told the Editor of The People that publication of a story about Alex Standish would blow Superintendent Hames’ inquiry into Alex Standish out of the water, when, she well knew, the truth was that Superintendent Hames would welcome such a story; and that she told this lie in an attempt to avoid publication of the facts of her misconduct and culpable admissions as set out above.

The Defendants served a Defence setting out pleas of justification and fair comment. In addition the Defendants strongly disputed the assertion that the article meant that Miss Rantzen had protected Mr. Standish as a reward for his help. The judge, however, and later the Court of Appeal on an interlocutory appeal, upheld the submission advanced on behalf of Miss Rantzen that this was a possible meaning which should be left to the jury. In the Defence the Defendants pleaded justification of the following meanings:

“(a) That the plaintiff knowing that Alex Standish was sexually depraved and perverted failed to warn Cannock School, Orpington, Kent, the Headmaster of the school, parents of the children at the school and the public thereof.

(b) The plaintiff deprived Cannock School, the Headmaster and parents of children at the school of the opportunity of taking preventative steps to ensure that children at the school were not left in the custody of Alex Standish and exposed to the risk of homosexual abuse or depravity.

(c) The plaintiff by her actions, in good faith but mistakenly, exercised a judgement which risked children at Cannock School remaining in the custody of Alex Standish and, being at risk to homosexual abuse or depravity instead of seeking to ensure that they were forthwith removed from his custody.

(d) That the plaintiff sought to persuade the defendants that they should not publish a story about Alex Standish by making statements to them which were (as the plaintiff must have known) false and/or thereby compounded the plaintiff’s own error of judgement in depriving Cannock School, the Headmaster and parents of children at the school of [the opportunity of] taking preventative steps to ensure that the children at the school were not left in the custody of Alex Standish and so exposed to the risk of homosexual abuse or depravity.”

The meanings set out in (d) above were added by way of an amendment made a month before the trial.
In support of the plea of fair comment the defendants pleaded that the articles were fair comment on a matter of public interest “namely the plaintiff’s judgement in failing to alert Cannock School, the Headmaster of the school, parents of children at the school and the public as to her knowledge in relation to Alex Standish.”
In answer to the plea of fair comment Miss Rantzen served a Reply alleging that the defendants had been actuated by express malice. She relied on, inter alia, an article about her published in the issue of The People on the following Sunday, 10 February 1991.
THE BACKGROUND TO THE ARTICLES.
Miss Rantzen is the presenter of the B.B.C. Television programme “That’s Life”. In addition she is the founder and chairman of the ChildLine charitable service for sexually abused children. The ChildLine service was established in October 1986. In her evidence at the trial Miss Rantzen explained that in the following five years about 190,000 children had been counselled and helped by making use of the ChildLine service, though she added that the service received about 10,000 attempted calls every day. In addition she told the court that she had set up the ChildLine Educational Trust to try to help children who had been abused and needed further counselling.
In February 1989 Miss Rantzen’s attention was drawn to Crookham Court School, a private preparatory school near Newbury in Berkshire. A former pupil wrote to her to say that he had been abused while at the school. As a result of receiving this letter Miss Rantzen together with Mr. Richard Woolfe, a senior producer on the “That’s Life” programme, made enquiries which involved interviewing former pupils at the school and some members and ex-members of the school staff. One of those interviewed was Mr. Standish.
Mr. Standish told Miss Rantzen and Mr. Woolfe that he had been a teacher at the school, that it was a very unsatisfactory school which had a “feeling of a culture of abuse”, and that he believed that some of the teachers had abused children at the school. The meeting with Mr. Standish took place at the B.B.C. offices at Lime Grove on 20 April 1989. He had resigned as a teacher at Crookham Court in February 1989.
Following the interviews with former pupils at Crookham Court and with members of the staff including Mr. Standish, Mr. Woolfe began to assemble material for a television programme about the school to be broadcast at the end of May 1989.
On 14 May 1989 Mr. Woolfe met Mr. Ian Mucklejohn, who was then a part time teacher at Crookham Court. Mr. Mucklejohn handed Mr. Woolfe copies of some pornographic documents which he said he had been told had been found in the possession of Mr. Standish. As a result Mr. Woolfe spoke to Mr. Standish about the pornographic material which had been found in his possession but Mr. Standish denied that he was the author of it. Meanwhile Miss Rantzen showed copies of it to Mr. Hereward Harrison, Childlines’ Director of counselling. The suspicions about Mr. Standish remained, however, and it was arranged that the three boys who were living with him as his wards should visit London to meet Miss Rantzen, Mr. Woolfe and Mr. Harrison. When interviewed none of the boys made any complaint about Standish. Meanwhile Mr. Woolfe gave copies of the pornographic material to the police at Newbury.
On 28 May and 4 June 1989 programmes exposing sexual abuse at Crookham Court School by three members of the staff were broadcast on the “That’s Life” programme on television. These programmes were based on information provided by pupils and former pupils at the school. On 22 June 1989 Crookham Court School closed.
On 26 June 1989 Mr. Standish was interviewed by the Newbury police. Following the interview Detective Constable Parsons spoke to Mr. Woolfe, informing him that though Mr. Standish admitted that he was the author of the pornographic material the police accepted his explanation. At that time Detective Chief Inspector Morey was in charge of the enquiry into Mr. Standish’s conduct. Mr. Parsons told Mr. Woolfe that the “That’s Life” programme should leave Mr. Standish alone.
In about January 1990 Mr. Standish obtained a teaching post at Cannock School in Kent. It was not, however, until 16 July 1990 that Mr. Woolfe was informed by Mr. Michael Gold, a former headmaster of Crookham Court School, that Mr. Standish was teaching at Cannock. At that time Miss Rantzen was in Australia.
On 30 July 1990 Mr. Woolfe spoke to Detective Superintendent Hames, the head of the Obscene Publications Department at Scotland Yard. On 31 July Mr. Woolfe sent copies of the pornographic material to Mr. Hames who then instructed two of his officers to discuss the matter with the Thames Valley Police. Also in July 1990 (on 21 July) Mr. Woolfe had a long talk with JS a former pupil at Crookham Court, who told Mr. Woolfe that Standish had not sexually abused him in any way.
In September 1990 Mr. Woolfe told Miss Rantzen about what had happened in the previous July. On 26 November 1990 Miss Rantzen and Mr. Woolfe met Mr. Michael Fallon MP at the Department of Education. Mr. Fallon was told about the pornographic material and on 4 December 1990 copies of this material were sent to the Department.
On 30 December 1990 JS wrote to Mr. Mucklejohn. In this letter JS alleged for the first time that Mr. Standish had abused him. Copies of this letter were sent to Mr. Woolfe and also to Mr. Barker at the Department of Education, who was responsible for the administration of the regulations under which the Secretary of State can ban individuals from teaching. On 17 January 1991 Mr. Woolfe gave a copy of the letter from JS to Detective Superintendent Hames. JS had been one of the three boys who had visited London on 29 May 1989 and he had also been seen by Mr. Woolfe on 21 July 1990. On neither of these previous occasions, however, had JS made any allegations against Mr. Standish.
In this summary of the background to the case we have not attempted to deal in detail with all the matters which arose in the course of the evidence. In general terms the case for Miss Rantzen was that she had done all she could to bring her anxieties about Mr. Standish to the attention of the authorities and that she believed that the police were keeping a careful watch on Mr. Standish. It was in these circumstances that she urged the editor of The People not to publish the article because it might interfere with the enquiries which were being carried on.
The case for the defendants on the other hand was that the pornographic material was of such a revolting nature that it could only have been written by someone who was likely to abuse children sexually and that steps should have been taken by Miss Rantzen to alert Cannock School to the fact that Mr. Standish had been responsible for writing it. The Case for the Defendants in support of the Appeal.
It was accepted by counsel on behalf of the appellants that for the purposes of the appeal it was necessary to concede that the jury had been persuaded that the articles bore the meanings which Miss Rantzen sought to put upon them. Accordingly it was inevitable that a substantial award of damages would be made if Miss Rantzen succeeded on the issue of liability. Nevertheless it was submitted that on a number of grounds the award of £250,000 could not be supported. It will be convenient to consider these grounds under three main headings:

(A) Alleged misdirections by the Judge.

(B) The argument that the sum awarded by the jury was excessive.

(C) Whether the Court of Appeal should interfere and substitute another award.

(A) Alleged Misdirections by the Judge.
It was submitted on behalf the appellants that they were entitled to a new trial on the ground of mis-direction. It was recognized by counsel that RSC Order 59 r.11 (4) did not apply to an application for a new trial on the ground of misdirection. It was also accepted that the court had to take into account the provisions of Order 59 r.11 (2):

“The Court of Appeal shall not be bound to order a new trial on the ground of misdirection ….. unless in the opinion of the Court of Appeal some substantial wrong or miscarriage has been thereby occasioned.”

The first complaint of misdirection put forward was that the judge had failed to give sufficient guidance to the jury about the financial implications of their award in accordance with the guidelines set out inSutcliffe v. Pressdram Ltd. [1991] 1 QB 153. At page 178 G Lord Donaldson MR said:

“In the instant case I cannot believe that the jury appreciated the true size of the award which they were making. This is understandable. Despite the inflation which has occurred in the post-war years, sums of money of £100,000 or more, and in many cases less, still lack the reality of the £1 coin or the £5 note. In the lives of ordinary people they are unlikely ever to intrude except in form of the nominal sale or purchase price of a house. I say ‘nominal’ because in such transactions the only sense in which these sums are real is in the effect which they have in determining the amount of the mortgage payments and the size of the relatively small sum which the purchaser has to pay in cash. Even to the vendor, they do not usually spell wealth, but only the means of reducing the amount of the mortgage payments on his new home.

What is, I think, required, is some guidance to juries in terms which will assist them to appreciate the real value of large sums. It is, and must remain, a jury’s duty to award lump sums by way of damages, but there is no reason why they should not be invited notionally to ‘weigh any sum which they have in mind to award’.

Whether the jury did so, and how it did so, would be a matter for them, but the judge could, I think, properly invite them to consider what the result would be in terms of weekly, monthly or annual income if the money were invested in a building society deposit account without touching the capital sum awarded or, if they have in mind smaller sums, to consider what they could buy with it.”

In addition we were referred to the judgment of Russell L.J. in the same case at page 190.
In the present case the judge quite correctly followed the current practice of explaining to the jury that the law does not allow either the judge or counsel to indicate what damages would be appropriate. He told them, again quite correctly, that he was not permitted to tell them by way of comparison what awards are received by a plaintiff who has been totally or partially paralysed as a result of an accident or who has lost a limb. He explained the purpose of compensatory damages and then continued (86E):

“The figure you come up with, if you get to that point, must be a fair and reasonable one. It must not be miserly otherwise the suspicion will linger. On the other hand, the figure must not be wildly excessive. Be reasonable. Keep your feet on the ground. In so arriving at a figure you are entitled to take into account the value of money, what it can buy – a house, a car or a holiday. The question of costs might cross your mind. They are totally irrelevant to the question of damages. The question of costs is for me to determine depending on your verdict. You will arrive at a reasonable figure having balanced out the factors which you think may aggravate and so increase the figure or mitigate and so reduce the figure.”

It is true that in this passage the judge did not direct the jury’s attention to the fact that a large sum of money could produce an income which could be enjoyed while the principal sum was left intact. In our judgement, however, the judge gave sufficient guidance to the jury by telling them to take into account the value of money and to relate it to its purchasing power by reference to a house, a car or holiday. He might have gone further but we are satisfied that this suggestion of misdirection is not made out.
Counsel’s second complaint of misdirection was that the judge had failed to give the jury any direction on the lines adumbrated in Pamplin v. Express Newspapers Ltd. [1988] 1 WLR 116. In that case Neill L.J. pointed out that although a defence of partial justification may not prevent the plaintiff from succeeding on the issue of liability the facts proved by the defendant may be of great importance on the issue of damages.
Here again we consider that the judge gave the jury sufficient guidance on the facts of this case. At page 88 of his summing up he said:

“You are entitled to bear in mind that the defendants have sought to justify and say that what they wrote in part was true in substance and in fact. Here of course you must be careful. You may well find that they have justified part of what they wrote against her in substance and in fact and that it was true, and insofar as they have succeeded obviously she is not entitled to any award at all. But where they have sought to justify and they have failed she is entitled to compensation and the fact that it has taken your verdict to nail the lie and prove their justification plea was mis-founded. Your award can reflect that fact.”

The judge might have explained the matter in greater detail, but he drew the jury’s attention to the fact that damages should not be awarded for that part of the words complained of which had been proved to be true. It is also necessary to bear in mind that by their verdict the jury clearly rejected the suggestion that the articles meant no more than that Miss Rantzen had been guilty of errors of judgement. They were satisfied that she had been the victim of a very serious libel. Pamplin’s was quite different. In that case Mr. Pamplin admitted that his conduct could be described as slippery and indeed unscrupulous and that he did not really object to being called a liar. His objection was to being called a “spiv”. As the judge explained at the trial in Mr. Pamplin’s case the damages were to be as compensation for what had been described as the “over the top” element of calling the plaintiff a “spiv”. We turn therefore to the next matter of complaint.
Counsel submitted that the judge misdirected the jury by inviting them to take into account in assessing damages the fact that the defendants had not apologized to the plaintiff. It was said that a failure to apologize can only aggravate damages where a plea of justification or fair comment is not an honest plea.
Mr. Gray drew our attention to a passage in the speech of Lord Guest in Morgan v. Odhams Press Ltd. [1971] 1 WLR 1239 at 1262D:

“There was another misdirection when the learned judge told the jury that they might, in considering the amount of damages, take into consideration the fact that the respondents had never apologized…. In my view, this direction by the judge does not represent the law. Failure to apologize is not evidence of malice…. By parity of reasoning it cannot increase the damages.”

We were also reminded that in the same case at 1247A Lord Reid left open the question whether mere failure to make an apology can ever justify aggravation of damages, though he doubted whether it could. In addition we were shown a passage in the judgment of Toohey J in Coyne v. Citizen Finance Ltd. (1991) 172 CLR 211 at 237 where he said:

“Mere persistence, or even vigorous persistence, in a bona fide defence, in the absence of improper or unjustifiable conduct, cannot be used to aggravate compensatory damages.”

In our judgment the relevance of the absence of an apology depends upon the facts of the case. InMorgan (supra) the defence was that the words did not refer to the plaintiff and could not be understood to refer to him. The absence of an apology was therefore explicable. In other cases, though the absence of an apology may be no proof of malice, it can increase the injury to the plaintiff’s feelings.
Lord Hailsham’s speech in Broome v. Cassell [1972] AC 1027 is strong support for the proposition that the absence of an apology can be taken into account in aggravation of damages. At 1071 E he said:

“Quite obviously, the award must include factors for injury to the feelings, the anxiety and uncertainty undergone in the litigation, the absence of an apology, or the reaffirmation of the truth of the matters complained of, or the malice of the defendant.”

To the same effect is the following passage in the judgment of Nourse L.J. in Sutcliffe (supra) at 184 D:

“The conduct of a defendant which may often be regarded as aggravating the injury to the plaintiff’s feelings, so as to support a claim for ‘aggravated’ damages, includes a failure to make any or any sufficient apology and withdrawal; ….”

In the present case the judge told the jury (87 G) that they were entitled to take into account the fact that there had been “no apology throughout”. In the context of the present case we do not regard that as a misdirection.
Next, counsel submitted that the judge erred in directing the jury that they could take account of the fact that the defendants had persisted in a plea of justification.
It has often been said that the fact that a defendant persists in a plea of justification or fair comment is no evidence whatever of malice unless the plea has been put forward mala fide. It has also been said that the persistence in such a plea should not be taken into account in aggravation of damages. It may merely show that the defendant, though mistaken, has a firm and honest belief in the strength of his case. On the other hand, if one looks at the matter not from the point of view of the state of mind of the defendant but for the purpose of assessing the injury to the plaintiff’s feelings, it is easy to see that a contest which involves justification or fair comment may increase the injury and add greatly to the anxiety caused by the proceedings which the plaintiff has had to bring to clear his name. in Broome v. Cassell (supra) at 1125 Lord Diplock discussed the difficulty of allocating compensatory damages between ordinary damages and aggravated damages. He continued:

“The harm caused to the plaintiff by the publication of the libel upon him often lies more in his own feelings, what he thinks other people are thinking of him, than in any actual change made manifest in their attitude towards him. A solatium for injured feelings, however innocent the publication by the defendant may have been, forms a large element in the damages under head (1) itself [ordinary damages] even in cases in which there are no grounds for ‘aggravated damages’ under head (2). Again the harm done by the publication for which damages are recoverable under head (1) does not come to an end when the publication is made. As Lord Atkin said in Lev v. Hamilton: ‘It is impossible to track the scandal, to know what quarters the poison may reach.’ So long as its withdrawal is not communicated to all those it has reached it may continue to spread. I venture to think that this is the rationale of the undoubted rule that persistence by the defendant in a plea of justification or repetition of the original libel by him at the trial can increase the damages. By doing so he prolongs the period in which the damage from the original publication continues to spread and by giving it further publicity at the trial …. extends the quarters that the poison reaches.”

The final suggestion of misdirection was based on the complaint that the judge had given insufficient prominence to the factors which tended to mitigate the damages. In addition the judge was at fault, it was said, in referring to the mitigating factors as though they were merely comments of counsel rather than points which could properly be taken into account to reduce the jury’s award.
We see nothing in this complaint. The judge listed the matters which Mr. Gray had stressed in a passage at the conclusion of his summing up. He thereby gave them what we regard as entirely satisfactory prominence.
In our judgment there was no misdirection of any significance in this case. In any event, even if one assumes that there may be some merit in some of the individual complaints, we are quite satisfied that there is no possibility that any misdirections led to the risk of injustice or any substantial wrong or miscarriage”.
(B) The argument that the sum awarded by the Jury was excessive.
The second main ground of appeal was that the sum of £250,000 was excessive and unreasonable. It was so large as to indicate that the jury must have applied a wrong measure of damages and furthermore amounted to a restriction or penalty on the right to freedom of expression. The argument under this heading was developed on the following lines:(1) That the Court of Appeal has power to order a new trial on the ground that the damages awarded by the jury were excessive. This power has been given statutory recognition in section 8(1) of theCourts and Legal Services Act 1990 (the 1990 Act).

(2) That in the past this power has only been exercised in a small minority of cases where the damages have been regarded as so excessive as to be “divorced from reality” (McCarey v. Associated Newspapers Ltd. [1965] 2 QB 86, 111 per Willmer L.J.). The barrier against the grant of a new trial has been set very high.

(3) That the exercise of the power to order a new trial requires to be re-examined in the light of

(a) the fact that section 8(1) of the 1990 Act refers to “excessive” damages and contains no indication that the power can only be exercised where the damages are, for example, “grossly excessive” or “excessive and wholly unreasonable”.

(b) the fact that the Court of Appeal is now empowered under section 8(2) of the 1990 Act and RSC Order 59 r.11(4), in place of ordering a new trial, to substitute for the sum awarded by the jury “such sum as appears to the court to be proper”.

(c) the fact that it has been established by recent authorities that the common law is consistent with Article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the Convention).

(4) That in any event, even if one applied the old test which had to be satisfied for the grant of a new trial, the damages were excessive and the court should exercise its powers under section 8(2) of the 1990 Act and Order 59 r.11(4).

In order to examine these submissions it is necessary to start by setting out the text of section 8 of the 1990 Act, of Order 59 r.11(4) and of Articles 10 and 13 of the Convention. Section 8 of the 1990 Act, as far as is material provides:

“(1) In this section ‘case’ means any case where the Court of Appeal has power to order a new trial on the ground that damages awarded by a jury are excessive or inadequate.

(2) Rules of Court may provide for the Court of Appeal, in such classes of case as may be specified in the rules, to have power, in place of ordering a new trial, to substitute for the sum awarded by the jury such sum as appears to the court to be proper.

Order 59 r.11(4), which applies to appeals set down after 31 January 1991, is in these terms:

“in any case where the Court of Appeal has power to order a new trial on the ground that damages awarded by a jury are excesssive or inadequate, the court may, instead of ordering a new trial, substitute for the sum awarded by the jury such sum as appears to the court to be proper;…”

Article 10 of the Convention provides:

“1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”

In addition our attention was drawn to Article 13:

“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.

It was common ground that in the past appellate courts have been very reluctant to interfere with an award of damages made by a jury. The barrier to be surmounted was a high one. The question for consideration in the present appeal is whether this barrier needs to be re-assessed in the light of pronouncements made by the House of Lords in the context of the right of freedom of expression.
Counsel for Miss Rantzen submitted that there was no reason to depart from the former practice which had been reaffirmed by the Court of Appeal not only in Sutcliffe v. Pressdram (supra) but also more recently in Gorman v. Mudd (unreported) (15 October 1992). In Sutcliffe Lord Donaldson collected together some of the formulations which had been used to identify the test which had to be satisfied before the Court of Appeal could grant a new trial. These formulations included:

“(1) ‘The damages are so excessive that no twelve men could reasonably have given them’: Praed v. Graham (1889) 24 QBD 53, 55 per Lord Esher MR.

(2) ‘There must be some reasonable relation between the wrong done and the solatium applied’:Greenlands Ltd. v. Wilmshurst [1913] 3 KB 507, 532 per Hamilton L.J.

(3) The damages are ‘out of all proportion to the circumstances of the case’: Scott v. Musial [1959] 2 QB 429, 437 per Morris L.J.

(4) ‘It is out of all proportion to the facts or such that twelve reasonable men could not have made such an award’: Lewis v. Daily Telegraph Ltd [1963] 1 QB 340, 380 per Holroyd Pearce L.J.

(5) The jury’s award was ‘divorced from reality’: McCarev v. Associated Newspapers Ltd [1965] 2 QB 86, 111 per Willmer L.J.”

In the reports there are many other passages to the same effect. Counsel for Miss Rantzen submitted that these tests remained unaffected by any recent changes in the law.
On behalf of the defendant, however, it was submitted that section 8 of the 1990 Act now empowers the court to intervene more readily and to apply a less stringent test. Counsel contended that section 8 was enacted to address the concern which was widely felt that awards of damages in libel actions had become unreasonable. The new power conferred by section 8 of the 1990 Act, and by the Rule made under it, was clearly designed to be exercisable whenever an award of damages was considered by the Court of Appeal to be “excessive.” It was no longer necessary or appropriate to use the barrier against interference which the earlier formulations had erected.
At the invitation of the parties and in order to resolve a possible ambiguity as to the meaning of the word “excessive” in section 8(1) of the 1990 Act the court consulted the passage in Hansard for 20 February 1990 when the Lord Chancellor introduced the clause in the House of Lords. At that stage the Lord Chancellor was moving an amendment to introduce a new clause 7A to the Courts and Legal Services Bill. In his speech the Lord Chancellor said this (col. 170 – 171):

“The power is a useful addition to the powers available to the Court of Appeal. I do not believe that I can be accused of coming forward with the amendment too soon, seeing that it was first suggested in 1948. That suggestion was reinforced in 1975. Both those committees [the Porter Committee and the Faulks Committee] suggested a rather wider formulation than this rule. It is within the recommendation but it does not go quite so far. On the other hand, it may be wise to allow the juries to fix damages in the first place. The difficulty of the previous formulations was to see on what grounds it would be right to allow the Court of Appeal to interfere in a jury’s verdict. That is not being touched by the amendment. It deals only with the consequences of the Court of Appeal coming to that conclusion. I believe that it is a useful although not a major change in the law.”

Counsel for Miss Rantzen submitted that this passage made it plain that the change in the law was not introduced to lower or otherwise interfere with the barrier which had to be surmounted before the Court of Appeal could exercise a power to order a new trial. The amendment was introduced merely to give the court the opportunity of substituting a different award once it had been established that the power to order a new trial could be exercised.
We agree that this passage in the Lord Chancellor’s speech does not by itself lend any support to the propositions advanced on behalf of the appellants. As we explain later, however, it is necessary to examine the powers of the court to order a new trial and to substitute a fresh award in accordance with section 8 (2) of the 1990 Act and Order 59 r.11(4) in the light of the guidance recently given by the House of Lords as to the relationship between the common law and Article 10 and also in the light of the guidance as to the proper scope of Article 10 given by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg (the court in Strasbourg).
It was accepted by counsel on behalf of the appellants that article 10 cannot be applied directly because the Convention has not been formally adopted by Parliament so as to have become part of English Law. It was also accepted that, by reason of paragraph 2 of Article 10, the “right to freedom of expression” enshrined in paragraph 1 had to be considered subject to such conditions and restrictions as are contained in domestic law. It was submitted, however, that these conditions and restrictions had to be interpreted so as to take account of the decisions of the Court in Strasbourg.
It was therefore submitted:
(a) That any relevant conditions or restrictions had to be “prescribed by law”. There was no statutory basis for the practice whereby a jury was free to award a sum of damages without any clear instruction by the court as to the principles to be applied or the precedents to be followed.
In this context counsel referred us to paragraph 49 of the decision of the Court in Strasbourg in The Sunday Times v. The United Kingdom [1980] 2 EHRR 245 at 271:

“In the courts’ opinion, the following are two of the requirements that flow from the expression ‘prescribed by law’. First, the law must be adequately accessible: a citizen must be able to have an indication that is adequate in the circumstances of the legal rules applicable to a given case. Secondly, a norm cannot be regarded as a ‘law’ unless it is formulated with sufficient precision to enable a citizen to regulate his conduct: he must be able – if need be with appropriate advice – to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail. Those consequences need not be foreseeable with absolute certainty: our experience shows this to be unattainable. Again, whilst certainty is highly desirable, it may bring in its train excessive rigidity and the law must be able to keep pace with changing circumstances. Accordingly, many laws are inevitably couched in terms which, to or a greater or lesser extent, are vague and whose interpretation and application are questions of practice.”

It was recognised that it would never be possible in advance to calculate damages with precision, but under the present practice no one, and certainly not a newspaper, had any means whereby, even with appropriate advice, he could foresee the consequences of the exercise by him of his right to freedom of expression.
(b) An award of £250,000 on the facts of the present case was not “necessary in a democratic society … for the protection of the reputation or rights” of Miss Rantzen. Miss Rantzen had not suffered any financial loss or any social damage. She continued to be an extremely successful television presenter. Counsel referred us to the general principles set out in the judgment of the Court in Strasbourg in The Sunday Times v. The United Kingdom (No.2) (26 November 1991). I should refer to paragraph 50 of the judgment:

“Argument before the court was concentrated on the question whether the interference complained of could be regarded as ‘necessary in a democratic society’. In this connection, the court’s judgments relating to Article 10 … enounce the following major principles.

(a) freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society; subject to paragraph 2 of Article 10, it is applicable not only to ‘information’ or ‘ideas’ that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb. Freedom of expression, as enshrined in Article 10, is subject to a number of exceptions which, however, must be narrowly interpreted and the necessity for any restrictions must be convincingly established

(b) these principles are of particular importance as far as the press is concerned. Whilst it must not overstep the bounds set, inter alia, ‘in the interests of national security’ or for ‘maintaining the authority of the judiciary’, it is nevertheless incumbent on it to impart information and ideas on matters of public interest. Not only does the press have the task of imparting such information and ideas: the public also has a right to receive them. Were it otherwise, the press would be unable to play its vital role of ‘public watchdog’.

(c) the adjective ‘necessary’, within the meaning of Article 10, paragraph 2, implies the existence of a ‘pressing social need’. The Contracting States have a certain margin of appreciation in assessing whether such a need exists, but it goes hand in hand with a European supervision, embracing both the law and the decisions applying it, even those given by independent courts. The Court is therefore empowered to give the final ruling on whether a ‘restriction’ is reconcilable with freedom of expression as protected by Article 10.

(d) The Court’s task, in exercising its supervisory jurisdiction, is not to take the place of the competent national authorities but rather to review under Article 10 the decisions they delivered pursuant to their power of appreciation. This does not mean that the supervision is limited to ascertaining whether the respondent State exercised its jurisdiction reasonably, carefully and in good faith; what the court has to do is to look at the interference complained of in the light of the case as a whole and determine whether it was ‘proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued’ and whether the reasons adduced by the national authorities to justify it are ‘relevant and sufficient’.”

Counsel submitted that it was apparent from this passage in the judgment that the Court in Strasbourg considered not only the rules of law which the domestic courts applied but also the results in practice of the application of those rules. Accordingly, in a case such as the present the Court in Strasbourg would be likely to scrutinize not only the unguided nature of the jury’s deliberations but also the result of those deliberations which had led to an award of £250,000. Such an award lay a long way outside the confines of the “margin of appreciation” accorded to national courts. In addition counsel referred us to the decision of the Court in Strasbourg in Lingens v. Austria (1986) 8 EHRR 407. In that case the publisher of a magazine in Vienna had been convicted of criminal defamation and had been fined as the result of the publication of two articles critical of the Austrian Chancellor. At page 418 the Court emphasised that it had to determine whether the action taken by the National Court was “proportionate to the legitimate aim Pursued”.
(c) That in considering whether the court could and should interfere with the jury’s award it was relevant to take account of the concerns expressed by the U.S. Supreme Court in New York Times Co- v. Sullivan (1964) 376 US 254; Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts (1967) 388 US 130; Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc. (1974) 418 US 323 and Philadelphia Newspapers v. Hepps 475 US 767. By this series of decisions it was now established that where a newspaper article is on a matter of public concern it is for the plaintiff, whether he is a public official or a public figure or only an ordinary private citizen, to prove not only falsity but also fault before he can recover damages.

In this context we were referred to a passage in the speech of Lord Keith in Derbyshire County Council v. Times Newspapers [1993] 2 WLR 449 where it was held that it would be contrary to the public interest for institutions of central or local government to have any right at common law to maintain an action for damages for defamation. At page 456 Lord Keith referred to the decision of the Supreme Court of Illinois in City of Chicago v. Tribune Co. (1923) 139 NE 86 and to Sullivan’s case (supra). At page 457 he continued:

“While these decisions were related most directly to the provisions of the American constitution concerned with the freedom of speech, the public interest considerations which underlied them are no less valid in this country. What has been described as the chilling effect’ induced by the threat of civil actions for libel is very important.”

It was submitted that the public interest in the freedom of expression required a re-examination of the level of awards in defamation proceedings tried with a jury and of the present rules of practice which prevent or at any rate inhibit a judge from providing any adequate assistance to the jury as to the basis on which the damages should be awarded.
(d) That the present practice whereby damages can be awarded as a vindication of the plaintiff” was contrary to the principle of compensation because it had the effect of allowing the jury, even where exemplary damages were not claimed, to express their indignation.
On behalf of Miss Rantzen on the other hand Mr. Geoffrey Shaw Q.C. advanced very powerful arguments to counter each of these submissions put forward in support of the appeal. He reminded us quite rightly that Article 10 of the Convention is not part of English law and he drew our attention to the speech of Lord Bridge in R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Brind [1991] 1 AC 696 for an exposition of some of the limited circumstances in which the court can have regard to the Convention. In addition he argued:

(a) That even if Article 10 were to be applied the award of damages fell clearly within paragraph 2 of Article 10. The jury was the tribunal “prescribed by law” to assess the damages.

(b) That a margin of appreciation was accorded to the national courts. No tribunal could be better than a jury to assess what was “necessary in a democratic society” to protect the reputation and rights of Miss Rantzen. In English law the jury were regarded as “the lamp by which freedom lives”.

We would like to pay tribute to the quality of the arguments on this aspect of the case.
(C) Whether the Court of Appeal should intervene and substitute another award.
It is always to be remembered that the Convention is not part of English domestic law and therefore the courts have no power to enforce Convention rights directly. Nevertheless, as Lord Bridge explained in Brind [1991] 1 AC 696 at 747 the United Kingdom is obliged “to secure to everyone within its jurisdiction the rights which the Convention defines including both the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 and the right under Article 13 to ‘an effective remedy before a national authority’ for any violation of the other rights secured by the Convention.

It is therefore clear that the Convention may be deployed for the purpose of the resolution of an ambiguity in English primary or subordinate legislation (see Brind at 760 per Lord Ackner), and that where there is an amibiguity the courts will presume that Parliament intended to legislate in conformity with the Convention, not in conflict with it (see Brind at 747 per Lord Bridge). It is also clear that Article 10 may be used when the court is contemplating how a discretion is to be exercised. Thus in Attorney General v. Guardian Newspapers Ltd. [1987] 1 WLR 1248 Lord Templeman at 1296 referred to Article 10 when considering whether the interference with the freedom of expression which the grant of an interlocutory injunction would entail was “necessary in a democratic society” for any of the purposes specified in paragraph 2 of Article 10.
Where freedom of expression is at stake, however, recent authorities lend support for the proposition that Article 10 has a wider role and can properly be regarded as an articulation of some of the principles underlying the common law. In Attorney General v. Guardian Newspapers (No.2) [1990] 1 AC 109 Lord Goff at 283 referred to the requirement that in order to restrain the disclosure of Government secrets it had to be shown that it was in the public interest that they should not be published. He continued:

“…I can see no inconsistency between English law on this subject and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This is scarcely surprising, since we may pride ourselves on the fact that freedom of speech has existed in this country perhaps as long as, if not longer than, it has existed in any other country in the world. The only difference is that, whereas Article 10 of the Convention, in accordance with its avowed purpose proceeds to state a fundamental right and then to qualify it, we in this country (where everybody is free to do anything, subject only to the provisions of the law) proceed rather upon an assumption of freedom of speech, and turn to our law to discover the established exceptions to it. In any event I conceive it to be my duty, when I am free to do so, to interpret the law in accordance with the obligations of the Crown under this treaty. The exercise of the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 may be subject to restrictions (as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society) in relation to certain prescribed matters which include ‘the interests of national security’ and ‘preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence’. It is established in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights that the word ‘necessary’ in this context implies the existence of a pressing social need, and that interference with freedom of expression should be no more than is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. I have no reason to believe that English law, as applied in the courts, leads to any different conclusion.”

In Derbyshire County Council v. Times Newspapers (supra), Lord Keith referred to this passage in Lord Goff’s speech and added these words, with which the other members of the House agreed, at 460G:

“I agree, and can only add that I find it satisfactory to be able to conclude that the common law of England is consistent with the obligations assumed by the Crown under the treaty in this particular field.”

There are other authorities which reflect a similar approach. For example in R. v. Well Street Stipendiary Magistrate, Ex parte Deakin [1980] AC 477 the House of Lords expressed the view that it would be a salutary reform in the law of defamation if no prosecution for criminal libel could be instituted without the leave of the Attorney General. Both Lord Diplock and Lord Keith added that if such a reform were introduced the Attorney General could then consider, in deciding whether to grant his consent in a particular case, whether the prosecution was necessary on any of the grounds specified in Article 10.2 of the Convention and that unless he was so satisfied he should refuse his consent.
How then should the Court of Appeal interpret its power to order a new trial on the ground that the damages awarded by the iury were excessive? How is the word “excessive” in Section 8 (1) of the 1990 Act to be interpreted?
After careful consideration we have come to the conclusion that we must interpret our power so as to give proper weight to the guidance given by the House of Lords and by the Court in Strasbourg. In particular we should take account of the following passage in Lord Goff’s speech in Attorney General v. Guardian Newspapers (No.2) (supra) at 283:

“The exercise of the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 may be subject to restrictions (as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society) in relation to certain prescribed matters which include the interests of national security’ and ‘preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence’. It is established in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights that the word ‘necessary’ in this context implies the existence of a pressing social need, and that interference with freedom of expression should be no more than is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. I have no reason to believe that English law, as applied in the courts, leads to any different conclusion.”

If one applies these words it seems to us that the grant of an almost limitless discretion to a jury fails to provide a satisfactory measurement for deciding what is “necessary in a democratic society” or “justified by a pressing social need”. We consider therefore that the common law if properly understood requires the courts to subject large awards of damages to a more searching scrutiny than has been customary in the past. It follows that what has been regarded as the barrier against intervention should be lowered. The question becomes: Could a reasonable jury have thought that this award was necessary to compensate the plaintiff and to re-establish his reputation?
We must turn shortly to consider the award of damages in the Present case. Before doing so, however, we should express our conclusions as to what further guidance, if any, can be given to a jury by the judge in his summing up.
There is reason to suppose that the present absence of guidance is a source of concern to jurors themselves. At the conclusion of the trial in Savalas v. Associated Newspapers in 1976 the foreman of the jury wrote to The Times newspaper:

“It is no betrayal of the secrets of the jury room to confess, with the other jurors, I entered the Royal Courts of Justice on June 14th with not the remotest idea what compensation is paid for anything except perhaps a dented boot and wing; haloes are outside our normal terms of reference. Apparently that is why we were asked. If that is so, the court had the outcome it deserved from the appointed procedure.”

It is to be remembered that the present procedure is a matter of practice rather than of substantive law (see Sutcliffe (supra) at 178 C per Lord Donaldson MR), and that therefore the court is not bound by earlier precedents, though of course good reasons must be found before departing from an established practice. It is also to be remembered that even in the field of personal injuries references to awards in other cases is a comparatively recent development. Before the decision of the Court of Appeal in Bird v. Cocking & Sons Ltd. [1951] 2 TLR 1260 and the subsequent decision in Rushton v. National Coal Board [1953] 1 QB 495 it was not the practice for judges to allow awards in previous cases to be cited to them. It is also interesting to note that only thirty years later in Wright v. British Railways Board [1983] 2 AC 773 Lord Diplock was able to say at 784 that it was an important function of the Court of Appeal to lay down guidelines as to the quantum of damages appropriate to compensate for various types of commonly occurring injuries.
So far, however, the courts have declined to introduce similar guidelines either in cases where damages are assessed by jury or in cases of defamation. In Ward v. James [1966] 1 QB 273 a Court of Appeal of five judges presided over by Lord Denning MR emphatically rejected the submission that in cases of personal injury a jury should be referred to awards in comparable cases or even to any conventional figures.
Furthermore, in Sutcliffe’s case at 178 Lord Donaldson MR expressed the view that the reasoning inWard v. James was as valid today as it was then and applied “with far greater force to the assessment of damages in libel cases than it did to personal injury claims.”
It is for consideration whether this state of affairs should continue or whether the present practice conflicts with the principle

enshrined in the second paragraph of Article 10 that restrictions on the exercise of freedom of expression should be prescribed by law. As was said in The Sunday Timescase [1980] 2 EHRR 245, 271 “A norm cannot be regarded as a ‘law’ unless it is formulated with sufficient precision to enable the citizen to regulate his conduct” and to enable him to foresee, if need be with appropriate advice, the consequences which a given action may entail.
The matter can be approached in three stages:

(a) References to other jury awards in defamation cases.

(b) References to (what we may call) section 8 awards by the Court of Appeal in defamation cases.

(c) References to conventional awards in personal injury actions.

We are not persuaded that at the present time it would be right to allow references to be made to awards by juries in Previous cases. Until very recently it had not been the practice to give juries other than minimal guidance as to how they should approach their task of awarding damages and in these circumstances previous awards cannot be regarded as establishing a norm or standard to which reference can be made in the future.
Awards made by the Court of Appeal in the exercise of its powers under section 8 of the 1990 Act and 0.59 r.11(4) stand on a different footing. It seems to us that it must have been the intention of the framers of the 1990 Act that over a period of time the awards made by the Court of Appeal would provide a corpus to which reference could be made in subsequent cases. Any risk of over citation would have to be controlled by the trial judge, but to prevent reference to such awards would seem to us to conflict with the principle that restrictions on freedom of expression should be “prescribed by law”. The decisions of the Court of Appeal could be relied upon as establishing the prescribed norm.
We come therefore to the most difficult aspect of the matter, the possibility of references to awards in personal injury cases. One can start with the judgment of Diplock L.J. in McCarey v. Associated Newspapers [1965] 2 QB 86 where he said at 109:

“I am convinced that it is not just … that in equating incommensurables when a man’s reputation has been injured the scale of values to be applied bears no relation whatever to the scale of values to be applied when equating those other incommensurables, money and physical injuries. I do not believe that the law today is more jealous of a man’s reputation than of his life or limb. That is the scale of values of the duel. Of course, the injuries in the two kinds of case are very different, but each has as its main consequences pain or grief, annoyance or unhappiness, to the plaintiff.”

A little later he added:

“I do not accept that that higher scale of values in defamation cases is sanctioned by the law. It is, I think, legitimate as an aid to considering whether the award of damages by a jury is so large that no reasonable jury could have arrived at that figure if they had applied proper principles to bear in mind the kind of figures which are proper, and have been held to be proper, in cases of disabling physical injury.”

The approach of Diplock L.J. was echoed in the dissenting judgment of Mason C.J. and Deane J. in the High Court of Australia in Coyne v. Citizen Finance Ltd. (1991) 172 CLR 211 where they expressed the view at 221 that “it would be quite wrong for an appellate court, entrusted with hearing appeals in both defamation and personal injury cases, to be indifferent to the need to ensure that there was a rational relationship between the scale of values applied to the two classes of case”.
It has to be recognized, however, that the courts in England have rejected the notion that any satisfactory relationship between damages in defamation actions and damages in personal injury actions can be established. In Broome v. Cassell (supra) Lord Hailsham referred to the subjective element in damages for defamation at 1070:

“In almost all actions for breach of contract, and in many actions for tort, the principle of restitutio in integrum is an adequate and fairly easy guide to the estimation of damage, because the damage suffered can be estimated by relation to some material loss. It is true that where loss includes a pre-estimate of future losses, or an estimate of past losses which cannot in the nature of things be exactly computed, some subjective element must enter in. But the estimate is in things commensurable with one another, and convertible at least in principle to the English currency in which all sums of damages must ultimately be expressed.

In actions of defamation and in any other actions where damages for loss of reputation are involved, the principle of restitutio in integrum has necessarily an even more highly subjective element. Such actions involve a money award which may put the plaintiff in a purely financial sense in a much stronger position than he was before the wrong. Not merely can he recover the estimated sum of his past and future losses, but, in case the libel, driven underground, emerges from its lurking place at some future date, he must be able to point to a sum awarded by a jury sufficient to convince a bystander of the baselessness of the charge.

This is why it is not necessarily fair to compare awards of damages in this field with damages for personal injuries. Quite obviously, the award must include factors for injury to the feelings, the anxiety and uncertainty undergone in the litigation, the absence of apology, or the reaffirmation that the truth of the matters complained of, or the malice of the defendant. The bad conduct of the plaintiff himself may also enter into the matter, where he has provoked the libel, or where perhaps he has libelled the defendant in reply. What is awarded is thus a figure which cannot be arrived at by any purely objective computation. This is what is meant when the damages in defamation are described as being “at large””

We see the force of the criticism of the present practice whereby a plaintiff in an action for libel may recover a much larger sum by way of damages for an injury to his reputation, which may prove transient in its effect, than the damages awarded for pain and suffering to the victim of an industrial accident who has lost an eye or the use of one or more of his limbs. We have come to the conclusion, however, that there is no satisfactory way in which the conventional awards in actions for damages for personal injuries can be used to provide guidance for an award in an action for defamation. Despite Mr. Gray’s submissions to the contrary it seems to us that damages for defamation are intended at least in part as a vindication of the plaintiff to the public. This element of the damages was recognised by Windeyer J. in Uren v. John Fairfax & Sons Ltd [1966] 117 CLR 118, 150 and by Lord Hailsham inBroome v. Cassell (supra) at 1071. We therefore feel bound to reject the proposal that the jury should be referred to awards made in actions involving serious personal injuries.
It is to be hoped that in the course of time a series of decisions of the Court of Appeal will establish some standards to what are, in the terms of section 8 of the 1990 Act, “proper” awards. In the meantime the jury should be invited to consider the purchasing power of any award which they may make. In addition they should be asked to ensure that any award they make is proportionate to the damage which the plaintiff has suffered and is a sum which it is necessary to award him to provide adequate compensation and to re-establish his reputation.
We return to the facts of the present case.
A very substantial award was clearly justified for the reasons which Mr. Hartley explained. The jury were entitled to conclude that the publication of the article and its aftermath were a terrible ordeal for Miss Rantzen. But, as has been pointed out, Miss Rantzen still has an extremely successful career as a Television presenter. She is a distinguished and highly respected figure in the world of broadcasting. Her work in combating child abuse has achieved wide acclaim. We have therefore been driven to the conclusion that the court has power to, and should, intervene. Judged by any objective standards of reasonable compensation or necessity or proportionality the award of £250,000 was excessive.
We therefore propose to exercise our powers under section 8(2) of the 1990 Act and Order 59 r.11(4) and substitute the sum of £110,000.
Appeal allowed. Appellants to have one-third of their costs. Application of Respondent for leave to appeal to the House of Lords granted.

Finally, we look at Brave Ben Fellows (We have done a complete write-up on Fellows which includes Rantzen ignorance)

Untitled

Ben Fellows, is a actor who appeared in Eastenders, The Bill and Starlight Express before becoming an award-winning filmmaker

Ben was aged 13 when he arrived in London

He didn’t know it at the time but Ben was the newest member of a deeply sinister and secret club in which young and vulnerable innocents like him were passed around and abused like playthings. The leaders of this shameless parade in this plastic world were – indeed still are – household names.

Ben who did a newspaper interview in 2012, said. “I ran a gauntlet of pedophiles – both at the BBC and at other television production companies, and also in theatres, as well as on commercial photo shoots.”

Ben Fellows was contacted by Ruth Lewy from The Times newspaper on 16 October 2012. Senior Times journalist Jack Malvern interviewed Ben for an article that was to appear on 20 October 2012.

 

Malvern asked Ben to name the people who had abused him as a child.

 

1. Ben talked about cabinet minister Ken Clarke groping his penis in political lobbyist Ian Greer’s office. 

2. Aged 15, Ben was bedded by a lady at the BBC. Ben talked about a top female BBC producer who liked to have sex with teenagers including himself.

3. Ben listed the well known actors, casting directors, producers, directors, writers and executives who had  abused him sexually, or attempted to abuse him sexually, while he was a child actor.

4. Ben refers to a party in a house in the New Forest attended by the founder of a child protection charity (Esther Rantzen). At the party  Ben was given drugs, alcohol and was propositioned by men and women all night. Ben ended up passed out in the garden. The New Forest is close to a major base of MI6. Ben was aged just 15 at this time

5. Ben referred to a BBC person who is “a new star of SKY Television.” Rupert Murdoch is linked to Sky TV

6. He was propositioned by married actors and thespians with a penchant for boys and was almost raped in a grubby hotel room by one of the biggest TV stars of the Eighties.

Rupert Murdoch’s newspaper decided not to publish Ben’s story.

Full story here: My hell with Britain’s biggest stars says Ben Fellows

THE BBC EXECUTIVE AND A RIOTOUS HOUSE PARTY

One of the most shocking abuses of trust and power came at a house party thrown by BBC executives and attended by a raft of stars and their hangers on.

It was in Clapham in 1990 that a 15-year-old Ben, who was filming Model Millie for the corporation, claims that he was plied with alcohol and drugs, seduced and then shamelessly taken advantage of by a BBC employee who, incredibly, later worked in children’s entertainment.

As the music thumped, a host of high-profile BBC producers and directors waltzed in and out of the door to mix with a group of wide-eyed underage actors, almost all of whom were high on spirits and drugs.

Amid the chaotic scene Ben was introduced to one ambitious BBC employee, a female who was starting to make a name for herself in the world of children’s TV.

As the evening wore on and the house became littered with the prostrate bodies of those who succumbed to what was on offer the woman, who was 40, made a startling proposition.

She was fully aware Ben was a vulnerable teenager but the sex-hungry woman, who was at the party with her boss, was desperate to sleep with him.Ben recalls: “She offered to give me a lift back to her place and when we stopped she leant over and slowlykissed me before suggestively saying, ‘Do you want to come in for a coffee?’ Once we were inside her flat it wasn’t long before we were having sex. She knew how old I was. I was just 15 for goodness sake but it didn’t seem to matter. I’m sure it happened all the time.”WILD TIMES WITH A SHOWBIZ ICONThe now veteran darlings of light entertainment have made names for themselves with multiple primetime successes, loved by the BBC and always in demand.

What people will be less familiar with are their insatiable appetites for cocaine.

Another male comedy star who regularly appeared on prime time TV invited Ben to an end of production party at BBC Television Centre where anything went including, so it would appear, lines of cocaine.

The culture of drug taking at the corporation during the late Eighties and early Nineties was so prevalent that this man had his drugs personally dispatched by motorcycle courier.

And they were bought on expenses.

Naturally Ben, who was still a young teenager at this time, was encouraged to take lines of the highly-addictive drug at these wild parties.

He says: “I was only a boy of 14 but I thought I was an adult. It was a really heady time. When someone offers you coke at the BBC like this comic did it didn’t seem strange because it was happening all the time.

“The end-of-run parties as they are called are riotous. Often someone would try and do something to you, a grope or similar, and if you didn’t respond they would move on to the next person.”

Although he didn’t witness any horrific rape, sexual assault or molestation (the like of which has been well-documented in the sordid Savile scandal) he did see one doyen of light entertainment take a clutch of young girls back to his dressing room.

On another occasion during a rehearsal for Model Millie Ben claims that he and his child co-stars were invited to a cocaine-fuelled party on BBC premises hosted by two of the BBC’s biggest stars of the time.

“It got very late and I was very drunk. At that point (one of Britain’s best-loved stars) said to me, ‘Do you want to do some coke?’ so we slipped off to a dressing room. The problem was, I was just 15.

“She was so drunk that later in the evening she was walking around with her breasts hanging out.”

And Ben adds: “Prostitutes and escorts coming into the BBC was happening as standard.

“They would get you what you wanted as long as the ratings were being pulled in. The attitude was ‘nothing is going to get in the way of the BBC’.”

AN INDECENT PROPOSAL FROM A SUPERSTAR

The only time Ben says he feared for his life was when a Hollywood icon tried to rape him.

At the time the young actor was appearing in a West End play and as was the norm members of the cast and crew would regularly meet in late-night bars afterwards to relax.

The married British-born screen legend, who was one of the biggest names in the entertainment industry in the Eighties, approached Ben in a hotel bar and showered him with free drinks.

He later walked with Ben, who was a little worse for wear, to his hotel and helped him into his room before slamming the door shut.

Ben says: “He came up behind and then proceeded to force himself on me. I was feeling as if I wanted to be sick at any moment but couldn’t move.

“Amazingly, my friend was looking for me as I had disappeared from the bar suddenly and burst through the door as this star was on top of me.

“Then he punched me in the face to make it look as if it was all just a game and the rolling around was part and parcel of it. I thought I was in real danger.”

SEEDY SECRETS OF THE WEST END STAGE

As a child actor looking for bit-parts in stage musicals and repertory theatre Ben was mindful of being enthusiastic but there were limits as to what he was prepared to do to get a role.

One married icon of the industry groped Ben, he claims, in his office and tried to force his tongue down his throat after he was invited up for a “cosy chat”.

Naturally, in the bitchy world of professional theatre, Ben was discarded when this man’s advances were spurned.

However the incident also ruined his chances of appearing on stage as he was blanked whenever their paths crossed after that.

On another occasion a married, English-born actor stripped off completely naked in his dressing room before saying to Ben: “Tell every famous person you meet what you want to do and how hard you have trained.”

One of the most surprising names to be mentioned by Ben is that of a married, classically-trained stage and screen actor with a long list of credits to his name who preyed on Ben after he auditioned for a minor part in a major West End musical.

The actor, who will be known to millions for his appearance in an iconic movie during the Nineties, met the youngster after the matinee performance of the musical and invited him to come to his dressing room.

He was wearing only a dressing gown but he was fully exposed.

He circled Ben like a vulture as the teenager desperately tried to move from the window, to the door and back again, before he was able to make his excuses and leave.

The BBC was approached for comment but had not returned our calls before The Daily Express went to press.

https://theukdatabase.com/councillorspolitical-party-affiliated/jimmy-saville-witch-hunt-or-paedophile/jimmy-saviles-mysterious-payments-to-children-revealed-in-secret-dossier/esther-rantzen-was-she-ignorant-to-child-abuse/


DISCLAIMER: THE POSTING OF STORIES, COMMENTARIES, REPORTS, DOCUMENTS AND LINKS (EMBEDDED OR OTHERWISE) ON THIS SITE DOES NOT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, IMPLIED OR OTHERWISE, NECESSARILY EXPRESS OR SUGGEST ENDORSEMENT OR SUPPORT OF ANY OF SUCH POSTED MATERIAL OR PARTS THEREIN.


Jersey Care Inquiry

Leah McGrath Goodman‏ @truth_eater

NOT business as usual.@JerseyInquiry should release report at 1 pm GST Monday to all, not some. Needs of survivors come first. #csainquiry

 


23 June 2017

Having considered various representations, the IJCI Panel on Friday (23 June) announced the following:

Members of the media who have received Inquiry media accreditation will be given a copy of the Executive Summary of the final report in “lock-in” conditions at 1300 on Monday 3 July, 2017 at St Paul’s Centre in St Helier.

This is ahead of formal publication of the full report on-line at 1500, and report summary read by Panel Chair, Frances Oldham QC, also at 1500 at the Centre.

NB: The media will not be allowed to leave the room, speak with anybody or release any information within the Executive Summary during this two-hour window. Any electronic devices must be handed to the Inquiry team before entry.

Any member of the media who has not yet been media-accredited* by the Inquiry and wishes to attend, should send their name, details of their media organisation, contact details and a passport sized photo to the Media Team by 1500 on Tuesday 27 June, 2017.

The Panel will consider their applications and inform individuals of their decision by 1700, Thursday 29 June, 2017

Only those who have been granted Inquiry media accreditation will be granted access to the Executive Summary. Those who wish to be included in the ‘lock-in’, should let the Media team know by 1700, Friday 30 June, 2017.

Arrangements for accessing pool video and photos by accredited news organisations of the reading of the report summary will be advised in due course.

Leah McGrath Goodma@truth_eater

553 offenses heard in Jersey (UK) from 1947-2004 – more than half said to be at Haut de la Garenne children’s home

Jimmy Savile: I never visited Jersey


Truthseeker1‏ @thewakeupcall09

Inside latest Jersey dungeon Daily Star 29-03-08

 

Truthseeker1‏ @thewakeupcall09

Jersey home was a studio for an evil child-porn empire, the CD-ROMs know as the Zandvoort Files taken at Haut de la Garenne’s Aviemore wing.

 

Gerrit-Jan Ulrich (deceased) Child abuse: Jersey stinks of Zandvoort

 

Image result for haut de la garenne celler

Image result for haut de la garenne cellar we've been bad

Image result for haut de la garenne cellar we've been bad

Image result for haut de la garenne cellar we've been bad

Image result for haut de la garenne cellar we've been bad

Child abuse: Jersey stinks of Zandvoort

TORTURE CELLS & CHILD SKULL IN THE CONCRETE FLOOR OF A CHILDREN’S HOME IN JERSEY

9.3.08 – The Werkgroep Morkhoven’ preliminary inquiry shows 90% possibilities that the “Aviemore” section has been the first Zandvoort studio for black & white photographs of baby rapes. 160 former boarders have testified of abuse at Haut de la Garenne. All leads to believe some of the might be identified in the Zandvoort, which shows photographs of 90.081 victims, of which 70% a clearly criminal…

———

The “Jersey Industrial School” opened in 1867 in a three storey Victorian building; rue de la Pouclée-et-des-Quatre-Chemins, in St Martin, a small port of Jersey. It was aiming at welcoming 100 boarders from all parts of the island, which has no more than 118 square kilometres. It was an avant-garde project: the boys of Jersey would be able to follow primary school until they where 13, to become good farm and factory workers.

The school was renamed the “Home for Boys” in 1900 and offered its pupils carry on their schooling in a nearby naval training centre. Education was strict. Mothers would readily bring their children for a couple of days in the remanding wing, as punishment for having stolen a penny.

During the Second World War, the German army occupied the school as a signalling station. The level of the earth around the school was increased, in a way to block the ground floor windows, which became the cellar area, chopping of a storey from the Victorian building. The complaints of abuse were registered, but were not taken seriously and the islanders preferred to trust their local schools.

But St Martin had only around 3000 thousand inhabitants, and all its children, added to all Jersey’s orphans, only left 60 to fill the boarding school. The local girl’s school and the only crèche of the island where closed, the girls and the abandoned babies brought to the boys’ school, which was rebaptised “Haut de la Garenne”, French for upper rabbit warren.

The home was divided into four sections: ‘Aviemore’ for the babies; ‘Claymore’ for the young children; ‘Dunluce’ for the older ones and ‘Baintree’, the cellar area, where lived the “naughty children”. It was the lower part of rabbit warren, which shows Marc Dutroux as an amateur.

Over 160 former boarders have complained of maltreatments on a period of 40 years, until the closure of the school in 1986. The staff would find any excuse to lock the children naked, in the total darkness of a “punishment cell”, for hours, sometimes days. They were then taken to wash, having to lower the head, to pass through a small door that looked as that of a cupboard, but led to communal bath. The where dived in cold water, sometimes twenty at a time. They were then handcuffed and brought to one of the three joint torturing chambers, where the guests of the school’s staff, sometimes foreigners, were waiting for them.

– “The things that happened there are indescribable – the most cruel, sadistic and evil acts you could think of”, said a former pupil.
– “The abuse was anything from rape and torture. It was men and women who abused us. It happened every night and it happened to everyone”, said another.

Patricia Thornton: “It’s awful if it’s true but I saw no evidence of it when I was there. “A former boarder, arrived at the age of 12, said a caretaker was waking him up at night, telling him: “there is someone to see you”. He was bringing him to Senator Krichefski and introduced him in these words: “Here’s a boy for you, Sir”.

Senator Krichefski was at the head of several Jersey government committees. He was founding managing director of ITV’s Channel Television and founder of the Jersey Progressive Party whose successors still run the island. The children called him the Fat Man and he has been going to Haut de la Garenne until he died in 1974. He would introduce himself to his victims saying: “I’m going to teach you to be a good boy. You’ve been wicked and no one wants you. Your parents don’t want you – that’s why you’re here.’

Patricia Thornton aged 85 and retired in 1973 said: “It’s awful if it’s true but I saw no evidence of it when I was there. I just find it difficult to believe that all these horrible things were going on and I knew nothing about it”.

All the former pupils of Haut de la Garenne talk of children disappearing after having been snatched from their beds, of runaways who would have emigrated, which would only have been possible either by swimming, or with the help of a child trafficker. They also all talk of serial suicides, liable to be murders, which in any case leave the corps of a child as evidence. They talk of screaming and the banging they could hear from a room where a child was locked with adults. The next days, the child was found hanged at the branch of a tree. They believe in suicides, but it is very unlikely that a child has the strength, after a night of torture, to find a rope, climb at a tree and, without trembling, make the necessary sliding node to hang himself.

Eight senior officials have been of the home staff, but none of them had seen anything abnormal. In 1974 one of them, Charles Smith said: “The remand wing at Haut de la Garenne is the only place, other than prison, for juveniles on remand. At the home there are only two detention rooms and you cannot just lock up children for long periods.”

In 1981, the home employed 17 people, among which 2 part-time, for 40 children and was reported “uneconomical”. In 1986, there were only 30 children left, which supposes 2 per sadist. The little door of the torturing cells was bricked-up and the school closed.

The fight to have the case inquired took 60 years and luckily went through, mainly thanks to Senator Stuart Syvret (44) then Minister for Health and a Social Affairs who was only advised of the Haut de la Garenne practices in 2006.

The police officer Lenny Harper had worked in Belfast, Glasgow and London before he arrived in the island. He was taking a relatively limited risk, since he planned to retire in September 2008. He started a discreet an inquiry in April 2006. He studied all the complaints for child abuse related to Jersey’s institutions, comprising faults of procedure, having allowed alleged children rapists to escape from justice. Three monstrosities appeared.

The Victorian building had been abandoned, only used to featured as “Bureau des étrangers” in the television serial Bergerac.It was due to be transformed in a youth hostel, which has opened in 2004. The men working on the site found heavy shackles mounted on a wooden block. They could not be the only ones to be horrified, in such a small port. Yet, the authority failed to raise that it did not act of a normal school supply and the case was closed.

In parallel, a personality, which the press has not named, had prosecuted a Haut de la Garenne former boarder, under the charge of blackmail, for being threatened to be expose for having regularly abused him at the children’s home. The alleged victim was condemned for blackmail in 2003, and the alleged rapist was treated as a victim, without having to answer any question. What strikes in this cynics, is that it has not been invented by Jersey, but by the Zandvoort network. The first case known was 1982, when Michel Krief had shown one of its French branches. The second case known was in 1992, when the leader the Werkgroep Morkhoven was on the traces of Belgian, Dutch and Portuguese branches.

The third scandalous Jersey case had happened Victoria College to whom the Haut de la Garenne was supplying young recruits. The maths teacher, Andrew Jervis-Dykes, was jailed in 1999 for indecently assaulting six pupils who he plied with alcohol then abused in their beds during Naval Combined Cadet Force yachting.He had pleaded guilt and was condemned to four years prison, as an isolated predator, as are all the members of the Zandvoort network, which includes Marc Dutroux.
But in Jersey, Stephen Sharp, a former chief education officer, had made a report, showing that Jack Hydes, headmaster of the naval school, had instructed his staff not to discuss allegations of child-abuse of the maths teacher, which had surfaced in 1992, then in 1994 and failed to notify the police. If the correct procedure had been followed, Jervis-Dykes would have been suspended and perhaps arrested in 1992. It would have protected six young recruits from being raped in 1999.

In June 2007, Senator Syvret asked the government why such a report had been kept secret. The Senator Verbert, Education Minister, answered the head-teacher and deputy had been punished by dismissal. The decision not to publish the report was taken to “protect those children”.

Senator Syvret was not satisfied with the answer and exposed the report that been promised to make public. The government sacked him on 11 September 2007, following a vote of ‘no confidence’, betraying the exasperation of all the senior officials who becomes deaf, dumb and blind as they face the sexual exploitation of children.

Two months later, Officer Harper launched an international campaign to ask the former pupils of Haut de la Garenne if they ever noticed anything wrong. The answer was massive.

Eddy, the most famous British sniffer dog who spots the smell of death through concrete, had arrived. He traced the skull of a child, which was taken out of a cement cover on 23 February 2008. He has also smelled death through the bricked-up door, which hid the communal bath, the torture chambers and more shackles.

Senator Walker, Chief Minister, accuses Senator Syvret of incompetence, assuring he had “produced no evidence”, as if the report had not been enough damning to show the cover-up of a scandal by senior officials.

There are 90% possibilities that Scotland Yard will identify former residents of Haut de la Garenne among the 90.081 victims of child pornography and acts of barbarism in Zandvoort file. Everything fits with its worst pictures: The forty years period of during which the crimes were committed, thus could explain the black and white photographs as well as ones in colour. Further more, the described perversity of the staff allow supposing that ‘Aviemore’ might have been a ‘Zandvoort photo studio’ because the places liable to provide so many black and white pictures of Northern babies as they are raped are rare.

Officer Harper will certainly inquire the possibility of meeting between the Senators Krichefski and Brongersma, Dutch member of the Zandvoort network, who used to buy pictures of such crimes. Both senators are of the same generation and of the same social class. Both had settled the same system of sexual exploitation of children in state institutions and obtained the same judicial dysfunctions, as everywhere the network passes.

Jersey is ideal for this kind of industry. It is an Anglo-Norman island, ruled by an oligarchy, neither part of the United Kingdom, nor the European Union, which enables it to avoid a lot of controls. It is paradise to evade taxes, offering a privileged holiday destination, discreet and unavailable without a solid bank account. St Martin is a port, like two other ports involved in the network: Zandvoort and Madeira. It is easier for children to “run off and emigrate”.

– http://www.droitfondamental.eu/
– http://www.droitfondamental.eu/001-Jersey_stinks_zandvoort-GB.htm
– http://www.google.be/search?hl=fr&q=child+abuse+Jersey&btnG=Rechercher&meta=

– http://www.google.be/search?num=20&hl=nl&q=Zandvoort+file+pedophile+network&btnG=Zoeken&meta=lr%3Dlang_en
– http://www.google.be/search?hl=nl&q=Sergio+Marzola&btnG=Google+zoeken&meta=lr%3Dlang_en
– http://www.google.be/search?num=20&hl=nl&q=Operation+Hamlet&btnG=Zoeken&meta=lr%3Dlang_en
– http://www.google.be/search?hl=nl&q=Operation+Koala&btnG=Google+zoeken&meta=lr%3Dlang_en
– http://www.google.be/search?num=20&hl=nl&q=paedophiles+%22Fun+Club%22+&btnG=Zoeken&meta=lr%3Dlang_en
– http://www.google.be/search?num=20&hl=nl&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=Dr+Lloyd+Allan+Emmerson&spell=1
– http://www.google.be/search?num=20&hl=nl&q=Pascal+Taveirne+Bruges&btnG=Zoeken&meta=lr%3D

– http://www.google.be/search?hl=fr&q=Jersey+dutroux+belgium&btnG=Rechercher&meta=

https://belgianjustice.wordpress.com/2010/02/01/child-abuse-jersey-stinks-of-zandvoort/

A trapdoor leading down to a windowless room holding a single chair, and shackles were discovered during the refurbishment of the care home at the centre of the Jersey child abuse scandal, it has been claimed.

The sinister findings were allegedly uncovered four years ago when the property Haut de la Garenne in the east of the island was converted into a youth hostel after lying empty for 18 years.

The building, where a human skull was unearthed on Saturday, is the subject of an intense police search operation amid fears that the bodies of up to seven children could be buried there.

Two builders working on the site spoke of the alleged finds but the shackle claim was strenuously denied by a Jersey government source.

Robert Boutillier, one of the builders working at the home said: “We found some things that would send a chill down your spine.

“We found some shackles lying around the grounds.

“I picked them up. They were heavy shackles mounted on a wooden block. It was gruesome.

“We also found a pile of about five large canes. They had been removed from inside the building.”

Another builder from Houze Construction, who did not want to be named, said: “It was spooky, I felt like the place was haunted.

“There were shackles lying around. God knows what else was in there, I shudder to think.

“In one room there was a trapdoor leading down to this room which was pitch black. Inside was just this chair. I felt sick.”

But a government source insisted: “Nothing of that nature at all was found at the site.”

Police teams have focused on the home’s bricked-up cellar but were forced to suspend work over fears the structure may collapse. But forensic specialists will return to the scene on Wednesday.

News of the alleged findings came as child abuse offences – and claims that they were covered up – were linked to the island’s top public school and another Jersey care home.

Image result for maths teacher, Andrew Jervis-Dykes

Maths teacher Andrew Jervis-Dykes was jailed in April 1999 for indecently assaulting six pupils at Victoria College who he plied with alcohol then abused in their beds during Naval Combined Cadet Force yachting trips between 1984 and 1993.

According to an independent report into the case, allegations about Jervis-Dykes surfaced in 1992 then again in 1994. Both times, the school’s headmaster Jack Hydes failed to notify the police or investigate further, the report said.

Former chief education officer of Buckinghamshire, Stephen Sharp, who conducted the inquiry, said Mr Hydes instructed his staff not to discuss the allegations.

He accused Mr Hydes and his deputy Piers Bakers – who was in charge of pupils alongside Jervis-Dykes on one yachting trip – of putting the interests of the college and supporting a colleague above protecting its pupils. The pair subsequently resigned from the school.

“If the correct procedure had been followed, it is most likely that Jervis-Dykes would have been suspended and perhaps arrested in 1992,” Mr Sharp said.

Senator Stuart Syvret, who is highly critical of the Jersey government’s record on child protection, accused officials of sweeping the issue under the carpet and demanded to know why the report had been kept secret.

“The reaction of the political establishment was to sweep this under the carpet and keep the veneer of respectability.

“This is just another example of concealment and cover up. They did the bare minimum, prosecuted one perpetrator.”

The Education Minister Senator Mike Verbert said the headteacher and deputy had been punished by dismissal. He defended keeping the report private: “The decision not to publish the report was taken to protect those children.”

Mr Syvret said he would write to Justice Minister Jack Straw later this week to ask for independent judges to oversee any possible prosecution in relation to Haut de la Garenne.

“I am going to ask him – in relation to the current child protection controversy – to appoint independent judges and prosecution,” he said.

Mr Syvret claimed there was evidence of abuse at schools and care homes across the island.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1579886/Jersey-care-home-had-shackles-and-trapdoor.html

Another inquiry focused on Jersey’s elite Victoria College after the head of maths, Andrew Jervis-Dykes, was jailed for four years in April 1999 for indecently assaulting a pupil. In his report, Stephen Sharp, a former chief education officer for Buckinghamshire, criticised senior staff and school governors, who included bailiff Sir Philip Bailhache, for failing to act speedily or adequately. It had taken 15 years for the teacher to be caught and Sharp concluded: “The handling of the complaint was more consistent with protecting a member of staff and the college’s reputation than safeguarding the best interests of pupils.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2009/mar/14/haut-de-la-garenne

Image result for PRINCESS ANNE IN JERSEY 1972

PRINCESS ANNE IN JERSEY 1972 – Sea Cadets and Victoria College

Jersey, Channel Islands, the tax haven just off the French coast, welcomed Princess Anne, arriving on the royal yacht Britannia,  for a short Royal Tour. Her Royal Highness opened a new science wing at Victoria College

http://www.aparchive.com/metadata/youtube/d7e615867b2447c495e07d458f25fac7


STATES police officers tried to cover up abuse allegations against an ex-Victoria College teacher, a former detective has claimed.

Speaking at the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry, Anton Cornelissen said he began investigating claims into abuse by former teacher Andrew Jervis-Dykes in 1996 but that he was hampered as several members of the force attempted to hide the abuse allegations.

Mr Cornelissen claimed that crucial evidence went missing and was subsequently found in a colleague’s locker.

He also alleged that a former deputy head of the school, John Le Breton, who had left the college and become a Jurat, intervened by complaining to the Law Officers’ Department when an arrest warrant was issued.

The panel heard that Jurat Le Breton allegedly questioned the facts of the case and asked the Law Officers not to issue a warrant.

DSC_0065
It was claimed that former Victoria College deputy head John Le Breton, later a Jurat, asked the Law Officers not to issue an arrest warrant against teacher Andrew Jervis-Dykes

Mr Cornelissen said: ‘He had sight of it [the warrant] and he disputed the facts. I think he complained to the Attorney General or the Bailiff over the facts of the case to try to get the warrant stopped.’

Mr Cornelissen also claimed that when Mr Le Breton was still deputy head, he had been told about alleged abuse by a pupil but had not done anything and had ‘in effect bullied at least one pupil to not make a complaint against Andrew Jervis-Dykes’.

The inquiry yesterday entered a new phase in which it will examine the handling of the 2008 police investigation into historical sexual abuse, named Operation Rectangle.

Mr Cornelissen, who is originally from the UK, moved to Jersey in 1993 and was seconded to the Child Protection Team in 1996.

He began investigating claims that Jervis-Dykes had abused several pupils, but said that the only person who supported the investigation was Barry Faudemer, the then head of the Child Protection Team.

He added that many of his colleagues in the force were ex-Victoria College pupils who did not want their school ‘dragged through the mud’ and therefore did not offer any support to the investigation.

Mr Cornelissen said that a short-time later, his secondment was ended when he refused to pass on confidential information about the Victoria College investigation to another colleague – Derek Upton – who was not part of the inquiry.

The case was dropped shortly after Detective Sergeant Roger Pryke took over the Child Protection Team.

However, Mr Cornelissen, who has since retired, and Mr Faudemer began reinvestigating the case about a year later, but claimed that many of the problems remained.

He said: ‘It harped back to the old thing that “we don’t want Victoria College investigated”.’

He added that he was ‘mortified’ to think that potential victims had not been contacted in a year after he was taken off the initial investigation.

During the second stage of the Victoria College inquiry, Mr Cornelissen claimed that evidence went missing from his desk, including pictures, slides and an index box containing vital witness information. He said that the index box was later found in Roger Pryke’s locker.

Mr Cornelissen said: ‘The index box was very important because up to that point there was nowhere else that had the victim witness details, and I had made a summary.

‘It was a crucial bit of evidence and of course it went missing.

‘I don’t know how it ended up in Roger Pryke’s locker – it was in a large brown evidence sack.’

Jervis-Dykes was jailed for four years in 1999.

http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2015/12/03/abuse-inquiry-latest-police-in-cover-up-bid-over-abuse-claims-against-teacher/#CZxeTRvJ5j4MWb8Z.99

Jurat John Lyndon Le Breton who is an evidenced mate and dinner chum of one of the defendant newspaper’s senior directors and has been for years allowed by the Bailiff’s Office to decide on evidence in our defamation case. Not to mention, of course, Le Breton also being a ‘man’ put forward by a former Education President to become said Jurat (lay judge) despite having been proven to happily look the other way on evidence against his predatory paedophile friend and Victoria College colleague Andrew Jervis-Dykes.

http://www.jerseymedia.co.uk/tag/jurat-le-breton/

Image result for children from islington post cards haut de la garenne

Postcards from Jersey, including one of Gorey Castle, next to Haut de la Garenne home. Children from Islington home were sent to Jersey.

I met the frightened policeman at an isolated country restaurant, many miles from his home and station. Detective Constable Peter Cook had finally despaired, and decided to blow the whistle to a reporter.

He was risking his career, so made me scribble my notes into a tiny pad beneath the tablecloth.

He had uncovered a vicious child sex ring, with victims in both Britain and the Channel Islands, and he wanted me to get his information to police abuse specialists in London.

Incredibly, he claimed that his superiors had barred him from alerting them.

He feared a cover-up: many ring members were powerful and wealthy. But I did not think him paranoid: I specialised in exposing child abuse scandals and knew, from separate sources, of men apparently linked to this ring.

They included an aristocrat, clerics and a social services chief. Their friends included senior police officers.

Repeatedly, inquiries by junior detectives were closed down, so I, a journalist, was asked to convey confidential information from one police officer to others.

Concerned police secretly confirmed that several Islington workers were believed “networkers”, major operators in the supply of children for abuse and pornography.

Some of these were from the Channel Islands or regularly took Islington children there on unofficial visits. In light of the grisly discoveries at Haut de la Garenne, the link now seems significant,

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-523706/I-known-Jersey-paedophiles-15-years-says-award-winning-journalist.html

Islington

Jonathan Aitken mentioned here in same context as Offenbach lawyer for Lennie Smith (Jason Swift) @mwalkerdine ??
Release, an underground organisation that provided legal advice and welfare services to young people arrested for drugs offences. Jonathan Aitkendid much to smooth the way for Release.
A number of lawyers took referrals from Release. The first of these was Martin Polden; the others who worked with Release in its early days included Desmond Banks, David Offenbach, Bernie Simons, Dennis Muirhead and David Pedley.
Former labour mps on sex charges with children involved
Darren Geoffrey Pedley Labour party councilor and chairman of the board of governors at Sandbrook primary school found guilty of downloading and distributing child pornography…
The Police claimed there weren’t any links between the Lambeth and Islington paedophile rings, but I found some glaringly obvious ones within five minutes. Abraham Jacobs was convicted in 1986 for his part in a paedophile ring that specialised in picking up run away Children in Piccadily Circus to provide for the sexual abuse by BBC Executives and Labour Party Politicians.
$(KGrHqMOKkEE1vjFW+JIBNcSuOh1D!~~_12
Ex-Deputy Leader of Islington Council Jack Straw MP and “friend” paedophile  Daren Pedley

Abraham Jacobs had worked at both Islington and Lambeth Care Homes and was known to Margaret Hodge, Jack Straw and Ted Knight.

$(KGrHqN,!jME665(QLbIBO5zFNKvmQ~~_35

http://google-law.blogspot.com/2013/05/lambeth-police-raped-and-tortured.html

Jack Straw

President of the National Union of Students, a barrister who served on Islington Council and adviser to minister Barbara Castle.

Mr Straw was deputy to former Labour leader Margaret Hodge on Islington Council in the early 1970s

http://www.thecnj.com/islington/2009/052209/inews052209_11.html

Jack Straw

Islington councillor 1971-1978

In 1971, he was elected as a Labour councillor in the London Borough of Islington, a position he held until 1978.[12]

Barbara Castle: the Labour Margaret Thatcher

Mr Straw moved to London and studied for his Bar exams. In 1972, and still involved with the Labour Party, he became in rapid succession a councillor on Islington Council, where he served alongside an Alderman called Ted Castle, husband of the legendary Labour Cabinet minister Barbara Castle, and deputy leader of the Inner London Education Authority.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11404389/Why-Im-standing-down-from-Parliament-Jack-Straw-MP-for-Blackburn.html

 Jack Straw’s brother, William Straw, an Open University administrator, found guilty of indecent assault on girl

The conviction is a further embarrassment to the Home Secretary who is overseeing a government crackdown on sex offenders.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/jack-straws-brother-found-guilty-of-indecent-assault-on-girl-16-698881.html

HRH Crafty Muvva‏ @craftymuvva

Any idea whereabouts this ring operated? (Holland, Gibson, Irwin, Page & Norman): 1979 Possibly North London?

CLOSED FOR 84 YEARS

James Arthur Holland, David Andrew Gibson, Samuel Irwin, Francis Lambert Page and Norman Vincent Wade: variously charged with buggery, indecent assault and gross indecency

1979 Jan 01 – 1979 Dec 31

FOI decision date    2011

Record opening date    01 January 2064

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C13431212

Truthseeker1‏ @thewakeupcall09

David Andrew Gibson  – Mayor Arthur Bell’s chauffeur faces sack after ‘sex with boys’ case Islington Gazette 16-11-79

HRH Crafty Muvva‏ @craftymuvva
Holland:

James Arthur Holland and John Devereux Youatt: charged with conspiracy to murder,…

James Arthur Holland and John Devereux Youatt: charged with conspiracy to murder, conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm with intent, conspiracy to indecently assault male children and conspiracy to assault with intent to commit buggery

1985 Jan 01 – 1988 Dec 31
Record opening date 19 August 2014
John Youatt
Feb 29 2016

A CONVICTED sex offender has been banned by a court from having unsupervised contact with girls.

John Youatt, aged 68, was allegedly caught in a car with an 11-year-old female in breach of a previous court order.

Prosecutors said he was banned from contacting boys but admitted that the document was ambiguous about girls.

Youatt, who has been on remand for a month, appeared at Plymouth Crown Court from Exeter Prison via videolink.

The defendant, of Coltishall Close, Ernesettle, denied breaching a Sexual Offences Prevention Order between November 2013 and last month.

He was allegedly in company of the girl in a private vehicle without her parents.

The indefinite order was imposed in 2010 by a judge at city magistrates for indecency with a 12-year-old boy in Plymouth.

He was sentenced to five and a half years in prison at Exeter Crown Court in 1999.

Nigel Hall, for the Crown Prosecution Service, offered no evidence against Youatt on the breach.

He added: “Because of the ambiguity in the order, the Crown’s view is that it would be difficult to convince the jury that there has been a breach.

“The important thing is that all children and young people are protected by this order.”

Mr Hall added that Youatt did not oppose changing the order to clearly include girls.

Judge Ian Lawrie recorded a not guilty verdict on the breach and ruled that the order be changed.

Youatt will now be released from prison.

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/plymouth-sex-offender-banned-contact-girls/story-28829987-detail/story.html#1

September 2010

Plymouth sex offender banned from unsupervised contact with children

A SEX offender has been banned by a court from having unsupervised contact with children.

Plymouth magistrates put a sexual offences prevention order on 63-year-old John Youatt after hearing teenage boys had been visiting his home in Ernesettle.

Youatt, of Coltishall Close, did not contest the order, which will run indefinitely.

He was sentenced to five and a half years in jail in 1999 by a judge at Exeter Crown Court for indecency with a 12-year-old in Plymouth.

Magistrates ruled an order was necessary to protect the public from serious sexual harm.

The four prohibitions ban him being in the company of anybody under 18 in public or in private, excepting on public transport.

He is also prevented from contacting or attempting to contact anybody under that age by any means save in the course of a ‘legitimate business transaction’.

Youatt must not ‘sleep, remain or reside’ in any home where there is a child unless with the express permission of the authorities or the parents — and those parents must have prior knowledge of his previous convictions.

He is also banned from taking part in any recreational or voluntary activity which is likely to lead to unsupervised contact with boys under the age of 18.

Tom Bradnock, applying for the order on behalf of Devon & Cornwall Police, told the court that Youatt had ‘been in the company of teenage boys at his home address’.

Andrew Cooper, for Youatt, confirmed he would not contest the order.

Youatt is already signing the Sex Offenders’ Register.

January 1987

Perverted writer jailed

A writer who planned to kidnap, torture, and sadistically kill young boys for sexual pleasure was jailed for 10 years at the Old Bailey.

James Holland, 58, of Finsbury Park, London, was also convicted of plotting to assault indecently boys under 16, and to assault boys under 16 with intent to commit buggery.

His friend, John Youatt, 39, of Exeter, Devon, was jailed for three years.

He was acquitted of plotting to murder boys, but convicted of the other charges.

John Youatt – Plymouth/Exeter


Twenty-eight year old David Gibson is to resign from youth and charity work following revelations that he was involved in a sordid group of men which lured boys for sex. Gibson runs Finsbury Corps of Drums he split with the Hackney and Islington Youth band last year.
The court heard how Gibson and a man named James Holland, with whom he had been involved 11 years prior, in a relationship which resulted in Gibson being imprisoned for indecency offences against boys.
Holland invited Gibson to join a group of men who enticed boys to a flat in Woodford Green, Essex.
Rev Jim Roberts, Vicar of St James, Clerkenwell Green, offered words of praise for Gibson, whom he when he was Mayor’s chaplain.
Gibson once served on the committee of the Islington Branch of the National Federation of Old Age Pensions Associations and helped organise the council’s old folks Christmas party. Branch chairman Mrs Emily Lindsay… Other names commenting…John Jenkins leader of the Hackney and Oslington Youth Band and Borough secretary Roy Brown.

July 8, 2017

Call for politician to resign

lewisr

A SERVING politician found to have lied to the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry should resign if the States is to maintain the confidence of Islanders, according to one of his backbench colleagues.

This week the inquiry panel concluded in their report that former Home Affairs Minister Deputy Andrew Lewis had lied under oath while giving evidence to them about the suspension of ex-police chief Graham Power.

They also found he had lied to the States about the matter.

Unlike members of the public, States Members cannot be prosecuted for perjury for lying to the Assembly or an inquiry.

However, Deputy Jackie Hilton, who represents the same district – St Helier No 3 and 4 – as Deputy Lewis, believes that that is not good enough and that her political colleague has damaged the reputation of the Assembly.

‘I do not want to be tarred with the same brush.

‘If we want to maintain the confidence of the public in the States Assembly there is only one thing Deputy Andrew Lewis can do,’ she said.

Deputy Lewis has always denied lying and says he made three factual errors when talking on the record about the suspension, none of which were deliberate and all of which he has since corrected.

The Privileges and Procedures Committee, which deals with alleged breaches of the States Members’ code of conduct, is currently looking into the matter.

Asked this week to clarify which document he had been referring to when he wrongly said he had seen a Metropolitan Police report which supported Mr Power’s suspension, the Deputy said it was a letter from former States chief executive Bill Ogley, which attached a report from the then deputy police chief containing extracts from the Met Police report.

Deputy Hilton, who was present in the States during the in-camera debate on the suspension during which Deputy Lewis is said to have lied, said, however, that the inquiry had supported its conclusions with clear evidence. She added that the Deputy’s evidence to the inquiry included ‘massive contradictions’.

‘He [Deputy Lewis] should step down as a States Member in my personal opinion,’ said Deputy Hilton.

http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2017/07/08/call-for-politician-to-resign/

Woman reveals Jimmy Savile tried to molest her at Jersey care home

4th July 2017

Woman reveals Jimmy Savile tried to molest her at Jersey care home

A woman has revealed how Jimmy Savile tried to molest her at a Jersey care home years before he was unmasked as a paedophile.

Sex abuse victim Madeleine Vibert, 57, was a teenager when the TV presenter visited the infamous Haut de la Garenne children’s home in the early 1970s.

She told Sky News: “He visited us several times, around Easter each year, and wanted us to join him on his charity walks.

 

Ms Vibert said she told police about Savile during a police investigation 10 years ago and he denied visiting the home, but an old photograph in the Jersey Evening Post newspaper proved he had.

Detectives investigated complaints about Savile’s Jersey visits from the time, but found no evidence to prosecute him.

Ms Vibert escaped the TV star’s attentions, but was regularly sexually and physically abused by staff and visitors during 14 years at Haut de la Garenne.

She gave evidence to the independent inquiry which this week published a damning report on decades of abuse at Jersey’s children’s homes.

She said: “It was a brutal regime. If you wet the bed at night they would make you get up and wash the sheets and hang them out to dry. If you were caught talking you would have to stand outside the dormitory for hours.

“If you were really naughty you are locked up in a cell, what they called a secure room, for several days with a potty for a toilet. Often you were naked and everyone could see you through the window.”

She and others were regularly picked out for sexual abuse, often taken to an office without any explanation. If they complained, nothing was done.

She said: “I complained to other staff, to people at the Children’s Service department in St Helier and others, but nobody listened.

“They said: ‘Don’t make up such stories, no-one else is complaining’. So I just stopped. At first I was angry, but then I said to the others that we just had to be strong for each other.”

Ms Vibert said she ran away many times, sleeping in garden sheds, but was always found and put in a police cell before being taken back to the home where she would be punished and often left with bruises.

Her terrible life at Haut de la Garenne, where her younger sister also lived for many years, is described in her book They Stole My Innocence which was published last year.

She said: “There was a sort of swimming pool in the basement where they told us to get in and where up to ten men were always waiting to abuse us.

“If you kicked and screamed to avoid going in they would tie you to a wooden chair and abuse you anyway.”

https://www.964eagle.co.uk/news/uk-news/2322644/woman-reveals-jimmy-savile-tried-to-molest-her-at-jersey-care-home/

More survivors report abuse after Care Inquiry findings published

Senator Ian Gorst addressed the States Assembly this afternoon
Senator Ian Gorst addressed the States Assembly
http://www.itv.com/news/channel/2017-07-04/more-survivors-report-abuse-after-care-inquiry-findings-published/

Cassandra Cogno‏ @CassandraCognoWhy isn’t Gorst acting to suspend Deputy Andrew Lewis? @ICIJorghttp://jerseytoday.blogspot.com/2017/07/senator-gorsts-first-challenge.html


Full Report

(For ease this has been broken down by chapter below)

Volume 1 – Executive Summary

Volume 2 – Addressing the Terms of Reference

Volume 3 – Recommendations and Appendices

Report Chapters

Table of Contents Vol 1

Exec Summary

Terms of Reference

Table of Contents Vol 2 

Foreword

Conducting the Inquiry

Introduction

Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

Chapter 6

Chapter 7

Chapter 8

Chapter 9

Chapter 10

Chapter 11

Table of Contents Vol 3

Chapter 12

Chapter 13

Appendix 1

Appendix 2 Part 1

Appendix 2 Part 2

Appendix 3

Appendix 4

Appendix 5

Appendix 6 Introduction

Appendix 6 The Bullock & Parker Report

Appendix 7 Introduction

Appendix 7 Legislation Study by Richard Whitehead

Appendix 8

Appendix 9

Appendix 10

 

http://www.jerseycareinquiry.org/news?newsid=203

https://ijci-public.sharepoint.com/Pages/Final-Report.aspx

 

 The findings of the investigation into historical child abuse in Jersey are due to be published on July 3rd.

Wednesday, 28 June 2017

Statement of Former Deputy Chief Police Officer Lenny Harper.

Former DCO Lenny Harper.

“With the report of the Committee of Inquiry being delivered on 3rd July I have over the past few weeks been contacted by various media outlets in the United Kingdom and Jersey. Each of them has asked if I would be willing to speak to them when the report is delivered.

Whilst none of us know what will be contained within the report, I feel more confident in being able to predict the different ways in which the contents will be dealt with by media in the UK and the local media in Jersey.

Jersey’s media, and admittedly some have been worse than others, have continually sought to protect the image of the Jersey establishment to the detriment of the abuse survivors. There have been many ways in which they have sought to do this. One of the most used tactics has been to discredit anyone who was seen to be acting in the best interests of the abuse victims and survivors. By smearing and attempting to discredit myself and others, vested interests have ignored and trivialised the sufferings of the abused.

I find it inconceivable that the horrific abuse suffered by children through the decades in Jersey could have been covered up, both pre and post Operation Rectangle without at least the tacit complicity of the main stream media in Jersey.

I have witnessed at firsthand how actions of mine have been deliberately misrepresented and how evidence which did not suit the agenda of the Jersey media has been ignored, twisted, or just plain perverted. Only through the blogs of Voice For Children, Rico Sorda, Stuart Syvret, and other public journalists has the truth emerged. There are numerous examples of this but I will mention only a few.

Despite all the evidence to the contrary, and in denial of the facts, the Jersey media still insist on referring to the coconut myth. Evidence that the item concerned was never conclusively identified as a coconut and indeed, was even found to contain collagen, (only found in mammals) has been ignored. The evidence of a respected Professor who stated that the bones found had been burnt and buried whilst fresh and fleshed has been totally ignored. Even a few weeks ago a media source in Jersey was asking me about this nonsense.

The fiasco of the BDO Alto report was a stunning example of how the establishment went to great lengths to deflect from the abuse and the evidence of the survivors by discrediting myself and others. The Scrutiny Report was scathing in its condemnation of the behaviour of the Jersey media, elements of the States, and of course Mr Gradwell and Mr Warcup. What happened to the Chair of that Scrutiny Panel, Trevor Pitman, was intended by the Jersey establishment to be a stark lesson to all who dare to challenge their version of history on behalf of the abused.

More recently we have had the desperate attempts to discredit me and by extension the abuse survivors by the efforts to somehow link me to the criticism by the Police Service of Northern Ireland (Operation Belfong) of the States of Jersey Police in its failings regarding Data Protection issues and much more from 2009 onwards. This despite me leaving the force in 2008 and being told by the PSNI that I did not feature in its investigation, which is why they declined my invitation to be interviewed as part of that investigation.

It was perhaps an unfortunate “oversight” that the Inquiry Terms of Reference did not include how the Jersey mainstream media was able to manipulate public opinion to try and turn it against the survivors and those acting on their behalf.

For all of these reasons and more, I have decided before knowing what is contained in the report, and no matter what is, that I will not be speaking to the mainstream media in Jersey. Should the public journalists that I have mentioned above wish to speak to me I will of course agree to do so. I will also be happy to speak to United Kingdom media sources.

Lenny Harper

24th June 2017″

http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2017/06/statement-of-former-deputy-chief-police.html


 

 

22 November 2016

Jersey’s historical child abuse inquiry findings delayed

Jersey’s inquiry into historical child abuse won’t now report back this year.

The final report is now expected by March 2017.

http://www.itv.com/news/channel/update/2016-11-22/jerseys-historical-child-abuse-inquiry-findings-delayed/
9 March 2017

​The Panel of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry on Thursday (9 March) released the following statement:

“The Panel has received new information as part of Phase 3 of its work, in respect of recommendations for the future of Jersey’s childcare system.

“The Panel has advised the States of Jersey that there will be a delay to the publication of the report pending examination of the new information as to whether it affects the recommendations we intend to make.

“We do not anticipate extensive delays. We will announce the date of the report’s publication in due course and advise on the arrangements that will be in place for its launch.”

http://www.jerseycareinquiry.org/news?newsid=199

Child Abuse Inquiry on Top Tax Shelter Jersey Island Delayed Again

Apr 6 2017

https://s7.postimg.org/4nik86ai3/centre.jpg

Updated | In 2008, police unearthed the remains of at least 10 children, ages 6 to 12 years old, under a shuttered residential care home, on the island of Jersey—a territory of the British Crown, off the coast of France.

Since then, the scandal has roiled the island, as survivors and activists have clashed with Jersey’s government to find out why hundreds of children who reported being subjected to sexual and violent attacks by more than 150 alleged abusers for decades went largely ignored. Many of the accused are still alive and among the island’s top officials and business leaders, yet the vast majority have never been investigated or punished.

Those accused include British disc jockey Jimmy Savile and, more recently, former U.K. Prime Minister Ted Heath. Both men, now deceased, were fond of traveling to Jersey and inviting orphaned children on sailboat rides. A few of the island’s residents who witnessed these rides have reported some of the children never returned.

A Newsweek cover story in 2014, “Treasure Island,” highlighted how Jersey’s status as a $2 trillion tax shelter, catering to many of the world’s biggest banks, had “allowed corruption to flourish to such an extent that those seeking to combat it are the ones open to scorn,” according to Lenny Harper, former deputy chief of police who led the dig in 2008. Those working to uncover crimes against children on the island (which appear to date back to at least World War II, when the Nazis took over Jersey), were publicly smeared in the island’s government-funded newspaper, fired from their jobs, sued, gagged by legal order and even imprisoned for speaking out.

Related: Inside the world’s top offshore tax shelter

Now, a $28.4 million (£22.6 million) inquiry by a U.K. judge into the island’s decades of child abuse may allow Jersey to put behind it one of the darkest periods of its recent history. That is, if the inquiry’s three-member panel is able to release its report without any further delay or interference. The final document, expected out last December, was held up a second time in March for unknown reasons. The release date is now expected to be sometime in April. “This all could have been done and dusted years ago if the island hadn’t repeatedly put its reputation ahead of the abuse survivors,” says Carrie Modral, a Jersey resident and survivor who has led the campaign to get to the truth about what happened and why it was ignored for decades.

Modral, now 54, was sent as a toddler to the residential care home where police found children’s remains, called Haut de la Garenne—one of the homes visited frequently by Savile. She was just 3 years old. She was there in the 1960s, and remembers Haut de la Garenne as “overcrowded and very strict.” (The home was closed by Jersey’s government in the 1980s, but some victims say organized child abuse continued there for years afterward. It is now a youth hostel.)

Modral says she remained in government-run care homes in Jersey until she was 18, when she fled to London to escape her rapist, an older man living on the island. He had been sent to jail once for sexually abusing her and other minors, she tells Newsweek, “But when he got out he came after me again. The police didn’t care. They made you feel disbelieved and dirty. I was just a kid in care; I was a nobody. I packed my bag and left.”

A mother of two and grandmother to six, Modral eventually returned to the island and has been fighting for decades to expose the truth about how vulnerable children were treated in Jersey. During the police investigation in 2008, Operation Rectangle, nearly 200 people came forward from as far as Australia to report being abused when they were children growing up in Jersey. Of the 151 suspects named, at least 30 are now dead, according to a release issued by the States of Jersey Police when the investigation closed in 2010.

The inquiry into the island has included testimony from dozens who say they were raped, beaten, locked up, taken from their beds at night, loaned out for day trips where they were abused, and subjected to such extreme violence that they feared for their lives. Many reported being taken as children onto boats and yachts into international waters, where they were raped. Children who resisted or tried to get help reported being drugged, put into solitary confinement or sent to the local mental hospital or subjected to further violence. Some reported witnessing kids commit suicide at places like Haut de la Garenne. One survivor who published a book about his time at Haut de la Garenne says he witnessed another child (who was trying to fight off his abuser) boiled alive.

Since the summer of 2014, the inquiry’s panel, led by Judge Frances Oldham, has heard testimony from more than 200 witnesses who say they experienced abuse in the island’s foster and residential care homes from 1945 on. Abuse frequently took place in other locations, according to the island’s police, such as within the Jersey Sea Cadets, a nautical youth charity, but the government-funded inquiry focused strictly on government-run foster and care homes. According to the judge, the purpose of the final report is to “establish the truth about what happened to children in residential and foster homes, how mistreatment of children remained hidden for so long and what was done when concerns were raised.”

To this day, the island’s government is still fighting many of the abuse allegations. As of February 2017, the total cost of the three-year inquiry included more than $8.3 million (£6.6 million) of legal fees incurred by Jersey’s government to pay a team it hired to defend itself against allegations leveled by hundreds of the abuse survivors. Between 2012 and 2015, Jersey paid nearly $2.7 million (£2.1 million) to more than 100 survivors abused for decades in its residential care and foster homes. Maximum payment for an individual was about $75,000 (£60,000).

What now concerns survivors like Modral most is that the reasons for the report’s delays have not been made clear to them. And perhaps more troubling, there is reason to believe that the inquiry’s panel may be working with Jersey’s government on the final report, which would break a key promise made by the judge when she adjourned the inquiry in June 2016. At the time, Oldham emphasized that, in the interest of being “open and transparent” she would not engage in contact with anyone, including Jersey’s government, before publishing the final report, since it “would be inappropriate.” Yet in a release issued on March 9, the inquiry stated its report would be delayed for a second time because it had received “new information” from a source it would not name that could affect its final recommendations about the future of Jersey’s child-care system.

During a parliamentary question-and-answer session with Jersey’s chief minister (the island’s de facto president) in mid-March, some of the island’s elected leaders demanded to know if the government had been in touch with the inquiry panelists, who were supposed to be working independently. In response, Jersey’s Chief Minister Ian Gorst, declined to confirm there had been no further contact between the government and the panelists. A few days later, in an interview with the BBC Jersey, he said it was those running the inquiry, not Jersey’s government, who had initiated contact, not the other way around. “Nobody within the States, as far as I’m aware under the information that I have, made contact with the panel,” he said. “But the panel—again, I don’t know the details—have asked for clarification of certain matters in the report-writing stage.” He did not elaborate on what those clarifications were, when the inquiry first made contact, or with whom.

When reached by Newsweek about what new information the inquiry was seeking at such a late stage, who it came from and what the nature of it was, the inquiry’s spokeswoman, Angharad Shurmer said that Judge Oldham indicated “no further details are available in respect of this information.” Shurmer added that a new release date for the inquiry’s final report will be announced “in due course.” Gorst says the report may be out around Easter, but also noted that he has yet to be informed of an exact date.

For the survivors, many of whom must emotionally prepare for the report’s release, the inquiry’s delays have been incredibly frustrating. “It’s the opposite of open and transparent,” says Modral. “After working so hard to gain the trust of the survivors for this inquiry, to have so many delays without any plausible explanation is extremely damaging.”

Gorst has urged a speedy release of the inquiry’s report, noting that Jersey must take lessons from its past to ensure such large-scale abuses against children never happen again. In a statement emailed to Newsweek, he said: “The Jersey Care Inquiry has given a voice to victims and I would like to thank those people for their courage in coming forward to tell their stories. Our priority now is to respond to the recommendations from the Inquiry to ensure that our young people are protected, both now and in the future.”

Alan Collins, a partner at London law firm Hugh James, which represents more than 80 survivors of child abuse—including Modral—is also concerned about the delays. “If the report doesn’t come out soon,” he tells Newsweek, “I am afraid the inquiry may start to have some credibility problems.”

Collins says he’s still hopeful the inquiry into Jersey’s child abuse will be one of the most comprehensive ever released in the British Isles. “This report should be on the desk of anyone dealing with systemic child abuse, from governments to health and social services to law enforcement officials,” he says. “Jersey’s got ongoing problems, but it’s not unique. It’s a microcosm of a lot of other places, and we can learn from it.”

Correction: A previous version of this story stated Modral says she remained in government-run care homes in Jersey until she was 17. It was until she was 18. A previous version of this story also stated that between 2012 and 2015, Jersey paid money to survivors of its residential care and foster homes, and that the maxium payment was $60,000. It was £60,000.

http://www.newsweek.com/jersey-island-child-abuse-tax-shelter-uk-jimmy-savile-child-predators-rape-579698

Voice for Children blog comments:

Anonymous7

What everyone now reading reports such as the JEP’s on the Graham Power hearing should remember is that there is hardly anything at all new in what Mr Power has revealed about the disgraceful machinations of the Jersey Establishment. That the MSM are now reporting such things is simply because the Inquiry and those brave few who fought for it have forced them to. The question that should be asked is given Jersey’s ‘media’ had Mr Power’s huge statement years ago why didn’t they publish the truth then?

voiceforchildren
Indeed, the fact is that Graham Power produced very little, or nothing new, whilst giving his evidence to the Inquiry. A great deal of what he had to say was produced in his affidavit years ago which was published on this Blog HERE.

It was also made a public document by former Deputy Bob Hill as a part of his proposition P.166 (forgotten the year). The State Media were burying all this stuff back then and it was the Bloggers who were publishing it. It is only now, some five, or so, years later that the MSM is reporting, what we were reporting back then.

savile haut de la garenne

An ex resident of Haut de la Garenne Childrens Home claims he saw children from the home being taken on to Heaths yacht and came back crying. There have been allegations that 11 boys left on Heaths boat and only ten returned when he went out with Savile. This was reported to the police with a Jersey Senator but nothing was done

Latest: Jersey Care Inquiry

16 January 2015

Jersey’s Care Inquiry has heard from a witness today who backs up claims that disgraced TV Presenter Jimmy Savile was in Jersey in 1976 when he denied he was.

‘Mr D’ was 15 years old when Savile visited Jersey children’s home Haut de la Garenne and had a photograph taken with a group of children.

Mr D says he was “too withdrawn” to ask to be in the photograph himself. But he says he saw a group of children pose for the photograph with Savile by the swimming pool.

This is the second witness to claim Jimmy Savile visited Haut de la Garenne.

Yesterday a man claimed he was sexually assaulted by Jimmy Savile during an outing with the care home.

He said Savile took him aside after the photograph was taken..

http://www.itv.com/news/channel/update/2015-01-16/witness-evidence-supports-claim-savile-was-in-jersey-in-the-1970s/

It has also now emerged that Savile visited the infamous Haut de la Garenne care home on the island of Jersey. Savile sued The Sun in 2008 to cover this up and to prevent the publication of a photograph which allegedly shows Savile in the company of children at the care home. As a consequence the paper had to withdraw the article and the photograph, but the picture is still widely available on the net and the story, though not the picture, has been published by both The Daily Telegraph and The Daily Mail

Comment | Silences and cover-ups: is Jimmy Savile’s past finally catching up with him?

……………………………………………………………………………………..

The current Jersey Inquiry into child abuse has heard that Jersey Senator Wilfred Krichefski raped a 12-year-old boy in the staff room of the Haut de la Garenne children’s home.

Senator Wilfred Krichefski carried out the attack with another man known as ‘The Old Posh Gent’.

On Jersey, Senator Wilfred Krichefski served as president of the Harbours and Airport committee and later as president of the Defence committee with responsibility for the police

http://aanirfan.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/jewish-senator-raped-boys-bush-and-bin.html

Paul Every was the commanding officer of Jersey Sea Cadets who was arrested as part of Operation Ore for serious crimes against children but not suspended by the Jersey Sea Cadets.

Postcards link Islington care home children to scene of notorious Jersey sex abuse

The postcards provide solid evidence that children from Islington’s homes in the 1970s were sent on trips to Jersey, in an exchange programme with children from the notorious Haut de la Garenne home, where widespread abuse took place.

http://www.islingtontribune.com/news/2014/oct/postcards-link-islington-care-home-children-scene-notorious-jersey-sex-abuse#.VC-gwwF7fgw.twitter

http://google-law.blogspot.com/2015/08/edward-heath-yachting-and-boating.html

http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2010/02/copy-of-affidavit-of-chief-police.html


Islington 1977/78

Islington Devil-worshipper with Pentangle tattoo on head raped teen in ‘satanic chamber

Would that have been a council-owned property Satan-obssessive Evangelou moved into c.1977/78 in Islington c.40 yrs ago then?


Islington paedophile Edwin George Peggs records closed for 84 years

DPP 2/6488
Description:

[Name withheld] (juvenile, aged 16): murder of Edwin George PEGGS on 4 September 1977 in London N1 by stabbing. Convicted of manslaughter.

Note: The naming of a defendant within this catalogue does not imply guilt.
Date: 1977 Jan 01 – 1978 Dec 31
Held by: The National Archives, Kew
Former reference in its original department: 9417/77
Legal status: Public Record(s)
Closure status: Closed Or Retained Document, Closed Description
Access conditions: Closed For 84 years
FOI decision date: 2009
Exemption 1: Personal information where the applicant is a 3rd party
Exemption 2: Children and Young Persons Act 2001
Record opening date: 01 January 2063

link

Edwin Peggs 50 years Old, Islington. He picked up a 16 yr old boy whom he took to his flat. When Peggs tried to seduce the boy, the boy killed him in a gruesome manner. The boy later stole articles from the flat. He was convicted of the murder.

link

Islington kids’ homes scandal: Shame of ex-mayor Sandy Marks’ pro-paedophile past – Politics – Islington Gazette

Islington kids’ homes scandal: Shame of ex-mayor Sandy Marks’ pro-paedophile past

Islington kids’ homes scandal: Shame of ex-mayor Sandy Marks’ pro-paedophile past – Politics – Islington Gazette

Heath July 1976 at the Royal Channel Island Yacht Club
Sir Edward Heath does feature as part of Operation Whistle, currently investigating historical allegations of abuse in Jersey.’

Investigations into claims that police socialised with suspected paedophiles at a Jersey yacht club “came to a dead end” when the police chief was denied access to the yacht club registers, which would have shown who was present at gatherings.

Graham Power was in charge when the police investigation into historical child abuse began in 2006. He said there were reports that children were abused on boats.

heath and constable
TED HEATH AT THE TOWN HALL WITH (the late) CONSTABLE PETER BAKER JULY 20 1976

“I was told that a group of police officers and senior officials, and people who were subsequently associated with paedophile activity, used to meet as a group at the yacht club at the same time and socialise together.

“The reports that things were happening out at sea all seemed to join up into a sort of set of circumstances that merits investigation.”

link

 

Well, I can hazard a guess. Related to to several reasons. Not least that the quantum of punitive and exemplary damages going to victims ……would – rightly – have amounted to many, many £$millions – at massive loss to LLoyd’s Names & related entities, & consequent peanuts…
..whilst survivors, at best, AT BEST, secured cash settlement, about enough to buy a moderate car. Hows that? In exchange for lives wrecked?
to all the lawyers involved, most noticeably, the victim’s “own” lawyers – who have been able to cream-off vast sums of “uncontested fees”
I had to actually pro-activly approach Allan Collins at the outset, before even existed. I offered him…..
…offered Allan Collins an affidavit. I had to beg to even get a meeting within him. It too place in a Jersey pub, in Halkett street….
…he plainly didn’t want to be there. I explained the massive – JUST MASSIVE – UNPRECEDENTED – WILLING – FIREPOWER his clients could call on. I would give a truthful affidavit, on the dismal failings – and worse – of Jersey childrens “services”; & I knew from contact with them….
…that no-less figures or awesome calbre, the then Police Chief and Deputy Police Chief would, likewise be willing witness.
To best of my knowledge not one of us 3 was approached by survivors lawyers and asked to give such testimony on survivors’ behalves. When I met Allan Collins & spoke with him – and in later e-mail correspondence, I virtually begged him for legal representation for me. He made always excuses – just like every other lawyer, chambers, firm etc, I’ve ever approached, as to “why” they couldn’t / wouldnt represents me ..every possible excuse – and then some. And more.
Consequently, for being the 1st Government office-holder to spot, identify & speak-out….against decades of monstrous child-abuse & child-protection failure I am only human-being in entire Council of Europe who can’t get lawyer
So – yes. The Stakes are – plainly – that high. As a lawyer, if you have a group of vulnerable clients – whose official, government / state …opponents would simply be, metaphorically speaking, “nuked” in the face of the right damning witnesses – it has be very concerning.
..does it not? Questioning of those lawyers motives – when those known – available – willing – formidable – 100% allied to their clients..
..very concerning indeed – when abuse-victims “own” lawyers failed to call – proactively willing – powerful – centrally-placed – witnesses?

http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/

July 8, 2017

Child abuse: The campaign must go on, says ex-Senator

IT is ‘difficult to feel vindicated’ while child abusers are still walking the street and the ‘fight for justice’ must continue, a former Health Minister and child abuse campaigner has said.

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret was at the forefront of a decade-long campaign to expose the Island’s failings which allowed systemic child abuse to remain hidden for decades.

http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2017/07/08/child-abuse-the-campaign-must-go-on-says-ex-senator/

Stuart Syvret‏ @StuartSyvret

In interview I gave to Jersey’s newspaper they failed to include important stuff. Like how so many Jersey child-abusers escaped prosecution?

Isobel‏ @Isobel_waby

sad #JEPNews allow insults towards him still by same person no doubt..SS +Jersey Bloggers did an excellent job for all UK abuse survivors

HRH Crafty Muvva‏ @craftymuvva

Savile, Mountbatten & others join party at Butlins in Jersey, 1978: ‘Combined Charities Convention’

Truthseeker1‏ @thewakeupcall09

Lord Louis Mountbatten former chauffeur Norman Nield exposed him

Meanwhile, in New Zealand, there have been such newspaper headlines as, “‘Uncle Dickie’ the Sex Pervert” (N.Z. Truth, Sept.  8, 1987), since Mountbatten’s former chauffeur, Norman Nield, started revealing details of the late Lord Mountbatten’s alleged sexual exploitation of boys.

Image result for mountbatten on boat

Edward Prince of Wales and his cousin Lord Louis Mountbatten “relax” in a canvas swimming pool on board H. M. S. Renown during their 1920 Empire Tour.

Lord Louis was a great grandson of Queen Victoria and the uncle of Prince Philip (consort of Queen Elizabeth II). Mountbatten was also a promiscuous bisexual who was famously rumored to have had an affair with Edward VIII (who was Prince of Wales at the time) when he accompanied him on his Empire tours (see photo above).

link

Related image

Image result for mountbatten and queen elizabeth

The Queen. Like any human being, she is subject to the influence of those around her. While he lived, Lord Mountbatten was a persuasive counsellor, and he formulated the plan for Prince Charles’s unusually rigorous education.

http://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/26/magazine/an-informal-look-at-the-royal-family.html?pagewanted=all

Princess Diana, in intimate confessions recorded on video by her voice coach,   described her sex life with Prince Charles as “odd, very odd”. 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/princess-diana-parents-earl-spencer-never-loved-her-sex-tapes-channel-4-remarriage-countess-footage-a7870856.html

Savile delivers a sermon in Jersey, 1968:

 


 

DISCLAIMER: THE POSTING OF STORIES, COMMENTARIES, REPORTS, DOCUMENTS AND LINKS (EMBEDDED OR OTHERWISE) ON THIS SITE DOES NOT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, IMPLIED OR OTHERWISE, NECESSARILY EXPRESS OR SUGGEST ENDORSEMENT OR SUPPORT OF ANY OF SUCH POSTED MATERIAL OR PARTS THEREIN.

SKELHORN – PAEDO-FRIENDLY DPP/VIP COVER-UPS

“Sir Norman SKELHORN was habitually and reliably soft on paedophiles.”

Sir Norman SKELHORN bears the responsibility for ensuring that Victor MONTAGU, Bishop of Stepney Trevor HUDDLESTON, Cyril SMITH and & Peter JACONELLI escaped trial

Victor Montagu
Victor Montagu and son

BISHOP TEVOR HUDDELSTON
BISHOP TREVOR HUDDELSTON

QUEEN MUM & CYRIL SMITH
The Queen Mother chats with sadist paedophile Cyril Smith

SAVILE & JACONELLI
SAVILE and JACONELLI

PETER JACONELLI And The Paedo-Friendly DPP Continue reading SKELHORN – PAEDO-FRIENDLY DPP/VIP COVER-UPS