Tag Archives: Savile

Prebendary Willie Booth/ PHAB Charity/Savile/Royal Circle

Willie Booth –  Priest in Ordinary to Queen Elizabeth (1976-1993) and chaplain at Westminster School.

Click to enlarge

Elevated: Peter Ball, Prior of the Community of the Glorious Ascension, on his consecration as Bishop of Lewes in 1977 by the Archbishop of Canterbury at that time, Donald Coggan

link

https://i2.wp.com/i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01421/booth_1421303f.jpg

Prebendary Willie Booth

Prebendary Willie Booth and Jimmy Savile introduced paedophile Peter Ball to the royal circle.

“He was propelled into the royal circle by two people, I understand. One was prebendary Willie Booth, a former chaplain at Westminster School… The other was Jimmy Savile.

The Old Bailey heard on Wed­nes­day that a member of the Royal Family, a Lord Chief Justice, and several MPs all called the police while they were investigating Bishop Ball to support him.


 Bishop Peter Ball Charged

Savile in 1969 with (PHAB) members at a dance at Devonshire House

Prebendary Willie Booth CVO, Vice- President  PHAB

With Lord Snowdon as Patron, Ed Stewart as President and Rolf Harris and Sir Cliff Richard as Vice Presidents, Phab has provided support and services for its members since 1957

PHAB -Jimmy Savile and Rolf Harris

The Guardian 21 April 1982

Jimmy Savile at a PHAB presentation 1974

Jimmy Savile and Angus Ogilvy with young people at an event relating to PHAB. One photograph is dated to 1970 (showing Jimmy Savile signing the visitor book at Devonshire Street House)

https://bitsofbooksblog.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/screen-shot-2015-05-17-at-18-24-45.png

 

Sir Angus Ogilvy,  and Princess Alexandra. All mention of the former DJ’s claims to friendship with the royal was initially omitted from police transcripts

Sir Harold Haywood, Savile, NAYC & PHAB 

“With the Earl of Snowdon as Patron of PHAB and the Queen Mother as Patron of NAYC Savile had increased access for networking with royalty.

21 October, 1981. The Times. ‘Reception.’ ‘The Earl of Snowdon, Patron of PHAB (physically handicapped and able bodied) and Mr Jimmy Savile (president) were hosts at a reception and dinner held at the Mount Royal Hotel yesterday to launch the charity’s silver jubilee celebration for 1982. Among the guests were: Mr Hugh Rossi, Minister of state for Social Security and the Disabled […].

Ex-cop claims a ROYAL was in paedophile ring but inquiry was closed to shield Buckingham Palace from scandal.


booth-phab

link

link

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/religion-obituaries/5498039/Prebendary-Willie-Booth.html

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:wvOEp9J2aTwJ:www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2015/9-october/news/uk/peter-ball-sentenced+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3265742/Jimmy-Savile-Prince-Charles-close-friendship-sex-abuse-bishop-Peter-Ball.html#ixzz3oCtO0Jh0

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/29/david-smith-dead-bbc-sex-charges_n_4172825.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20130302113746/http://phab.org.uk/map/

Image result for bishop ball and prince charles

22 June 2017

Church of England colluded with bishop who abused boys, says Welby

Report about bishop Peter Ball, finding collusion over 20 years, is ‘harrowing reading’

Collusion: Secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy

Senior figures in the Church of England colluded for a period of 20 years with a disgraced former bishop who sexually abused boys and men, a damning independent report has found.

The archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, said the report on the church’s handling of former bishop Peter Ball made “harrowing reading”.

“The church colluded and concealed rather than seeking to help those who were brave enough to come forward. This is inexcusable and shocking behaviour,” he said.

“To the survivors who were brave enough to share their story and bring Peter Ball to justice, I once again offer an unreserved apology. There are no excuses whatsoever for what took place and the systemic abuse of trust perpetrated by Peter Ball over decades.”

Two former archbishops of Canterbury, George Carey and Rowan Williams, apologised to the victims of Peter Ball after being criticised for their failures in relation to him.

Ball, the former bishop of both Gloucester and Lewes, was jailed in October 2015 for the grooming, sexual exploitation and abuse of 18 vulnerable young men aged 17-25 who had sought spiritual guidance from him between 1977 and 1992. He was released from prison in February after serving 16 months.

His trial heard that after Ball was first accused in 1993, a string of senior establishment figures – including Carey, an unidentified member of the royal family, cabinet ministers and a high court judge – came forward in his support, writing letters to the police and Crown Prosecution Service.

Ball was cautioned by police. He resigned his post as bishop and retired to a rented cottage on the Prince of Wales’s Duchy of Cornwall estate but continued to officiate in 17 public schools until 2007. A fresh investigation was opened in 2012 which led to his conviction.

One of Ball’s victims, Neil Todd – the first to come forward with allegations of abuse – attempted suicide three times before killing himself in 2012.

Welby ordered an independent review of the church’s handling of the case, chaired by Dame Moira Gibb, former chief executive of Camden council.

The report said Ball’s case was dealt with at the highest levels within the church. He “was seen by the church as the man in trouble who the church needed to help”.

Ball was portrayed as a victim, and the review found “little evidence of compassion for Neil Todd even though from the outset it was clear that he was a vulnerable young man who had come to harm”.

It added: “The church appears to have been most interested in protecting itself.”

In the foreword to her report, An Abuse of Faith, published on Thursday, Gibb said the serious sexual wrongdoing of Ball “is shocking in itself but is compounded by the failure of the church to respond appropriately to his misconduct, again over a period of many years”.

“Ball’s priority was to protect and promote himself and he maligned the abused. The church colluded. The church colluded with that rather than seeking to help those he had harmed, or assuring itself of the safety of others.”

The report added, “progress has been slow and continuing, faster improvement is still required”.

Gibb made 11 recommendations in her report, including improving support to survivors of clerical abuse and taking steps to “demonstrate the individual and collective accountability of bishops”.

Peter Hancock, the C of E’s lead safeguarding bishop, who received the report on behalf of the church, said it had failed Ball’s survivors. “Having read the report I am appalled and disturbed by its contents … As a church we colluded, we failed to act and protect those who came forward for help. There are no excuses. We accept all the recommendations and are working to action them.”

Rowan Williams: ‘It is clear I did not give adequate priority to sorting out the concerns and allegations surrounding Peter Ball.’

He added: “For the survivors, it may feel this is all too late.”

According to the report, Ball intimated “on many occasions, to Lord Carey and others, that he enjoys the status of confidant of the Prince of Wales” and “sought to exploit his contact with members of the royal family in order to bolster his position”.

 

The Royal family with the Archbishop Rowan Williams at Windsor Castle for wedding of Prince Charles and Camilla Stock Photo

The Royal family with the Archbishop Rowan Williams, beside protected padophile Bishop Ball, at Windsor Castle for wedding of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles

Goddard inquiry: Outrage as bishop Peter Ball jailed for sex offences given public funding for legal team

Bishop Ball with Prince Charles and Camilla. Ball gave the homily at the funeral of Camilla Parker Bowles’s father, Major Bruce Shand, in 2006

Image result for moira gibb and prince charles

Image result for moira gibb and prince charles

Moira Gibb is made a Dame CBE by the Prince Charles at Buckingham Palace back in 2012

However, Dame Moira Gibb’s report went on, it “found no evidence that the Prince of Wales or any other member of the royal family sought to intervene at any point in order to protect or promote Ball”.

Image result for bishop ball and camilla funeral and prince charles

Carey was criticised in the report, which said he “set the tone for the church’s response to Ball’s crimes and gave the steer which allowed Ball’s assertions that he was innocent to gain credence”.

Image result for bishop ball and prince charles

In a statement responding to the report, Carey said it made “uncomfortable reading” and he accepted its criticisms of him. “I apologise to the victims of Peter Ball. I believed Peter Ball’s protestations and gave too little credence to the vulnerable young men and boys behind those allegations.”

Carey said he regretted not putting Ball’s name on the Lambeth List – names of people whose suitability for ministry is under question – after he was cautioned.

Under the leadership of Williams, the church began reviewing past cases, a move which ultimately led to the criminal case against Ball being reopened, the report said. However, he was criticised as being “lamentably slow” in making change.

In a statement, Williams said: “Having read the report and reflected on its details, it is clear I did not give adequate priority to sorting out the concerns and allegations surrounding Peter Ball at the earliest opportunity. I recognise such a delay is likely to have increased the pressure and distress experienced by the survivors of his abuse and I am sincerely sorry for this.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/22/church-of-england-colluded-with-bishop-peter-ball-who-abused-boys-says-justin-welby?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other


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.

 

Queen Elizabeth welcomes Bramall just weeks after a dawn raid by 20 police officers involving sex abuse allegations

Queen backs Bramall:

Pride of place at Windsor Castle lunch for Lord Bramall after 92-year-old’s sex abuse case just weeks after a dawn raid by 20 police officers and Bramall questioned over the  allegations.

In 2014, a man reported to the police that, as a boy in the 1970s, he had been sexually assaulted by Edwin Bramall.

The man making the allegation had been under 16 at the time of Field Marshall Bramall‘s supposed assault on him.

 

… supposed to have organised the torture of a small boy in the middle of Salisbury Plain, and that I’d had a sex orgy on Remembrance Sunday, and another one at Dolphin Square [an apartment block near Westminster] with the usual suspects, including Jimmy Savile, who I’d never met.

Continued: It is thought the Queen, pictured with Lord Bramall in 1986, may seat him next to her at this year's gala, as a public sign of support for the D-Day veteran who she has know for more than 40 years

Prince Charles and the Queen, pictured with Lord Bramall in 1986

Lord Bramall attended Order of the Garter lunch just weeks after a dawn raid by 20 police officers.

He was driven in one of the Queen’s cars to her chapel and stayed for the service.

 image

Bramall and Heath

Lord Bramall – will also be welcomed at this year’s gala, one of the most prestigious events in the royal calendar.

It is understood the Queen may even offer him a place at her side as a public sign of support for Bramall whom she has known for more than four decades.

A source with close ties to the event revealed last night: ‘Interestingly, she was planning to do so whether or not the war hero had been cleared by that time.’

(Bramall has not been cleared – the police found insufficient evidence…not the same as being cleared)

‘The Queen can’t overtly support him but there are more subtle ways that she can express her feelings on the issue. Seating him next to her is a significant way of doing that.’

He was ‘warmly welcomed’ by the Queen and other members of the Royal Family including Prince Philip, Prince Charles and Prince William as well as Prince Andrew, Prince Edward and Princess Anne.

This was taken by many to be a sign of their support – even though he was publicly under investigation as part of Operation Midland, Scotland Yard’s historic VIP sex abuse unit.

This headline tells me the Police had incriminating stuff but were politically pressurised not to take action.

Mar 17 2017

Dame Alun Roberts‏ @ciabaudo

This is how the Establishment looks after itself!

 

Met Police payouts to Lords over child abuse claims

02 September 2017

The Met has not revealed the amount paid but it is reported to be £100,000.

http://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-41134863

Dame Alun Roberts‏ @ciabaudo

The Met should NOT have paid out to Bramall and Britain until @InquiryCSA have completed their investigations!

 


Harvey Proctor’s legal threat to child sex abuse probe: Former MP threatens High Court challenge if his ‘fantasist’ accuser is given special legal status

 

30 Aug 2017

  • Former Member of Parliament Harvey Proctor said he would bring a costly judicial review if anonymous man known only as ‘Nick’ is given privileged access
  • He said it would be wrong to make the suspected fantasist a ‘core participant’
  • Northumbria Police brought into prove claims ‘Nick’ invented lurid allegations

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4838448/amp/Harvey-Proctor-s-legal-threat-child-sex-abuse-probe.html

Laffin@Mirror again‏ @veniviedivici

Harvey-Proctor Pleaded Guilty to Gross Indecency in 1987 . . . Harvey Proctor (the spanker) tries to silence IICSA witness !

Dame Alun Roberts‏ @ciabaudo

This Spanker Proctor hasn’t furnished one iota of evidence that Nick is a fantasist, yet insists on dictating terms to @InquiryCSA

HRH Crafty Muvva‏ @craftymuvva

Proctor is in no position whatsoever to start making demands. He has a conviction for assaulting boys under AoC.

Do you think he will hire his long-term friend and former solicitor, the convict Jonathan Denby

Dame Alun Roberts‏ @ciabaudo

Have I missed something? Is Harvey Proctor now running @InquiryCSA ?

I thought he was impoverished? Who is giving him serious financial backing? And why?

Chris Stacey‏ @chrisstacey1

Why not let @InquiryCSA hear the submissions & stop interfering Mr Proctor. You’re not the one who decides what an Independent Inquiry does

LazerLight‏ @Lazer_Light

Spaniel Alves‏ @AlvesSpaniel
Stumbled across this comment on YouTube

Lord Bramall Chief of Defence staff at time Al-Yamamah slush fund set up, whilst Bandar aiding Bin Laden+Mujahadeen via Operation Cyclone


Britain bolstered the Mujahedeen with military training & arms under Thatcher. Here’s a Brit newspaper supporting an “anti-Soviet warrior”.

Ties Between the Bush Family and Osama bin Laden

06 April 2007

Questions Linger About Bushes and BCCI

The link between Hussein and Bin Laden was their banker, BCCI. But the link went beyond the dictator and the jihadist – it passed through Saudi Arabia and stretched all the way to George W. Bush and his father.

BCCI was the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, a dirty offshore bank that then-president Ronald Reagan’s Central Intelligence Agency used to run guns to Hussein, finance Osama bin Laden, move money in the illegal Iran-Contra operation and carry out other “agency” black ops. The Bushes also benefited privately; one of the bank’s largest Saudi investors helped bail out George W. Bush’s troubled oil investments.

BCCI was founded in 1972 by a Pakistani banker, Agha Hasan Abedi, with the support of Sheik Zayed bin Sultan al Nahyan, ruler of Abu Dhabi and head of the United Arab Emirates. Its corporate strategy was money laundering. It became the banker for drug and arms traffickers, corrupt officials, financial fraudsters, dictators and terrorists.

The CIA used BCCI Islamabad and other branches in Pakistan to funnel some of the two billion dollars that Washington sent to Osama bin Laden’s Mujahadeen to help fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. It moved the cash the Pakistani military and government officials skimmed from U.S. aid to the Mujahadeen. It also moved money as required by the Saudi intelligence services.

Also worth noting that BAE’s deal clincher on Al Yamanah, Sir Richard (Dick) Evans made honorary member NSPCC council
Honorary Member of the NSPCC Council. During his chairmanship of BAE Systems he was the most senior supporter of the BAE Systems Charity Challenge, a body which co-ordinates and supports charitable activities of its employees
Discovery77@discovery77_

was GSO 1 (Defence re-organization) on the staff of Mountbatten.

 


October 5 2016,

The Metropolitan Police has rejected calls for the full release of an independent review into its investigation of a VIP paedophile ring.

Assistant Commissioner Helen King said that it was her “strong expectation” that the retired judge’s review of Operation Midland would not be published in its entirety because it contains confidential material.

Public figures caught up in the inquiry believe that transparency is key to the Met learning lessons and that anything less would be a cover-up.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/met-will-not-release-review-of-vip-paedophiles-inquiry-33nlkjfbd?CMP=Spklr-_-Editorial-_-TWITTER-_-thetimes-_-20161005-_-News-_-608630924&linkId=29549835

Met will not release review of VIP paedophiles inquiry

Censored! Fury as Scotland Yard say they will redact report into bungled £2m VIP abuse inquiry

  • Metropolitan Police will only release bombshell report if it agrees with it
  • Officials said force ‘strongly expects’ it will not publish the full findings
  • It is expected to be ‘highly critical’ of VIP paedophile investigation
  • Victims of ‘false allegations’ could pursue legal action to reveal findings 

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

August 2006

Lord Bramall regarding Greville Janner: ‘We are very old friends”

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Queen Elizabeth and Greville Janner

Bramall in 1973

1966  Bramall and Janner’s Frank Beck both in Borneo and Bramall on  Lord Mountbatten’s staff from 1963.

Frank Beck 1959 -1969 Royal Marine

Emerging with an honourable discharge and campaign medals, Beck apparently turned down officer training and chose instead to train as a social worker. 

1969-1970 Beck Residential CCO Leicester PO Hostel

In 1991, after accusing LORD/MP Greville Janner of paedophilic behaviour with a teenager, Frank Beck was arrested and charged with the sexual and physical abuse of children in his care over a thirteen-year period.

At his trial Beck stated that: – “One child has been buggered and abused for two solid years by Greville Janner“.

……………………………………………………………………………..

Bramall’s Clubs

Famous members of Army & Navy Club:

Paedophile Peter Hayman (PIE member) and Edwin Bramall

Pie Member and paedophile Peter Hayman and wife Rosemary Eardley Blomefield (cousin to convicted paedophile, PIE member Charles Napier, John Whittingdale’s half-brother)

Image result for peter hayman diaries

………………………………………………………………………

“…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.”

Sir Peter Hayman, publicly branded a paedophile by Geoffrey Dickens MP…”still happily accepted at the Army and Navy Club…”

link

 

Famous members of Army & Navy Club :

Peter Hayman

Lord Robertson of Port Ellen , Secretary General of NATO 1999-2004
of Royal Victoria School visits/Dunblane, George Bush crony etc

Lord Bramall

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_and_Navy_Club

……………………………………………………………………………………………..

Image result for army navy club uk bramall

Lord Bramall was also in Traveller’s Club with Hayman, Henniker and Blunt

The name of Hayman features once or twice in Bramall’s visitors’ book, when both men were serving in Germany in the Seventies.

………………………………………………………………………….

The Dorchester Hotel:  1990 Bramall director and chairman

Bramall 2004  consultant to Dorchester Hotel / Director of its pension fund-

via Troy

The Dorchester Hotel – very much an “Establishment” Hotel

The security services worked out of Alistair McAlpine family’s Dorchester hotel during the war

Thatcher and her “Jolly Bagman” Alistair McAlpine

English television presenter Jimmy Savile (1926 - 2011) at the Dorchester Hotel in London, during a tribute luncheon in his honour, 19th June 1978.

Jimmy Savile  at the Dorchester Hotel in London, during a Variety Club tribute luncheon in his honour, 19th June 1978.

 photo dorchester_zpspi2kct4o.jpg

Queen Elizabeth II attended the Dorchester when she was a princess on the day prior to the announcement of her engagement to the Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh on 10 July 1947.

Prince Philip also held his stag night party at the hotel, which has been documented in a plaque.

Sir Philip Mountbatten, newly titled Duke of Edinburgh (front, centre) with fellow Royal Navy officers at his bachelor party at the Dorchester Hotel, London, 19th November 1947. Seated to the right of him is his uncle, Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma (1900 – 1979). Philip is to marry Princess Elizabeth (later Queen Elizabeth II) the following day.

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

 

 

Lord Mountbatten, known affectionately around the palace as the biggest queen in the royal family, had surrounded Charles with homosexuals during the period when he had been entrusted by Queen Elizabeth with her eldest son’s social upbringing.

https://books.google.com/books?id=x0pVQgvw9sUC&pg=PA53&lpg=PA53&dq=Lord+Mountbatten++was+said+to+have+surrounded+Charles+with+homo-sexuals&source=bl&ots=c7ob7p2zk9&sig=X8-acUxycvYSa1DN4DbtEkVokIE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwimlauwj97aAhWIY98KHbmPC4IQ6AEINzAB#v=onepage&q=Lord%20Mountbatten%20%20was%20said%20to%20have%20surrounded%20Charles%20with%20homo-sexuals&f=false

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

…………………………………………………………………………………………

Israeli Ambassador Shlomo Argov Argov, 52, was shot Thursday night as he left the swank Dorchester Hotel in Park Lane, where he had been attending a dinner for diplomats. Greville Janner, a family friend, said Argov has not regained consciousness.

Bramall’s business partners :

Sir Geoffrey Pattie and Bramall – both partners in Terrington Management.

Sir Geoffrey Pattie, a former defence minister defends vicious paedophile (William Pate)

William ‘Bill’ Pate’s specialism was the ligature round the neck all limbs tied style of rape where the victim risked being asphyxiated and having to be revived.

‘all-party group of MPs’  campaigned for the release of paedophile William Pate convicted of  horrific crimes against children, and despite doctors at Broadmoor believing him to be ‘a danger and not fit for release’, the campaign was successful. In 1984 he was convicted yet again for paedophilia and ‘sadistic homosexual practices’ after imprisoning a young boy for 12 hours and abusing him.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1979/feb/22/mental-health-act-1959-review

via Karmic Kick

*One of Bramall‘s business partners, Nigel Godden, was Sussex police detective at time of Vishal Mehrotra murder*

Nigel Godden  Police Officer, Sussex Police –September 1975 to November 1988 (13 years 3 months)

Part of Vishal’s body was found in woodland in West Sussex in February 1982, seven months after he disappeared.

Edwin Bramall lives at Bathurst House, Crondall 20 miles from Dursford Abbey Farm, where Vishal Mehrotra’s remains found.

Vishal Mehrotra‘s father told the Telegraph that “I was contacted by a young man who seemed to be in his 20s. He told me he believed Vishal may have been taken by paedophiles in the Elm Guest House near Barnes Common. He said there were very highly placed people there. He talked about judges and politicians who were abusing little boys,” he said.

 Image result for "ashley bramall"

Ashley Bramall Notable Abodes Sir Ashley Bramall Politician

Bramall‘s brother Ashley

Dolphin Square trustee and

a trustee and expert on housing law/Labour councillor/MP for Bexley

1975/76: (PIE affiliated) Albany Trust provides training for ILEA on ‘Adolescent Sexuality’

Ashley Bramall was in charge of ILEA then.

http://wp.me/p4F9av-wu

Jack Straw also chairman of governors for Pimlico Comp School with gov Ashley Bramall

Jack Straw  tried to pass legislation to make it illegal in Part 2 of the Children, Schools and Families Act 2010 or Children in Childrens Homes to speak out.

Jack Straw and Leon Brittan’s cousin – Sir Malcolm Rifkind – in latest ‘cash for access’ scandal

Rusbridger’s Ghost‏ @JamesRusbridger

: “Those Who Weren’t So Lucky”
– Sudden death. HMM – Sudden death. HMM
– Sudden death. HMM – Sudden death. HMM
– Sudden death. HMM – Life sentence. HMP

– Silenced – Speaking Out



Bramall and Associates:

Lady Trumpington, Lord Bramall, Lady Butler-Sloss and Lord Paul


http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/nov/08/1

http://mail.spinwatch.org/index.php/Geoffrey_Pattie

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1979/feb/22/mental-health-act-1959-review

William Pate – Hornsey

www.checkcompany.co.uk/director/674790/NIGEL-CHARLES-GODDEN

https://spotlightonabuse.wordpress.com/2014/07/27/1978-mps-successfully-campaign-for-the-release-of-sadistic-paedophile-william-pate/

www.independent.co.uk/news/masterpiece-demolition-row-1168078.html

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_London_Education_Authority

securingasia.com/Speakers-Bios.aspx?id=1

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/investigations/11411007/Jack-Straw-and-S

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/jack-straws-brother-gu...

 https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2013/12/21/it-is-legal-for-children-in-children-homes-to-speak-out-against-abuse/

MI5 and Queen’s officials protected royal family over Cambridge spy

Evidence that Anthony Blunt was a Soviet mole was played down, according to former deputy head of the Security Service

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/oct/26/queen-royal-family-cambridge-spy

 
 

Royal Family, Paedophilia, Satanism & Murder

Aug 29th, 2017

HUNDREDS & HUNDREDS OF ARTICLES & BLOGS

Has to be seen to be believed



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.

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

Kevin Spacey Is Being Investigated for 3 New Sexual Assault Allegations in London

3 July 2018

Three more accusers have reportedly come forward accusing former House of Cards star Kevin Spacey of sexual assault.

London’s Metropolitan Police are investigating the actor after men separately reported him for separate attacks that respectively occurred Westminster in 1996, in Lambeth in 2008 and in Gloucester in 2013, according to TMZ.

The Met does not identify people who are subject to investigations until charges have been filed and would not confirm Spacey is being investigated. However, a spokesperson confirmed that officers from the Child Abuse and Sexual Offenses Command are investigating six separate, male-on-male alleged sexual assaults that match the three dates published by TMZ, as well as three dates previously connected to Spacey.

Spacey’s attorney did not immediately return PEOPLE’s request for comment.

In October 2017, actor Anthony Rapp claimed Spacey had previously made inappropriate sexual advances toward him when he was just 14 years old.

In response, Spacey, now 58, issued a statement on Twitter addressing the allegations and coming out as gay.

“I have a lot of respect and admiration for Anthony Rapp as an actor. I’m beyond horrified to hear his story,” he said. “I honestly do not remember the encounter, it would have been over 30 years ago. But if I did behave as he describes, I owe him the sincerest apology for what would have been deeply inappropriate drunken behavior, and I am sorry for the feelings he describes having carried with him all these years.”

Several more people accused the actor of sexual harassment or assault since, and in April, one sexual assault case against the star reported to have taken place in October of 1992 in West Hollywood involving a male adult was turned over to the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office for further review.

In November, the actor entered a treatment facility. He has not been out in public since and has been written off the finale season of House of Cards.

On Tuesday, actor Guy Pearce hinted at an unpleasant experience while working with Spacey.

“Yeah… Tough one to talk about at the moment,” he said on Australian talk show host Andrew Denton’s Interview, according to Independent. “Amazing actor; incredible actor. Slightly difficult time with Kevin, yeah. He’s a handsy guy.”

https://people.com/tv/kevin-spacey-investigated-new-sexual-assault-allegations-london/

Image result for kevin spacey and prince charles

Prince Charles presents honorary knighthood to Kevin Spacey

Kevin, who is also an ambassador for the Prince of Wales’ charity The Prince’s Trust, looked delighted as he showed off his medal to photographers. Unlike formal knights like Paul McCartney and Elton John, Kevin does not carry the title “Sir” because he was born outside of the Commonwealth. Still, the honour carries a heavy weight of significance as it is only awarded to people who have made an incredible impact in their given fields.

 

Other honorary knights include U2’s Bono and Bob Geldof while Angelina Jolie has been made an honorary dame.

https://ca.hellomagazine.com/royalty/02016061627200/prince-charles-presents-honorary-knighthood-to-kevin-spacey

Kevin Spacey in paedophile Jeffrey epstein’s black book

Kevin Spacey with Bono and Trudeau

 

Michael Fawcett (pictured), who started as a junior footman, has been made the £95,000-a-year chief executive of The Prince’s Foundation

Prince Charles hands key £95,000 job heading charity empire to former valet Michael Fawcett who left his service after selling off royal gifts

  • Mr Fawcett made £95,000-a-year Chief Executive of The Prince’s Foundation
  • In 2003 he was forced out when an inquiry found he had sold off official gifts
  • Bullying complaints saw him resign in 1998 but he was reinstated within a week  

9 Mar 2018

Prince Charles’s controversial former valet, Michael Fawcett, was put in charge of his charity empire yesterday, sealing an astonishing rise to power.

Mr Fawcett, who started as a junior footman, has been made the £95,000-a-year chief executive of The Prince’s Foundation in a major re-organisation of Charles’s philanthropic work.

This has put him in charge of a multi- million-pound budget and gives him responsibility for all the future king’s public work on issues including architecture, heritage, culture and education.

Mr Fawcett’s appointment is all the more remarkable given that he has been forced to resign from the Prince’s service twice.

Last night, one royal source said Mr Fawcett’s rise to power seemed ‘unstoppable’, adding: ‘Many believe the Prince will retain and promote him to an even more senior role when he becomes King. They are simply inseparable.’

Mr Fawcett began his royal service in 1981 as a footman to the Queen, becoming sergeant footman and then Charles’ assistant valet, setting out his bespoke suits and shirts every morning at Kensington Palace.

He even had to squeeze toothpaste on his master’s toothbrush after the Prince broke his arm playing polo, and became so indispensable that Charles once said: ‘I can manage without just about anyone, except for Michael.’

But colleagues noted how he began to ape his boss both in the way he dressed and the way in which he threw his weight about.

When a number of the Prince’s staff complained to Charles about Mr Fawcett’s overbearing and bullying attitude in 1998, he resigned. Within a week, however, he was reinstated – and promoted.

Then, in 2003, he was forced out when an inquiry found he had sold off official gifts on Charles’s orders. He was accused of pocketing a percentage of the proceeds, but was cleared by an internal inquiry of any financial misconduct.

But the report painted a picture of him as a bully who accepted valuable gifts from outsiders.

Mr Fawcett began his royal service in 1981 as a footman to the Queen, becoming sergeant footman and then Charles’ assistant valet. Pictured: Mr Fawcett and Prince Charles in 1992

Mr Fawcett began his royal service in 1981 as a footman to the Queen, becoming sergeant footman and then Charles’ assistant valet. Pictured: Mr Fawcett and Prince Charles in 1992

After he quit, Charles rewarded him with £500,000 in severance pay – and retained his services as a freelance fixer and party planner.

Indeed, when Mr Fawcett set up the events firm Premier Mode, the Prince became his most lucrative client, relying on him to organise everything from Camilla’s birthday parties to lavish fundraisers.

Royal aides confirmed yesterday that while Premier Mode would not be allowed to cater for Prince’s Foundation events, it would continue to be paid to organise other receptions and dinners for Charles and other royals. Premier Mode received more than £270,000 from the Prince’s charities last year.

For the past five years, Mr Fawcett has also worked as chief of executive of Dumfries House Trust, a stately home rescued by the prince on behalf of the nation which has become the base for his charitable endeavours.

Aides said Mr Fawcett had helped to raise tens of millions of pounds and created 200 jobs at the house, its estate and the wider area in the role. He will not get a pay rise for his new appointment, which was made by the board of The Prince’s Foundation.

Foundation chairman Jayne-Anne Gadhia said Mr Fawcett had an ‘exemplary’ track record, adding: ‘We are thrilled to have Michael Fawcett as the new CEO of The Prince’s Foundation.

Following bullying complaints in 1998, Fawcett resigned. In 2003, he was forced out when an inquiry found he had sold off official gifts on Charles’s orders. He was accused of pocketing a percentage of the proceeds, but was cleared by an internal inquiry of any financial misconduct

Following bullying complaints in 1998, Fawcett resigned. In 2003, he was forced out when an inquiry found he had sold off official gifts on Charles’s orders. He was accused of pocketing a percentage of the proceeds, but was cleared by an internal inquiry of any financial misconduct

‘His achievements as CEO of Dumfries House include raising significant sums for good causes and creating employment for more than 150 people in the very challenging economic climate of East Ayrshire. We have great confidence that he will do a similarly excellent job for The Prince’s Foundation.’

In a video to the staff of his 21 charities and organisations yesterday, Charles stressed he was not ‘stepping back from my charitable work or downsizing in any way’.

But the move will be interpreted by some as helping to ensure a smooth transition to the throne for the Prince, who will be 70 in November. He said: ‘Now, as I approach something of a milestone in my own life, I have had a chance to reflect on how best to ensure my charities can continue to help those people and causes they were initially set up to serve, both now and for many years to come.’

He said an independent review was appointed to examine what changes were needed to let his organisations work ‘as efficiently as possible, whist also allowing me to use my own time with them to greatest effect’. The reorganisation will result in a few job losses, and savings said to be of hundreds of thousands of pounds.

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.

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


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.

Dr Richard Barker‏@swrb1

Peter Righton has since died. His partner, Richard Alston, who lived with him at Thornham Magna, has since been convicted and imprisoned for sexual offences against children.

This Year 35 years ago in 1983 Islington BC gave a grant of £3,233 to the Islington Suffolk Project which a decade later in 1993 gave haven to Peter Righton after his conviction

Why did Peter Righton hide out in Thornham Magna @ Islington Suffolk Project?

Cassandra Cogno‏ @CassandraCogno

If Lord Henniker was such a philanthropist why was he taking money off  islingtonBC for Islington Suffolk Project? Also as @ian_pace noted Richard Alston thanks Islington resident & PIE lobbyist Micky Burbidge in the foreword of Sir Colin Davis bio

Colin Davis - For The Record

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

 

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

Kevin Spacey apologizes for alleged sex assault with a minor

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/30/entertainment/kevin-spacey-allegations-anthony-rapp/index.html

Kevin Spacey was given a private tour of Buckingham Palace by Prince Andrew – and he even sat on the THRONE

The Duke of York personally escorted the actor into the heart of the Palace, including areas that are strictly off-limits to most visitors

12th November 2017

Senior royal sources claimed pictures of Spacey were taken inside the Queen’s hallowed throne room.

It is Buck House’s centrepiece, decked out with glittering chandeliers and silk wallpaper.

Last night sources close to the Duke said he had “no recollection” of Spacey being let inside.

Royal experts described the July party — whose guests included Andrew’s daughter Eugenie, 27 — as “tawdry”.

And it revived questions about the Duke’s choice of friendships with the rich and famous.

Both Spacey, 58, and Andrew were pals of paedophile US billionaire Jeffrey Epstein, who was jailed for trying to hire a 14-year-old girl as a prostitute.

Andrew, 57, quit as a UK trade envoy in 2011 after the friendship was revealed.

A royal source said: “Buckingham Palace is not a theme park to be used for private tours, it’s the heart of the  monarchy.

“The Duke’s decision to invite Spacey for a personal guided visit was not ideal then.

“Against the backdrop of the current allegations against Spacey, it looks even worse.”

Spacey was artistic director of London’s Old Vic theatre from 2004 to 2015 and became a darling of the British arts scene.

But last month Star Trek actor Anthony Rapp accused him of trying to seduce him at 14.

A Buckingham Palace spokesman said last night: “The Palace is home to a number of members of the Royal Family who, from time to time, host guests in a private capacity.”

Spacey’s lawyer did not respond to a request for comment.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4894752/sleazy-kevin-spacey-was-given-a-private-tour-of-buckingham-palace-by-prince-andrew/

Vicount Ian Kerr CGC‏ @IanKerr

 

Is that BBC DJ Fearne Cotton in the background ? Part of the BBC Billy Cotton dynasty ? Ex ‘girlfriend’ to the pop music paedophile Ian Watkins, currently serving 33 years ? Tut tut.

Image result for fearne cotton and ian watkins

Fearne Cotton – ex-boyfriend Ian Watkins pleads guilty to attempted rape on a baby

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2516831/Fearne-Cotton-seen-looking-subdued-ex-Ian-Watkins-pleads-guilty-attempted-baby-rape.html

Fearne Cotton Presents Her Collection

Fearne Cotton presents her AW14 Fashion Collection For Very.co.uk at The Groucho Club on July 30, 2014 in London, England.

Fearne Cotton’s great-uncle –

Bill Cotton Jr – close to paedophile Jimmy Savile

Call for an inquiry into the cover-up of child abuse on the Groucho Club’s members forum

The Groucho club’s management has refused to issue a full and transparent account of the child abuse network, the rapes and the sexual haressment and assult of an employee.

Many of the celebrities now facing allegations, arrested or convicted in the past few years for sexual depravity such as the infant rapist, Ian Watkins, Weinstein, Spacey, Glitter, Savile, Harris, Hall, Max Clifford and others have frequented the Groucho Club. Harvey Weinstein is a lifetime member and was invited to write a chapter in a book about the Groucho Club where he talks about his membership.

link


Jeffrey Epstein: the billionaire paedophile with links to Bill Clinton, Kevin Spacey, Robert Maxwell – and Prince Andrew

Many A-list celebrities broke off links with the businessman after he was conviction of having sex with an underage girl

Epstein reportedly flew Tucker and Spacey to Africa on his private jet as part of a charitable endeavour.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/who-is-jeffrey-epstein-a-study-of-the-man-linked-to-worlds-of-celebrity-politics-and-royalty-9954397.html


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

Jeffrey Epstein News Articles

Excerpts of Key Jeffrey Epstein News Articles in Media

Below are highly revealing excerpts of important Jeffrey Epstein news articles from the major media suggesting a cover-up. Links are provided to the full news articles for verification. If any link fails to function, read this webpage. These Jeffrey Epstein news articles are listed by order of importance. You can also explore the articles listed by order of the date of the news article or by the date posted. By choosing to educate ourselves and to spread the word, we can and will build a brighter future.

https://www.wanttoknow.info/jeffrey-epsteinnewsarticles

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


 

Image result for rita pink Nspcc

Rita Pink,  Ralph Bonner Pink’s wife, was the local chairperson for the NSPCC in 1960s

 

janellabooks‏ @janellabooks

Peter Ball was protected by the royal family, his friend Charles did so , by giving glowing comments, fact is, Ball is just a paedo.

Paedophiles in westminster, oh yes, I met them, three abused me, but I have been targeted by Police. Portsmouth Police.

Savile, Hancock, Bonner Pink. Emery Wallis, connected friends , also Ted Heath, and more. add Peter Ball into this mix, you have a flaming disgusting group, and Peter Prosser, another Paedo!

Mike Hancock

janellabooks‏ @janellabooks

Did you know ex MP Hancock worked for childrens TV at BBC, on same corridor as Savile. Hancock and Savile also friends, and Bonner Pink!

(From left) Drag queen Miss Jason, late Lib Dim Councillor & convicted paedophile Peter Hawksworth and Mike Hancock MP

MP & COUNCILLOR Mike Hancock used to keep quite esteemed company in the 1990’s, it would seem, as this picture shows him alongside late Lib Dem Portsmouth City Cllr Peter Hawksworth who was convicted in 2001 of sex attacks on “two vulnerable boys”,

janellabooks‏ @janellabooks
I am the “girl,” mentioned in report. he abused I was nine years old!

In Hampshire bent Judges , bent Police, who will make up crimes,and a CPS who will charge you, farce trials, whistleblowers beware!
they ignored that abuse, my fathers abuse Savil”s abuse on me, no one cared.
my late father also friends with Mike Hancock ex MP Portsmouth South the same man who used Portsmouth Police to try to shut me up!!!
Ralph Bonner Pink pictured with his wife
If you read “MY Father abused me, then put me in Broadmoor, from Sunday Mail you will see connections to other westminster paedos.
There are 4 examples of Mike Hancock getting Police to shut up his political opponents and whistleblowers, in just a few years.
Mine, Mr Packer”s, Mark Austin, Mr Cummings, Jez Baker”s.
My Interview on Sky, 2013, I was then charged with a crime, stopped from going on facebook, anything to shut me up now!
more here:

PEDO RING; ADOPTED GIRL; HAMPSHIRE; SAVILE; MI6

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 Duchess of Cornwall attends a reception to mark her 70th birthday at Clarence House in London. Picture: Tim P Whitby/PA Wire

Silver Star

THE Duchess of Cornwall has been named patron of a national charity that offers help to elderly people.

To coincide with her 70th birthday, she will take on the role at the Silver Line Helpline, a charity launched by Dame Esther Rantzen in November 2013.

Image result for "camilla" + "rantzen"

Dame Esther said: “We are absolutely thrilled to have Her Royal Highness’s support for our work and we would like to wish her a very happy 70th Birthday.

The Silver Line has already received nearly one and a half million calls from older people around the country.

Sophie Andrews, CEO, said: “To have the support of The Duchess of Cornwall for our crucial work will assist us enormously to spread awareness of the charity’s services, so that we can reach out to all the vulnerable older people who need us.”

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/15417291.Duchess_of_Cornwall_is_new_patron_of_Silver_Line_Helpline/

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

Andover rapist, Ronald Bennett, jail term cut by judges

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.

The court heard Bennett had taken advantage of two girls, satisfying his perverted sexual urges with a series of attacks.

However, it was only decades later that the offences came to light and he was prosecuted.

He was convicted at Winchester Crown Court last year of rape, indecency with a child and three indecent assaults.

But his barrister, Andrew Horsell, argued that the 16-year term – with an additional year of extended licence conditions after release – was too tough.

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.

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.

“There’s no suggestion his work in charity can make amends for what he has done,” said the barrister.

“But it is our submission that this court could use that as mitigation.

“We are dealing with a man who is 73, who is infirm. The sentence is arguably a whole life sentence. Even if he emerges from prison alive, his life is going to be indelibly affected.”

Giving judgment, Mr Justice Soole highlighted the devastating impact of Bennett’s offences.

“The reality is that sexual abuse is a life-changing event, and so it was here,” he said.

“However, when standing back and assessing the totality of the custodial term, we consider the total sentence was too long.

“We conclude that a total sentence of 14 – not 16 – years, plus the licence extension, was appropriate.”

Bennett’s sentence is now 14 years, plus one year of extended licence conditions.

The former security officer set up the Brave Hearts Children’s Charity Association in 1991 to raise money to help youngsters needing special assistance.

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/

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 Priscilla 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

Brent Council:  Led by Valerie Howarth


 

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

@darren_dazmav

 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/

 


Jimmy savile

BBC Children in Need charity

Children in Need stashes sum away in investment portfolio

 

Oct 14, 2014 – BBC Children in Need has kept £87.7million stashed away in its …. The scandal emerged after auditors carried out an investigation into the

Children in Need investment holdings rise to £94 million

Nov 12, 2015 – The BBC’s Children in Need is sitting on investments worth £94 million

BBC Pudsey bear designer Joanna Ball aka Joanna Lane and Harvey Proctor

http://www.network54.com/Forum/506171/thread/1389304839/2/Children+In+Need+-+Jimmy+Savile+And+Other+Celebrities

Husband and wife BBC Tony Wadsworth and Julie Mayer

‘RICHARD AND JUDY OF RADIO’

 Tony Wadsworth and Julie Mayer – BBC presenters guilty of indecently assaulting underage boys in woodland

The pair, dubbed the Richard and Judy of local radio, denied all offences but a jury found them guilty after a trial

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3111830/tony-wadsworth-julie-mayer-bbc-radio-sex-offences-trial/

 

Children and greed? Charity’s average salary hits £42,000

Oct 15, 2017 – Greg James (L) and Fearne Cotton support BBC Children in Need … of The Great Charity Scandal and founder of the Snouts In The Trough …

Evidence which suggests Save the Children censored criticism of energy firms, to avoid upsetting corporate partners….

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-25273024

Children In Need Insults Our Intelligence

Millions raised, billions slashed: just who should have donated this year?

Nov 21 2017

Peter Newell

Children’s rights activist Peter Newell jailed for abuse

Feb 16 2018

A children’s rights activist has been jailed for six years and eight months for sexually abusing a boy in the 1960s.

Peter Newell was the former co-ordinator of the Association for the Protection of All Children charity.

The 77-year-old from Wood Green, north London, was sentenced last month at Blackfriars Crown Court.

He admitted five indecent and serious sexual assaults on a child under 16.

The Association for the Protection of All Children, or Approach, says its objectives are to prevent cruelty and maltreatment of children and advance public knowledge in the UK and abroad.

It says its focus is on protecting children from “physical punishment and all other injurious… whether inside or outside the home”.

Approach operates through the Children Are Unbeatable! Alliance in the UK and the Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children.

There is no suggestion the south London-based charity knew about Newell’s behaviour, which occurred before he was employed there.

In 2015 Approach brought a complaint to Europe’s top human rights watchdog against France and six other EU countries over its failure to explicitly ban smacking children.

Newell was listed as Approach’s co-ordinator in its accounts on the Charity Commission website, although the most recent document says he stood down from the role in May 2016.

According to the accounts, for the five years from 2012 to 2016, Approach received hundreds of thousands of pounds in income from the NSPCC, Barnardo’s, Save the Children and Unicef, as well as other organisations abroad and a private donor.

The latest accounts for 2017 show Approach only received funding for its overseas activities, and the NSPCC and Barnardo’s were not listed as having made any contributions.

Beneficiaries not at risk

In a statement, the Metropolitan Police said Newell’s offences, which were first reported to it in March 2016, started when his victim was aged 12.

Police said they took place between 1965 and 1968 at a number of addresses and locations in south and east England, including London.

Newell pleaded guilty on 2 January to two charges of serious sexual assault between May 1966 and May 1968 and three charges of indecent assault committed between May 1965 and May 1968.

The Charity Commission said it was informed by Approach about the allegation against Newell in 2016.

It said: “We have been in correspondence with the charity on this matter since 2016 to ensure the charity’s safeguarding procedures are robust and that there are policies in place to protect its beneficiaries.

“The charity has confirmed that it has safeguarding policies and procedures in place which are being kept under review and that the charity and the trustees have very limited contact with children and that there is no suggestion that the charity’s beneficiaries were or are at risk.”

In 2007, Newell co-authored the Implementation Handbook for the Convention on the Rights of the Child for Unicef.

Unicef said it has “zero tolerance for sexual exploitation and abuse”.

A spokesperson added: “We are deeply shocked to hear of the arrest of Peter Newell. We had no knowledge of this crime when he worked as a Unicef consultant 10 years ago. Unicef has since set in place strong procedures to vet staff and consultants.”

Barnardo’s said it was “one of over a 100 organisations that supported the Alliance”.

“We have no evidence that anyone at Barnardo’s was aware of these terrible charges and we no longer fund the Alliance,” a spokesman said.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43075546

Paedophile Peter Newell involved with the Cleveland Report

BN 68 – Ministry of Health and successors: Inquiry into Child Abuse in Cleveland 1987: Report and Papers

BN 68/87 1987 Jan 01-1987 Dec 31 Day 69 – 10.12.1987: Eric Bryan [Brian] Roycroft (Newcastle Social Services); Peter Newell (Children’s Legal Centre)

Day 70 – 14.12.1987: Dr Ralph Underwager (Institute for Psychological Therapies, Minneapolis); Susan Amphlett (Parents Against Injustice)

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/browse/r/h/C10939116


 

Save the Children charity ‘spent £100,000 of donated funds to shut down media reporting of sexual harassment cases’

  • Sir Alan Parker told MPs legal fees had been needed to ‘protect’ its reputation
  • Former chairman stepped down from Save the Children amid sex abuse scandal 
  • The 61-year-old resigned, accused of cover-up of sexual harassment allegations 
  • Former chairman admitted charity failed to disclose details about Justin Forsyth

Who is Sir Alan Parker? The multi-millionaire PR guru who goes on beach holidays with the Camerons

But the PR guru has also holidayed with David Cameron. He and the former Tory leader were pictured hitting the beach together in South Africa. Samantha Cameron is an ambassador for Save the Children.

Sir Alan later lent one of his properties – a £16.8 million seven-bedroom townhouse in Holland Park – to Mr Cameron and his family after they left Downing Street.

Gordon Brown is godfather to Sir Alan’s son, William.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/680859/lord-kinnock-jo-cox

Save the Children ‘spent £100,000 to shut down sex story’

May 23 2018,

The Save the Children charity was accused yesterday of spending £100,000 on lawyers to try to “shut down” media reporting of sexual harassment cases involving senior staff.

Image result for Justin Forsyth and Brendan Cox.

Brendan Cox and Justin Forsyth

Image result for Justin Forsyth and Brendan Cox + sir alan parker

Alan Parker with Samantha Cameron and Justin Forsyth at the Save the Children’s Secret Winter Gala

Sir Alan Parker, the charity’s former chairman, was questioned by MPs on the international development select committee about the handling of investigations into claims against the former senior executives Justin Forsyth and Brendan Cox.

The Charity Commission is investigating the handling of cases in 2012 and 2015 and the organisation has stopped bidding for funds from the Department for International Development pending the outcome.

Sir Alan was asked why Save the Children had spent money donated by the public to hire the City law firm Harbottle & Lewis to send “aggressive” letters to media.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a88e7cb8-5dc4-11e8-881d-a1499f0c9519


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.


Jimmy Savile and Prince Charles’ very close friendship with sex abuse bishop Peter Ball

Church of England put reputation above abuse victims’ needs, inquiry finds

Report into Peter Ball case criticises ex-archbishop George Carey as well as Prince Charles

May 9 2019

The Church of England put its own reputation above the needs of victims of sexual abuse, with a serious failure of leadership by the former archbishop of Canterbury George Carey, in its handling of the case of a bishop who eventually went to prison, an official inquiry has concluded.

It also found that Prince Charles and other members of the establishment were misguided in their expressions of support of Peter Ball as he battled the accusations.

Ball, a former bishop of Lewes and Gloucester, was jailed in 2015, more than 20 years after allegations were made against him that were largely ignored or downplayed by the church. Ball accepted a police caution in 1993 and resigned as bishop but was allowed to continue officiating in the C of E.

Ball “seemed to relish contact with prominent and influential people”, a 250-page report published on Thursday by the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse (IICSA) said. He “sought to use his relationship with His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to further his campaign to return to unrestricted ministry”.

The prince and his private secretary spoke about Ball with the archbishop of Canterbury and arranged for the Duchy of Cornwall to buy a property to be rented by Ball after he resigned as a bishop.

The prince had been “misguided”, and his actions “could have been interpreted as expressions of support for Peter Ball and, given the Prince of Wales’s future role within the Church of England, had the potential to influence the actions of the church”, the report said.

It said Carey showed compassion to Ball that was not extended to the bishop’s victims, and displayed overt support for Ball’s innocence despite having no justification. Carey was archbishop of Canterbury from 1991 to 2002.

The church’s response to allegations of abuse by Ball and others in the diocese of Chichester was marked by secrecy, prevarication and avoidance of reporting alleged crimes, the report said.

Disclosures of abuse were handled inadequately by the church, and responses failed to display an appropriate level of urgency or appreciation of the seriousness of allegations made.

The report said “clericalism and tribalism” in the diocese of Chichester contributed to an abuse of power. During the inquiry’s public hearings last year, senior clergy squabbled about responsibility for failing to deal with past sexual abuse.

“The damaging consequence of this overriding allegiance to one’s own ‘tribe’ was that child protection was compromised,” the report said.

Perpetrators, about whom there were allegations or even convictions, were provided with unrestricted access to children and young people, the report found.

Apologies given by Justin Welby, the present archbishop of Canterbury, and other senior church figures over the C of E’s failures were “unconvincing”, it said.

Ball’s “charm, charisma and reputation” enabled him to avoid a criminal conviction until 2015, the report said. He was sentenced to 32 months in prison for sexual offences against 18 young men, and was released on licence after serving four months.

Alexis Jay, the inquiry’s chair, said: “For years, the diocese of Chichester failed victims of child sexual abuse by prioritising its own reputation above their welfare. Not only were disclosures of abuse handled inadequately by the church when they came to light, its response was marked by secrecy and a disregard for the seriousness of the abuse allegations.

“Peter Ball is one example of how a senior member of the clergy was able to sexually abuse vulnerable teenagers and young men for decades. The public support he received is reflective of the church’s culture at the time; a support that was rarely extended to his victims.”

The report recommended amending the 2003 Sexual Offences Act to include clergy among those defined as being in a position of trust. Such a move would criminalise sexual activity between clergy and a person aged between 16 and 18 over whom they exercise pastoral authority.

The inquiry held a hearing into the church’s handling of Ball’s case last July, taking evidence in person from two former archbishops of Canterbury – Carey and Rowan Williams – and Welby, the current incumbent. It also received a six-page written submission from the prince.

Carey told the inquiry that with 25 years of hindsight, he should not have been so generous in his views of Ball. He was “under great pressure” from Ball’s supporters to believe his protestations of innocence, he said.

William Chapman, representing survivors, told the inquiry: “The story of Peter Ball is the story of the establishment at work in modern times.”

Ball had been able to call upon the “willing assistance of members of the establishment. It included the heir to the throne, the archbishop and a senior member of the judiciary, to name only the most prominent,” Chapman said.

In his statement, the prince said he had been deceived about the true nature of Ball’s activities, but denied he had sought to influence the outcome of police investigations.

He wrote to Ball in February 1995, saying: “I wish I could do more. I feel so desperately strongly about the monstrous wrongs that have been done to you and the way you have been treated.”

Neil Todd, who made the first complaint against Ball to the police in 1992, killed himself in 2012 after several previous attempts.

A separate independent review of the Ball case, commissioned by the C of E and published last year, found evidence of collusion and a cover-up at the highest levels over a 20-year period.

Responding to the IICSA report, Peter Hancock, the bishop of Bath and Wells and the church’s lead bishop on safeguarding, said: “The report states that the Church of England should have been a place which protected all children and supported victims and survivors and the inquiry’s summary recognises that it failed to do this. It is absolutely right that the church at all levels should learn lessons from the issues raised in this report.”

He added that the church was committed to introducing changes to better protect children and vulnerable adults from abuse, and said it would consider the report’s conclusions and recommendations.

Richard Scorer, a specialist abuse lawyer at Slater and Gordon, who acts for a number of victims, said: “We may never know the true harm caused by Prince Charles’s intervention and support for Ball, but welcome the fact that the inquiry did not shy away from highlighting his role in this scandal.

“This report is a damning indictment of years of church cover-up, facilitation of child abuse and denigration and dismissal of victims. It rightly criticises senior church figures for serious failings, but it also exposes alarming cultural and structural problems in the Church of England.

“Yet again this shows the urgent need for an independent oversight of safeguarding and a mandatory reporting law to protect innocent and vulnerable people.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/may/09/church-of-england-put-reputation-above-abuse-victims-needs-inquiry-finds


Inquiry publishes report into the Diocese of Chichester and Peter Ball

9 May 2019

The report highlights the evidence heard by the Inquiry of appalling sexual abuse agains children in the Diocese of Chichester and the inadequate response of the Church in cases including Peter Ball.

The report considers how Peter Ball abused his position as Bishop of Gloucester to deliberately manipulate vulnerable teenagers and young men for his own sexual gratification, which included naked praying, masturbation and flagellation.

The report concludes that the Church’s response to claims of child sexual abuse was marked by secrecy, prevarication and avoidance of reporting alleged crimes. It states that the apology given by the Church remains unconvincing.

Professor Alexis Jay, Chair of the Inquiry, said:

“For years, the Diocese of Chichester failed victims and survivors of child sexual abuse by prioritising its own reputation above their welfare. Not only were disclosures of abuse handled inadequately by the Church when they came to light, its response was marked by secrecy and a disregard for the seriousness of abuse allegations.

“Peter Ball is one example of how a senior member of the clergy was able to sexually abuse vulnerable teenagers and young men for decades. The public support he received is reflective of the Church’s culture at the time; a support that was rarely extended to his victims.”

https://www.iicsa.org.uk/news/inquiry-publishes-report-diocese-chichester-and-peter-ball

Prince Charles refused to give formal statement to sex abuse inquiry

23 July 2018

Prince Charles refused to provide a formal witness statement to the child sex abuse inquiry, lawyers told a hearing on Monday.

The inquiry is currently hearing evidence relating to abuse carried out by Peter Ball, the former bishop of Lewes and of Gloucester, who knew the prince and exchanged letters with him.

Lawyers for the Prince of Wales used human rights law to object to block efforts to compel him to send a witness statement in the format used by the inquiry, instead sending a signed letter.

Fiona Scolding, lead counsel to the investigation into the Anglican church, said that his lawyers had previously argued that compelling him to give evidence was outside its powers.

Ball was convicted in 2015 of misconduct in public office after admitting abusing 18 teenagers and young men between the 1970s and 1990s.

His abuse had first been reported to the church in 1992, but police and CPS decided to give him a caution, and he was stripped of his role as bishop.

He was later allowed to officiate at events including at schools and confirmations.

Ms Scolding said there would have been “no doubt” about what the inquiry’s lawyers were asking for, as they sent a template for the document and used the word “statement” five times in one letter asking for the document to be signed.

“Despite lengthy correspondence, including assertions from the Prince’s solicitors that the Inquiry’s requests for evidence were outside its powers, i.e. ‘ultra vires’, there was never any suggestion at any point that the statement would be provided by letter,” she said.

The inquiry made several attempts to compel the lawyers to provide a witness statement with a formal statement of truth, which is essentially equivalent to swearing on oath.

The prince’s law firm Harbottle & Lewis also tried to argue that asking for a witness statement was “unfair”, and constituted a request for “intensely private and confidential” personal data.

Following “lengthy and extensive correspondence” an agreement was reached and the inquiry has decided to treat the letter, which ends with a sentence saying that its contents are true, as equivalent to a witness statement, she said.

The Prince will not give evidence in person but will have the statement read out at the hearing on Friday.

Earlier in the hearing Richard Scorer, of law firm Slater and Gordon, who is representing victims and survivors, expressed “surprise and concern” at the decision.

“This will inevitably raise concerns that the letter may be less than entirely frank about his relationship with Peter Ball and that it contains matters to which he s reluctant to attach a formal statement of truth,” he said.

The prince’s statement is expected to say that he was “not aware at the time of the significance or impact of the caution that Peter Ball had accepted”, including the fact that a caution involves admission of guilt.

On Tuesday the Inquiry is expected to hear evidence in person from former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey, who was found in an independent inquiry last year to be among senior church figures who “colluded” with Peter Ball.

Earlier in the day the inquiry heard that the church was dealing with a “turbulent” period in 1992, with Lord Carey raising the “constitutional crisis” caused by the Prince’s split with Diana, Princess of Wales, as well as the decision to allow women to be priests.

William Chapman, a lawyer from Switalskis, also representing victims and survivors, told the inquiry that there had been concern that gay clergymen would be outed by a full criminal investigation, ending their career in the church.

A Clarence House spokesman said: “The prince made it clear that he was willing to help the Inquiry and voluntarily answered all the questions asked in the form of ‘free flowing text’ as requested by the Inquiry itself.

“The final submission includes a statement of truth in common with all witness statements.  The legal exchanges, which have been extensively referred to by the Inquiry’s solicitors, were necessary to ensure clarity regarding both the structure, relevance and content of the statement.

“Once resolved, the Inquiry raised no objection to the format of the prince’s submission.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/07/23/prince-charles-refused-give-formal-statement-sex-abuse-inquiry/

 

Peter Ball (right) and his twin brother Michael Ball, pictured in 1989

Bishops were ‘perfect accomplices’ for ‘nauseating’ Peter Ball, IICSA hears

23 July 2018

PETER BALL found the “perfect cover” for his sex-offending in the Church of England, and the “perfect accomplices” in fellow bishops who turned a blind eye to his actions, the Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse (IICSA) has heard.

The details of the abuse carried out against vulnerable adults by Mr Ball, the disgraced former Bishop of Gloucester, during his ministry were heard on Monday at the start of a week-long hearing being conducted by IICSA, as part of its investigation into the extent to which the Anglican Church failed to protect children from child sex abuse.

The first hearing, in March, used the diocese of Chichester as a case study (News, 9 March). This week is to focus on the repeated failures of the police, Crown Prosecution Service, and the Church to identify, prevent, and prosecute abuse carried out by Ball over several decades, the lead counsel to the Anglican investigation, Fiona Scolding QC explained.

Ball received a three-year sentence in 2015, having admitted to a series of indecent assaults and the abuse of 18 young men aged 17-25 (News, 7 October 2015).

The offences included praying naked with vulnerable young people who had joined the monastic-community scheme Give a Year to God, which Ball had founded and run in Littlington, East Sussex, in the 1980s, when he was Bishop of Lewes.

Summarising the evidence received by the Inquiry, which included more than 100,000 documents, Ms Scolding said that Ball had admitted to being naked with, caressing, anointing, and physically assaulting young men, who would sleep in his house, sometimes in his bed, and with whom he would prayer naked, embrace, and masturbate. The victims were told that these practices were an expression of humiliation, penitence, and devotion to Christ.

One of his victims was the late Neil Todd, who was repeatedly abused during the 1980s and ’90s, and who later took his own life. His allegations brought about the police investigation in 1993, which resulted in Ball accepting a police caution, thereby admitting his guilt.

Ms Scolding also quoted several senior clerics who had held Ball in high esteem, most of whom had “flooded to defend him” after the police investigation and, latterly, his conviction. It had become clear in the Chichester hearing that abusers were required to “manipulate and charm” everyone around them, not just their victims, she said.

Among his defenders was Michael Ball, his twin brother and a former Bishop of Truro, who repeatedly urged Lambeth Palace to restore Peter Ball to ministry during the 2000s in what has been described in evidence as “manipulative” campaign which drew on connections with senior figures, including the Prince of Wales.

A lawyer representing six survivors of Ball, Richard Scorer QC, said that in the Church Ball had found the “perfect cover” for his offending.

“If a charlatan with an insatiable appetite for abuse wanted to secure a continuous supply of vulnerable young victims, there was no better way of achieving this than by founding a religious order not subject to any external supervision, and by making his victims participation in the abuse a religious duty obligated by their oath of absolute obedience.

“Not for the first time, theology and religious ritual provided the ideal mask for abuse, with the evil of what Peter Ball did being compounded by his nauseating claim that the abuse was spiritually uplifting.

“Most of all, however, Peter Ball found in his fellow bishops in the Church of England the perfect accomplices, prepared to turn a blind eye to his abuse over many decades, to collude in the lie that the abuse of Neil Todd was an uncharacteristic aberration, to cast doubt on his guilt, to smear his victims, and to rehabilitate him.”

Mr Scorer also criticised Prince Charles for not making efforts to check the position of Ball in 1993, after the bishop accepted a caution. “This extraordinary lack of curiosity looks like wilful blindness. . . He failed in that responsibility and therefore failed the victims.”

At the start of the hearing, the chair of the Inquiry, Professor Alexis Jay, expressed her disappointment at the “serious breach of confidence” after the content of a draft witness statement of Prince Charles was leaked to the press last week (News, 13 July).

The statement from Prince Charles had been disclosed to core participants on 9 July, Professor Jay said. “The panel is disappointed by the leaking of the draft statement. Deliberate leaking of information to the media before evidence is made public by the Inquiry not only undermines the ability of the Inquiry to get to the truth, but can also erode confidence in the Inquiry at all levels.”

https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2018/27-july/news/uk/bishops-were-perfect-accomplices-for-nauseating-peter-ball-iicsa-hears

transcript

Sir Robin Catford, the appointment secretary to the Prime Minister, recommended him to become Bishop of Gloucester in 1992

Bishop Peter Ball told those in the church after his arrest that he had four cabinet members who had offered him a bolthole from the press.

…to many people, the actions of 1992 and subsequently, smacked of a coverup: that those in high places had acted to hush up the offending…

Image result for "eric Kemp" + "peter ball"

Bishop Eric Kemp, who was the diocesan bishop at that time, allowed Peter Ball to make decisions about appointments to parishes and also to grant permission to officiate, so he had significant power over who were to become the vicars of the future…

Peter Ball wasa governor of both Lancing College but also the wider Woodard Group, which is a group of Anglican boarding schools

Click to access 23%20July%202018%20Anglican%20Public%20Hearing%20Transcript.pdf

Sir Robin Catford, was Secretary for Appointments to the prime minister from 1982 to 1993.

Sir Robin Catford

Sir Robin Catford was Secretary for Appointments to the prime minister from 1982 to 1993.

A civil servant rather than a political appointee, Catford advised Margaret Thatcher, and later John Major, on Crown appointments – those made in the name of the Queen on the recommendation of the prime minister. These were, principally, senior figures in the Church of England (archbishops, bishops and deans); Lords Lieutenant; and certain senior academic posts, such as regius professorships.

He was appointed CBE in 1990 and KCVO in 1993.

In retirement Catford lived at Chichester, West Sussex, where he had been a member of the Diocesan Synod from 1979 to 1984 and from 1988 to 1990; he remained a devoted and active member of the cathedral congregation.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/2107567/Sir-Robin-Catford.html

When he retired, he had served in that post for 11 years, first under Margaret Thatcher, and then John Major

He took very seriously the authority of the Crown and the Prime Minister in making church appointments at all levels, but especially those of diocesan bishops. He certainly recognised that Church and state were in a partnership, but regarded the state as the senior partner. For instance, while the Callaghan settlement in 1975 gave the Church a decisive voice in naming diocesan bishops, the state retained the decisive voice, and Robin Catford safeguarded that position.

https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2008/11-july/gazette/obituary-sir-robin-catford

Bishop Peter Ball was on close terms with the Queen Mother and Princess Margaret

li-620-queen-stpauls-rtr2yz

Even the Queen supported him after his police caution. In 1994, when she was distributing Royal Maundy money in Truro, Ball was there with his brother, who was Truro’s bishop.

After lunch in the Chapter House, the Queen, who had been on the high table with local dignitaries, went across to Ball, held out her hand and said in the clearest of voices: ‘My love and encouragement, Bishop.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3265742/Jimmy-Savile-Prince-Charles-close-friendship-sex-abuse-bishop-Peter-Ball.html

The Economist – Volume 314, Issues 7644-7648 – Page 60

1990 – ‎Snippet view – ‎More editions

But Mrs Thatcher’s patronage secretary, Mr Robin Catford, is there to fight her corner — and she will choose a layman to chair this … The Queen was an enthusiast for the appointment of Peter Ball to the bishopric of Norwich, but the episcopal …


Norma Moore‏ @Mousehole1

According to evidence given to iiCSA today, Peter Ball would spend an hour each day praying in the nude… next to an open window. He also watched young clergy take cold showers each morning.
InquiryCSA@InquiryCSA
Rev’d Graham Sawyer: Let me make this clear – the sexual abuse that I suffered at the hands of Peter Ball, pales into insignificance when compared to the cruel/sadistic nature metered out to me

Esther Baker‏ @Esther9982

I do wonder if the lawyers acting for the CP’s ought to challenge the lawyers running the on the basis that they are now accepting the accused (and their reps) words rather than truth seeking as their powers allow?

Recent examples of this would be a) allowing royalty to not give pertinent evidence because he’s royalty. B) inaccurately issuing a statement that I am under investigation for PCJ, and only removing it at the insistence of the police – because an ex-MP said it so it must be true

Victims of paedophile bishop Peter Ball, left, have previously demanded that correspondence between himself and Prince Charles, right, is made public (pictured together in 1992)

Dame Alun Roberts‏ @ciabaudo

If he didn’t know, he’s hardly fit to be King …

Richard Scorer: My clients accept the PoW has many interactions with Church of England clergy. However our clients do not accept that he claims he was not aware that a caution means an acceptance of guilt.

Scorer claims senior leaders in the Church knew of Peter Ball’s offending but Lambeth Palace did not hand over letters to police:

Mr William Chapman: There’s a reluctance to trust the secular authorities to handle the matter and a willingness to forgive and reintegrate Peter Ball, no matter what he’d done

Elizabeth Hall, Nat Safeguarding Advisor, recommending a further review of Peter Ball information which should involve trying to find all files/documents

Both Michael Ball and brother Peter Ball were not shy about using the name of the Prince of Wales to seek to influence others. Bishop Michael Ball wrote to Lord Carey in Dec 1992 saying that his brother was receiving support from 2 Cabinet Ministers and Prince Charles Peter Ball often mention their friendship.

On 8 March 1993 Peter Ball received a caution for one count of gross indecency against Neil Todd. He resigned immediately. Peter Ball alleged to the Church of England shortly that he either did not wish to resign, and accepted a caution to avoid a trial.

“This Inquiry has been provided with details of allegations made by a total of 32 individuals. These all relate to an alleged abuse of power by Peter Ball for the purposes of his sexual gratification.”

The former Bishop of Lewes, Peter Ball was convicted of two offences of indecent assault, and an offence of misconduct

Peter Ball admitted when pleading guilty that he received sexual gratification from the deliberate manipulation of vulnerable young men, that the contact was consistent with grooming and that he abused his position as a Bishop in the Church of England

 In January 1996, Ball was permitted by Archbishop Carey to preach at a particular public school and, to conduct confirmations at other specific schools later on in that year

(1) Why he was permitted to return to ministry in this fashion? (2) Why did no-one think to carry out some kind of risk assessment? (3) Whether or not senior clergy simply thought that Peter Ball’s pleas of innocence should be believed?

 “I really appreciate your sympathetic understanding in preventing a scandal with a trial which would have affected the Royal family and establishments in this crucial time of turmoil within the Church of England.” Bishop Kemp comments on a 1990s investigation into Peter Ball
A risk assessment carried out by the Church in 2009 identified that Peter Ball could be identified as a sexual predator given the length and scale of his offending

Watch:


 

Prince Charles gives evidence to inquiry into Peter Ball

The Prince of Wales says he was aware that Peter Ball, who lived in Aller, near Langport, had been given a police caution, but claims he did not realise it amounted to an admission of guilt.

Details of Prince Charles’s relationship with Ball will be revealed at an inquiry into the case on Friday.

The next in line to the throne had “decades of correspondence” with Ball and occasionally sent him “small gifts of money”, according to the draft copy of his statement to the inquiry, The Times has reported.

The statement will add that Ball confided in him in 2009 that he had been involved in an “indiscretion” years previously, which he blamed on a person with a grudge.

http://www.somersetcountygazette.co.uk/news/16371173.prince-charles-gives-evidence-to-peter-ball-inquiry/

 

Prince Charles to tell child abuse inquiry he sent ‘small gifts of money’ to bishop friend but was ‘certainly not aware’ he was a paedophile despite clergyman accepting caution for gross indecency

  • A written statement from Prince Charles will be read out at the inquiry next week
  • Ball, who has boasted of being a confidant of Charles, was jailed in October 2015
  • Heir to the throne says he sent  him ‘small gifts and money’ after being deceived
  • Former Bishop of Lewes had sexually abused 18 young men over three decades
  • He was released in February last year after serving half his sentence behind bars

20 July 2018

The Prince of Wales sent a disgraced former bishop ‘small gifts and money’ – but didn’t know he was a paedophile, the heir to the throne has told an inquiry.

The heir to the throne remained friends with Peter Ball, now 86, because he did not understand that the clergyman’s caution relating to gross indecency was an admission of guilt, it was reported today.

Charles was in contact with Bishop Peter Ball for more than 20 years until he was convicted in 2015 for sexual abuse offences.

Ball resigned in 1993 after a police investigation into abuse of boys and young men and accepted a caution over it – but told the Prince it was because someone with a grudge was ‘persecuting’ him.

Charles’ written statement submitted to the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, seen by the Times, is due to be made public next week.

He is quoted as saying: ‘I was certainly not aware at the time of of the significance or impact of the caution. Whilst I note that Peter Ball mentioned the word in a letter to me in October 2009, I was not aware until recently that a caution in fact carries an admission of guilt’.

The letter, which is reportedly a draft, was submitted voluntarily and said the prince had ‘decades of correspondence’ with the bishop and that he sent ‘small gifts of money, as I do for many people in need’.

Charles is also said to have said he has ‘deep personal regret’ that Ball, who was  finally jailed for 32 months in October 2015, had deceived him and hidden his sexual abuse of 18 young men over a period of 30 years.

He was released in February last year after serving half his sentence behind bars.

Ball often spoke of his links with the Royal family and was invited to give communion at the Prince’s home in Highgrove.

He also spoke at the Duchess of Cornwall’s father Bruce Shand’s funeral in 2006 and lived on Duchy of Cornwall land from 1997 to 2011.

The inquiry is examining how the Church of England handled sex abuse allegations and has previously focused on the Diocese of Chichester – where Ball was the former Bishop of Gloucester and several other convicted paedophile priests once officiated.

The week-long case study beginning on Monday will investigate ‘whether there were inappropriate attempts by people of prominence to interfere in the criminal justice process after he was first accused of child sexual offences’.

Ball was allowed to continue giving church services after he accepted a police caution for a single offence in March 1993.

The secretive deal meant he was not exposed until a fresh police investigation uncovered the extent of his abuse 22 years later.

Ball’s court case heard that a member of the royal family – who has never been named – was among a host of public figures who supported him when he avoided charges in 1993.

He boasted of his links to royalty and was said to be a confidant of the Prince of Wales, with an independent review finding he used his connections to boost his position.

Prince Charles’s evidence, which will be read out on the final day of next week’s inquiry, is being met with skepticism by some close to the case.

One source told The Times they were concerned there would be no chance for the Prince to be cross-examined on his evidence.

They told the newspaper: ‘It’s very convenient that Charles’s statement is to be read at the last session of the Ball inquiry.

‘He was either staggeringly naive about him or he was part of the influential that supported him.’

Previously Clarence House reportedly said it did not believe the correspondence between Ball and the future king had any bearing on the issues before the inquiry but did not object to them being shared for consideration.

Ball’s sentence came 22 years after the abuse allegation first surfaced. He eventually admitted misconduct in a public office and two counts of indecent assault.

The court heard that Ball convinced some of his victims to strip naked to pray and even suggested they submit to beatings between 1977 and 1992.

The first of his victims to come forward took his own life in 2012 after hearing that Sussex Police had reopened the case.

Former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey – who will also give evidence next week – resigned as honorary assistant bishop in the Diocese of Oxford after an inquiry found he delayed a ‘proper investigation’ into Ball’s crimes for two decades by failing to pass information to police.

Reverend Graham Sawyer, who was abused by Ball as a teenager and waived his right to anonymity, is also among those due to give evidence next week.

Cleric rented house on the Duchy estate owned by ‘friend’ Charles

Disgraced bishop Peter Ball reneged on a deal to move abroad to escape prosecution in 1993, and instead rented a house from the estate of his ‘friend’ Prince Charles.

The cleric told police he would live with nuns in France in return for receiving the caution as part of an alleged agreement with a ‘sympathetic’ detective who wanted to help the church avoid the scandal of a criminal trial. It meant Ball was not prosecuted until October 2015.

After resigning as bishop in 1993, Ball moved to Manor Lodge, in the Somerset village of Aller, a property owned by the Duchy of Cornwall, the private estate headed by Charles. He later publicly praised the ‘wonderfully kind’ Charles who he said ‘allowed me to have a duchy house’.

The detail has come to light from a report written by Brian Tyler, a former police officer-turned-priest who Ball hired to work as a private detective.

In it, he wrote: ‘It is needless to point out that having secured the caution on one offence and knowing the file has been closed, he has ‘welshed’ in his promise to me, and the police, to leave the country.’

Royal sources at the time made clear that Charles has no involvement in the commercial decisions on who is renting Duchy properties.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5972855/Prince-Charles-continued-close-friendship-paedophile-priest-Peter-Ball-tells-enquiry.html

 

Image result for "peter ball" + "prince charles"

Peter Ball abuse inquiry requests statement from Prince Charles

Wed 06 Jun 2018

By Press Association

The Prince of Wales has been asked to give a witness statement to a public inquiry about a paedophile bishop who was jailed after abusing young men.

Peter Ball was sentenced to 32 months in 2015 for a string of offences between the 1970s and 1990s, and the handling of allegations against him is now being examined by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA).

At a hearing on Wednesday, counsel to the inquiry Fiona Scolding QC said that statements had been requested from the prince and his principal private secretary.

According to a transcript posted on the inquiry website, she said: “We have also requested a witness statement from both His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and his principal private secretary.

“The Prince’s solicitors have indicated their client’s willingness to assist us and have raised a number of important issues for us to consider.

“This has led to lengthy and complex discussions and we are currently considering the latest points they have raised. We hope to be able to provide an update to core participants on this in the next couple of weeks.”

Charles had exchanged a series of letters with Ball, the former Bishop of Gloucester, whose diocese covers Highgrove, the prince’s country home.

A spokesman for the prince told the Daily Mail last year that the correspondence contained nothing of relevance to the clergyman’s offending.

Lawyer Richard Scorer from Slater and Gordon, who is representing complainants at the IICSA, said: “It is imperative that the inquiry leaves no stone unturned in its efforts to establish how Peter Ball was able to evade justice for two decades.

“If this means calling Prince Charles and other prominent establishment figures as witnesses then the inquiry should do so without fear or favour.”

https://www.premier.org.uk/News/UK/Peter-Ball-abuse-inquiry-requests-statement-from-Prince-Charles

 

Peter Ball… was propelled into the royal circle by two people… One was prebendary Willie Booth, a former chaplain at Westminster School, who’d taken over from Canon Anthony Caesar, sub dean of the Chapel Royal and the Queen’s domestic chaplain.

The other was Jimmy Savile.

Ball’s royal friendships were not confined to the Prince of Wales.

Ball was on close terms with the Queen Mother and Princess Margaret, and was invited to preach at Sandringham.

Even the Queen supported him after his police caution. In 1994, when she was distributing Royal Maundy money in Truro, Ball was there with his brother, who was Truro’s bishop.

After lunch in the Chapter House, the Queen, who had been on the high table with local dignitaries, went across to Ball, held out her hand and said in the clearest of voices: ‘My love and encouragement, Bishop.’

Charles, meanwhile, must surely have been advised to keep Ball at arm’s length — just as he had been advised to distance himself from Jimmy Savile.

The Prince did receive letters from the public complaining about Savile,’ says a senior aide.

From 2001
Media-sawy Jimmy Savile explains why rumours of necrophilia, paedophilia and homosexuality don’t bother him

health chiefs were said to have been ‘gobsmacked’

to arrive for a meeting at Highgrove to find Savile at the table. He apparently threatened the officials after the Prince left, saying making them unhappy could cost the officials a knighthood.

Savile was a guest at Charles’s 40th birthday party at Buckingham Palace in 1988, and at his 50th. When Charles received a gift of a box of Cohiba cigars from Fidel Castro, he passed them on to Savile.

Later still, on Savile’s 80th birthday, Charles despatched another box of cigars, together with a pair of gold cufflinks and a note that bizarrely read: ‘Nobody will ever know what you have done for this country Jimmy. This is to go some way in thanking you for that.’

 
29 Nov 1998
THE mother of a trainee monk who was sexually-abused by a Bishop has slammed Prince Charles for giving refuge to the perverted priest.

Angry Mary Todd said: “This man ruined my son’s life. He is pure evil, a beast, and he’s hiding behind God.”

Despite being an old friend of Prince Charles, Princess Diana banned him from visiting their Highgrove home after the 1993 sex scandal. 

 Last night Mary, from Nottingham, said: “This is quite unbelievable. I don’t know what Prince Charles thinks he is doing.

“The man ruined my son’s life and should have been locked away.

“Instead he now lives in luxury on one of the finest estates in the country.

“I don’t feel Ball was ever properly punished – but the fact that the prince has given sanctuary to this pervert is staggering.

The People

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Charles+row+over+pervert+Bishop’s+home.-a060633678

Bishop Peter Ball – was a founder member of the Thatcher Foundation set up by the former prime minister.

While Bishop Suffragan of Lewes, he had come to public notice through his close friendship with Ian Gow

The Guardian Dec 16 1992

ball-founding-member-of-the-thatcher-foundation-set-up-by-the-former-prime-minister

The Margaret Thatcher Foundation was formed in 1991

 

PRINCE reception 10 Stock Photo

Britain’s Prince of Wales talks with boxer Frank Bruno (left) and entertainer Sir Jimmy Savile during a reception at London’s Buckingham Palace Friday November 13, 1998, The reception, hosted by Queen Elizabeth, on the eve of the Prince’s 50th birthday.

link

Truthseeker‏ @thewakeupcall09

‘THE QUEEN FIXED IT FOR JIM’


 


1981

Dear Jimmy, I was enormously touched…Yours most sincerely,

Charles

Jimmy Savile’s address book:  Prince Charles, Jonathan King, Edwina Currie,

Screen Shot 2015-10-10 at 15.26.31

 

 

 

 

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

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

Rev Peter Ball raising money for water in Ethiopian town Morsuto
Dec 2 1984

The Observer

London, Greater London, England

Sunday, September 2, 1984 – 1
Andreas Baader @stop1984

Royal family member was investigated as part of paedophile ring before cover-up, ex-cop says

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

Sex abuse bishop Peter Ball and brother seek Catholic switch

06 December 2017

A former bishop jailed for sex offences and his twin brother have said they are looking to join the Catholic Church to “live and worship in anonymity”.

Peter Ball, who is now 85, was jailed for 32 months in October 2015 for offences against 18 teenagers and men.

The former Bishop of Lewes and of Gloucester carried out the abuse between the 1970s and 1990s.

Ball’s identical twin and former bishop Michael Ball said in an email events had “wearied and reduced us”.

Email from Michael Ball

In the email, mistakenly sent from Michael Ball to BBC South East’s Colin Campbell among others, the brothers said having been “battered by the Church” they would be looking to join the Roman Catholic Church.

They said they would like to “end our days in a church where we can live and worship in anonymity and without constant fear”.

The BBC contacted Michael Ball about the email and he said a move to the Catholic Church was “a possibility”.

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Arundel and Brighton said in a statement: “We confirm that Peter Ball has been in contact with the Roman Catholic Diocese of Clifton, in which diocese he now lives, expressing an interest in becoming a member of the Catholic Church.

“This matter is subject to discussions between Clifton Diocese and the statutory authorities, who are the lead with regards to Peter Ball’s risk management in the community.”

‘Manipulative’ campaign

An independent review of Ball’s case by Dame Moira Gibb criticised the former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey.

Dame Moira said he had received seven letters from families and individuals following the arrest and cautioning of Ball in 1992 for gross indecency – when he stood down as Bishop of Gloucester – but failed to pass six of them to the police.

Lord Carey had also failed to put Ball on the the “Lambeth List” which names clergymen whose suitability for ministry had been questioned.

Dame Moira also heard Bishop Michael Ball allowed his brother to attend functions in his place, even after his resignation, and on one occasion Peter Ball had introduced himself as his brother.

In 1994 Michael Ball campaigned to Lord Carey to return his brother to the ministry, with one bishop calling the brothers’ activities “manipulative”, Dame Moira reported .

Between 1995 and 1997, with Lord Carey’s backing. Peter Ball returned to church ministry, eventually undertaking duties such as confirmations.

After a series of investigations Balls’ ministry ceased in 2011, Dame Moira reported.

He was released from jail in February after serving 16 months.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-42257380

Former Bishop of Truro Michael Ball and his paedophile ex-bishop twin Peter want to become Catholics so they can live in anonymity

8 DEC 2017

Peter Ball, the former Bishop of Lewes and Gloucester who boasted of links to royalty, has asked to join the Roman Catholic Diocese of Clifton in Bristol, a spokesman for the Church confirmed.

His identical twin brother Michael Ball, who was Bishop of Truro from 1990 to 1997, also sent an email to friends telling them of the idea.

From the email…”The events of the last years and rightly or wrongly the battering by the Church have totally wearied and reduced us.

“We will probably be joining the Roman Catholic Church soon.

…Michael Ball’s complaint of taking a “battering” from the Church was “flippant” and it was “disgusting” the pair were acting as though they were the victims.

A spokesman for the Roman Catholic diocese of Arundel and Brighton said: “We confirm that Peter Ball has been in contact with the Roman Catholic diocese of Clifton, in which diocese he now lives, expressing an interest in becoming a member of the Catholic Church.

“This matter is subject to discussions between Clifton diocese and the statutory authorities, who are the lead with regards to Peter Ball’s risk management in the community.

Disgraced paedophile former bishop Peter Ball with close friend Prince Charles

Disgraced paedophile former bishop Peter Ball with close friend Prince Charles

Peter Ball’s sentence came 22 years after the abuse first surfaced. He eventually admitted misconduct in a public office and two counts of indecent assault.

The court heard how Peter Ball had convinced some of his victims to strip naked to pray and even suggested they submit to beatings between 1977 and 1992.

The first of his victims to come forward took his own life in 2012 after hearing Sussex Police had reopened the case.

Former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey resigned as honorary assistant bishop in the Diocese of Oxford after the public inquiry into child sex abuse last year heard he delayed a “proper investigation” into Peter Ball’s crimes for two decades by failing to pass information to police.

There were fears Peter Ball may have taken the place of his twin, who was Bishop of Truro in the Nineties, and therefore duped congregations in other parts of the UK.

The Diocese of Truro was understood to be looking into the evidence that Peter Ball conducted services in Cornwall.

Now it has emerged the Archbishop of Canterbury’s headquarters received at least six letters from other alleged victims detailing “potentially criminal” and “totally inappropriate behaviour” by Peter Ball in the early 1990s but did not pass them on to police until years later.

“The Church appears to have resorted to staggering levels of deceit in order to prevent the true extent of Ball’s offending coming to light,” said Richard Scorer, a solicitor who is representing victims of Peter Ball.

Details of the letters, all sent to the Church between December 1992 and February 1993, reveal that Peter Ball encouraged victims to pray naked, perform sex acts in front of him and share his bed.

Anglican officials who reviewed the letters in 2009 suggested that, had such evidence been given to detectives in 1993, Peter Ball may have been convicted of serious sexual offences rather than merely cautioned.

But instead of being made public, the letters were kept in confidential files at Lambeth Palace.

It was not until 2012, after several internal inquiries, that the Church finally released documents to police.

An independent review is also currently under way into the way the Church of England responded to the case involving Peter Ball.

https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/former-bishop-truro-michael-ball-895920#ICID=sharebar_twitter

Church knew about allegations before Cornish preacher went on to abuse boys, investigation reveals

The diocese failed to investigate the accusations against Jeremy Dowling

25 MAY 2018

Dowling became such an important and valued worker and volunteer during a 40-year association with the diocese that a special service of thanks was given in his honour when he retired in 2009

A leading figure in the Church of England in Cornwall went on to commit child sex offences for several years after allegations about his behaviour with young boys were raised with the diocese and not acted upon, an official investigation has revealed.

The diocese failed to investigate the accusations against Jeremy Dowling, a lay preacher, allowing him to rise to influential positions including communications officer to the bishop, an independent review for the church concludes.

The report, released today, says there were “historic failings” within the diocese in dealing with the allegations, first raised in 1972. There was “ongoing knowledge” of the situation among senior figures in the diocese “well into the 1980s” with references to “a big fat file” on Dowling.

After the first allegations of Dowling abusing boys at a North Cornwall school where he taught were dropped by the Director of Public Prosecutions – because of a lack of corroborative evidence – the then Bishop of Truro Maurice Key wrote: “I suppose the problem will now be to find him some other work”.

Dowling became such an important and valued worker and volunteer during a 40-year association with the diocese that a special service of thanks was given in his honour when he retired in 2009.

In 2015 he was jailed for seven years after pleading guilty at Truro Crown Court to 15 charges of sexually abusing boys under 16.

In 2016 he was jailed for an additional eight years after being found guilty of six further charges of indecently assaulting a boy between 1973 and 1977. Those offences happened when he befriended the boy while a lay preacher at a church in Budehaven – and took place after concerns were first raised with the diocese.

The report’s author said the lack of action by the diocese allowed Dowling to gain credibility and authority.

“Because they didn’t take it any further it enabled Jeremy Dowling to reach a position where he made up his own rules, and his position within the church lent him credibility and authority,” said Dr Andy Thompson, an academic, magistrate and member of the Diocesan Council.

The Bishop of St Germans, Rt Revd Dr Chris Goldsmith, apologised for the lack of action and the suffering that resulted.

https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/church-knew-allegations-before-cornish-1606727#ICID=sharebar_twitter

Bishop who ignored warnings about preacher Jeremy Dowling who went on to abuse boys is identical twin of paedophile ex-bishop

Former Bishop of Truro Michael Ball’s twin Peter Ball, the former Bishop of Lewes and Gloucester, was convicted of abusing young boys

25 May 2018

One of the bishops who ignored warnings about a preacher who went on to sexaully abuse boys is the identical twin of a paedophile ex-bishop.

It emerged this week that a leading figure in the Church of England in Cornwall went on to commit child sex offences for several years after allegations about his behaviour with young boys were raised with the diocese and not acted upon, an official investigation has revealed.

The diocese failed to investigate the accusations against Jeremy Dowling, a lay preacher, allowing him to rise to influential positions including communications officer to the bishop, an independent review for the church concludes.

The report, released on Friday (May 25), says there were “historic failings” within the diocese in dealing with the allegations, first raised in 1972. There was “ongoing knowledge” of the situation among senior figures in the diocese “well into the 1980s” with references to “a big fat file” on Dowling.

Dowling became such an important and valued worker and volunteer during a 40-year association with the diocese that a special service of thanks was given in his honour when he retired in 2009.

Cornwall mum made homeless with Down’s Syndrome son after mouldy flat sees child hospitalised

In 2015 he was jailed for seven years after pleading guilty at Truro Crown Court to 15 charges of sexually abusing boys under 16.

In 2016 he was jailed for an additional eight years after being found guilty of six further charges of indecently assaulting a boy between 1973 and 1977. Those offences happened when he befriended the boy while a lay preacher at a church in Budehaven – and took place after concerns were first raised with the diocese.

One of the leaders who was named in the report was Michael Ball, 86, who was Bishop of Truro from 1990 to 1997. The Right Reverend Ball told the diocese he had been informed of the allegations about Dowling but had not seen any need to take action as there had not been a prosecution.

His identical twin, Peter Ball, the former Bishop of Lewes and Gloucester who boasted of links to royalty, was jailed for 32 months in October 2015 for offences dating back to the 1970s against 18 young men at his home in East Sussex.

His sentence came 22 years after the abuse first surfaced. He eventually admitted misconduct in a public office and two counts of indecent assault. The court heard how Peter Ball had convinced some of his victims to strip naked to pray and even suggested they submit to beatings between 1977 and 1992.

The first of his victims to come forward took his own life in 2012 after hearing Sussex Police had reopened the case.

There were fears Peter Ball may have taken the place of his twin, who was Bishop of Truro in the Nineties, and therefore duped congregations in other parts of the UK.

The Diocese of Truro was understood to be looking into the evidence that Peter Ball conducted services in Cornwall.

Last year the brothers decided they wanted to become Catholics so they could live in anonimity. Peter Ball asked to join the Roman Catholic Diocese of Clifton in Bristol and both said they wanted to switch faith from the Church of England so they could “live and worship in anonymity” within the Catholic Church.

https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/bishop-who-ignored-warnings-preacher-1608976

Image result for "jeremy dowling" + "bishop ball"

Former Bishop of Truro was Michael Ball, twin brother of convicted paedophile/friend of the royal family and Jimmy Savile – Bishop Peter Ball.


Jeremy Dowling

The Right Reverend Michael Ball – Bishop of Truro from 1990-97 – told the diocese he had been informed of the allegations but had not seen any need to take action as there had not been a prosecution.

His identical twin, former bishop Peter Ball, was jailed in 2015 for a string of indecent assaults on teenagers and young men.

A file found “in an unusual place” at the Bishop of Truro’s residence in 2013 was passed to police and led to Dowling’s prosecution.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cornwall-44240688

A RECENT service at Truro Cathedral paid tribute to the work of Jeremy Dowling, the Diocese of Truro’s Communications Officer, who steps down at the end of December after more than 25 years in post. He has lived in the Bude area for more than 40 years.

On a wet and windswept evening, a congregation made up from clergy and people from across the diocese enjoyed a service that included readings, hymns and a sermon given by the former Bishop of Truro, Bishop Bill Ind. Also present were the current Bishop of Truro, The Rt Rev Tim Thornton, the Dean of Truro, The Very Rev Dr Christopher Hardwick, both Archdeacons and Mr Martin Follett, the Diocesan Registrar.

During his sermon, Bishop Bill paid tribute not only to the work that Jeremy undertook as Communications Officer but also his very substantial other work for the Diocese including nearly 40 years as a Reader,

seventeen years as Chairman of the House of Laity of the Diocesan Synod, one of the first people to be made Lay Canons of the Cathedral, a member of the General Synod for 27 years, as well as sitting at one time or another on virtually every Board and Committee of the Diocese.

He said, “Jeremy’s media and broadcasting skills are second to none.”

His experience and expertise in the television broadcast area was particularly noted, especially the background work he was able to do which led to programmes such as the very successful and popular BBC series ’Seaside Parish’ featuring Boscastle and the surrounding parishes, which enjoyed weekly audiences if over three million, ’Island Parish’ featuring the Isles of Scilly and ’The Monastery.’

Summing up, Bishop Bill said: “He has been a critical friend, someone who has told me the truth as he sees it. He has made me and indeed others both laugh and think and for both these things and much else I remain profoundly grateful. The Diocese owes him an enormous amount and so indeed do I and a host of others.”

Jeremy Dowling has lived in the Bude area of North Cornwall for more than forty years, with thirty years spent in the parish of St Gennys, and he is Chair of Governors of Budehaven Community School.

In his thanks and response to Bishop Bill, Jeremy noted how the communications role had changed greatly with much more emphasis today on electronic media. He acknowledged with gratitude the work of the local press and media, recognising its essential vitality and the key role it played in championing issues which were important for the church and for society.

“We have enjoyed excellent relations with the westcountry media” he said “and it has been a privilege to work with local journalists and broadcasters.”

He concluded by saying: “In my view, the strength of the Church remains in the local community. There is a lot going on. And the thread which runs through most of the stories is undeniably positive. They chronicle a vigorous, interesting, dynamic, eccentric and imaginative life in the church in Cornwall. Long may it

continue.”

After refreshments, a large bouquet was presented by Bishop Tim to Daphne Dowling in recognition of her support for her husband, and Jeremy was presented with a substantial cheque from parishes and individuals in the Diocese

Prime Minister lauds accomplishments of Bude organisation as he presents Big Society Award

BIG SOCIETY: Pictured above, with Prime Minister David Cameron and North Cornwall MP Dan Rogerson, are Co-founder of Community Action Through Sport (CATS) and volunteer Denise Jane May, CATS trustee and volunteer Jeremy Dowling, CATS Project Development Manager Karen Hemmings, CATS Project Development Assistant Louise Anne Harris and CATS trustee and volunteer Sharon Caroline Marshall.

 

Ex Truro Diocese worker Jeremy Dowling sexually abused boys

5 June 2015

An ex-Diocese of Truro press officer has admitted sexually abusing boys over a period of more than 10 years.

Jeremy Dowling, 76, carried out the assaults on five children, aged between 12 and 15, from 1959 to 1971.

Truro Crown Court heard Dowling abused the boys at sporting events and in toilets while working as a teacher in Devon.

The Bishop of Truro described Dowling’s offences as “deeply shocking” and said his thoughts were with the victims.

Sentencing was adjourned until July 10 for a pre-sentence report to be prepared.

Dowling, of Church Path, Bude, retired from the Diocese of Truro in 2009 after 25 years of service.

‘Damaging impact’

He pleaded guilty to 13 counts of indecent assault on boys aged 12 to 15 and two counts of indecency with a child.

The court heard one assault was carried out on a boy at a cricket match. Others took place in an attic, in storage rooms at a sporting pavilion and in outside toilets.

The Right Reverend Tim Thornton, Bishop of Truro, said many people would have known Dowling as a reader at St Michael’s Church and St Genny’s Church in Bude and as a member of the Diocesan and General Synods.

Bishop Thornton said: “Offences like this will have a damaging and lasting impact on people’s lives.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cornwall-33025742

Former Cornwall preacher Jeremy Dowling ‘assaulted boy’

The assaults happened when Jeremy Dowling was a lay preacher at two churches in the Bude area of Cornwall, Truro Crown Court was told.

Mr Dowling met the boy when he was 10 through church activities and “took him under his wing”.

He has denied six counts of indecent assault on a child and two counts of gross indecency with a child.

The assaults happened in the 1970s before Mr Dowling became a press spokesman for the Diocese of Truro, the court heard.

‘Long time ago’

Jo Martin, prosecuting, said some of the assaults took place at Mr Dowling’s house after the boy had been invited for dinner and on one occasion he was taken to a church on the north coast.

She said Mr Dowling took him up a tower and showed him the view, then took him to a room and assaulted him.

The alleged victim did not tell anyone when he was a child but later, when he was married, told his wife about the assaults.

He said when his wife rang up Mr Dowling, accusing him of being a paedophile, Mr Dowling replied “that was a long time ago”.

He said he eventually went to the police after reading in news reports that Mr Dowling had admitted abusing five boys when he was a teacher at a private school in the 1960s.

Mr Dowling is currently serving a jail term for those offences.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cornwall-37225234

Tributes paid as Bude man retires as diocesan communications officer after 25 years

A RECENT service at Truro Cathedral paid tribute to the work of Jeremy Dowling, the Diocese of Truro’s Communications Officer, who steps down at the end of December after more than 25 years in post. He has lived in the Bude area for more than 40 years.

On a wet and windswept evening, a congregation made up from clergy and people from across the diocese enjoyed a service that included readings, hymns and a sermon given by the former Bishop of Truro, Bishop Bill Ind. Also present were the current Bishop of Truro, The Rt Rev Tim Thornton, the Dean of Truro, The Very Rev Dr Christopher Hardwick, both Archdeacons and Mr Martin Follett, the Diocesan Registrar.

During his sermon, Bishop Bill paid tribute not only to the work that Jeremy undertook as Communications Officer but also his very substantial other work for the Diocese including nearly 40 years as a Reader,

seventeen years as Chairman of the House of Laity of the Diocesan Synod, one of the first people to be made Lay Canons of the Cathedral, a member of the General Synod for 27 years, as well as sitting at one time or another on virtually every Board and Committee of the Diocese.

He said, “Jeremy’s media and broadcasting skills are second to none.”

His experience and expertise in the television broadcast area was particularly noted, especially the background work he was able to do which led to programmes such as the very successful and popular BBC series ’Seaside Parish’ featuring Boscastle and the surrounding parishes, which enjoyed weekly audiences if over three million, ’Island Parish’ featuring the Isles of Scilly and ’The Monastery.’

Summing up, Bishop Bill said: “He has been a critical friend, someone who has told me the truth as he sees it. He has made me and indeed others both laugh and think and for both these things and much else I remain profoundly grateful. The Diocese owes him an enormous amount and so indeed do I and a host of others.”

Jeremy Dowling has lived in the Bude area of North Cornwall for more than forty years, with thirty years spent in the parish of St Gennys, and he is Chair of Governors of Budehaven Community School.

In his thanks and response to Bishop Bill, Jeremy noted how the communications role had changed greatly with much more emphasis today on electronic media. He acknowledged with gratitude the work of the local press and media, recognising its essential vitality and the key role it played in championing issues which were important for the church and for society.

“We have enjoyed excellent relations with the westcountry media” he said “and it has been a privilege to work with local journalists and broadcasters.”

He concluded by saying: “In my view, the strength of the Church remains in the local community. There is a lot going on. And the thread which runs through most of the stories is undeniably positive. They chronicle a vigorous, interesting, dynamic, eccentric and imaginative life in the church in Cornwall. Long may it

continue.”

After refreshments, a large bouquet was presented by Bishop Tim to Daphne Dowling in recognition of her support for her husband, and Jeremy was presented with a substantial cheque from parishes and individuals in the Diocese


Charles embroiled in rapidly growing gay-sex scandal

Prince Charles is in the middle of a gay-sex scandal and media frenzy that just won’t quit.

The heir to England’s throne spent Sunday night — just as he returned from a 10-day trip to India and the Persian Gulf — holding what some in the British press referred to as “crisis talks” with son Prince William, companion Camilla Parker Bowles and other aides to determine the next step in quelling the story.

For the past week, newspapers have been trumpeting a story being told by former palace servant George Smith, 43, who worked for Charles for 11 years until 1997.

Smith says he witnessed a sexual incident involving Prince Charles and a former male royal aide. He says he recorded what he saw on an audiotape and gave the tape to Princess Diana. Now, the tape is in the hands of Paul Burrell, Diana’s former butler.

Last month, Burrell began publicizing his tell-all book, A Royal Duty. He mentioned the tape and said that revealing its contents would rock the monarchy.

Newspapers pounced on the story, and the allegations began appearing on various Web sites.

But before London papers could report the story, Michael Fawcett, a former royal aide to the prince, got an injunction from the High Court. It prevented the British press from reporting the details of the lurid allegations.

As the media interest escalated throughout last week, Charles issued a lengthy denial Thursday: “This allegation is untrue,” and it “did not take place.”

In his statement, he mentioned that the claim comes from a former royal household employee who “has suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and has previously suffered from alcoholism following active service in the Falklands.”

It said the employee — Smith — had made charges in the past “which the police have fully investigated and found to be unsubstantiated.” Smith also claims to have been raped by the same aide.

On Monday, a former valet, Simon Solari, who worked for Charles and Diana for 15 years, came to Charles’ defense, telling London’s Evening Standard that the allegations “simply could not be true.”

Also on Monday, a spokeswoman at Clarence House, the prince’s official London residence, said there were no plans to take any legal action and no plans for the prince to make any public comment.

The prince was spending Monday and Tuesday privately at his Highgrove estate; his first public engagement this week is set for Wednesday at a memorial service at the Royal Hospital in Chelsea.

Although some British press reports say the scandal is strong enough to leave a black mark on the monarchy, Charles’ spokesman, Patrick Harrison, says the royal is “unruffled” by it all.

 


REVEALED: How Prince Charles dramatically tried to stop court case of Diana’s butler Paul Burrell that threatened to humiliate the Royals

  • Police found a hoard of items belonging to Princess Diana at her butler’s home 
  • Paul Burrell was later accused of stealing 310 items together worth £4.5 million
  • 11 days into the trial, the Queen ‘had a recollection’ proving Burrell’s innocence

The doorbell rang at 6.50 in the morning of January 18, 2001. Paul Burrell, who was asleep, was woken by his wife.

Standing at the door was Detective Chief Inspector Maxine de Brunner and three other police officers.

‘Do you have any items from Kensington Palace in this house?’ Princess Diana’s former butler was asked.

‘No,’ he lied. He was then placed under arrest and the pre-dawn raid on his home near Runcorn in Cheshire began.

What the detectives found was far beyond their expectations.

The rooms were filled with paintings, drawings, china and photographs that clearly belonged to Diana, who’d died three-and-a-half years before, and her children William and Harry.

‘Oh my God,’ exclaimed de Brunner.

In Burrell’s study, she’d just spotted an expensive inlaid mahogany desk inscribed ‘Her Royal Highness’. ‘How did you get all this?’ she asked the butler.

‘The princess gave it to me,’ he said, collapsing into a chair and beginning to sob.

As the search continued, the police discovered 2,000 negatives. A cursory look revealed Charles in the bath with his children, and many others showing the young princes naked.

Other finds included 30 signed photographs of Diana, many empty silver frames, a box containing the princess’s daily personal notes to William at school, and another box of Diana’s more intimate letters to William.

As Burrell’s sobs intensified, an officer shouted from the attic: ‘It’s full of boxes, wall to wall!’

The boxes were wrenched open: inside were bags, blouses, dresses, nightgowns, underwear, shoes, jumpers, suits and hats that had belonged to Diana, including a blue-ribboned hat she’d worn during her visit with Prince Charles to South Korea in 1992.

Her perfume, de Brunner noticed, lingered on the fabric.

Late that afternoon, officers filled a lorry sent from London with 2,000 items that de Brunner judged had been illegally removed.

The princess, she believed, would never have given away such personal material, and certainly not in such quantities.

Nevertheless, a large number of Diana’s possessions remained in the house. But without orders from Scotland Yard either to seize everything that had belonged to the family or to seal the house as a crime scene, there was no more to be done.

‘I want white lilies on my coffin,’ wailed Burrell as he was escorted to the waiting police car.

There can be few people in Britain unaware of the 2002 trial of Paul Burrell, which was dramatically halted after the Queen had a ‘recollection’.

Nearly 16 years on, however, it appears that a great deal went on behind the scenes that was never revealed to the public.

I have talked to many of the police, courtiers and lawyers who were intimately involved in the Burrell case — before, during and after the trial.

Among the most serious disclosures are those relating to Prince Charles — and the attempts made on his behalf to try to stop the prosecution going ahead.

Burrell had originally worked for both Charles and Diana at Highgrove, then moved with the princess to Kensington Palace, where he was a witness to her extreme moods and secret affairs.

Although married himself, he’d had so many gay affairs with guardsmen that Diana’s chef called him ‘Barrack-Room Bertha’.

The public knew none of this, however, when Burrell became a minor celebrity after Diana’s death, appearing on TV shows and even posing for photographers at the Oscars.

News of his former employee’s arrest reached Charles about a week after the police raid.

Unaware of the scale of the alleged theft, and knowing that low-paid staff occasionally pilfered small items, he told his assistant private secretary Mark Bolland that Burrell probably did steal some things ‘because they all do’.

Within hours, however, Charles had become more alarmed. After all, police probes into murky palace habits could produce unexpected difficulties.

Soon afterwards, his senior private secretary Stephen Lamport, looking beaten and downhearted, confessed to a colleague: ‘We’ve got a terrible problem with this man Burrell… the Prince of Wales is distraught.

‘The prince will say he gave the things to [the butler] and that Burrell’s actions were all right.’ Lamport’s confidant was unimpressed. Even Charles had to allow justice to take its course, he said.

Indeed, the investigation was now well under way. During his second police interview Burrell was asked: ‘Did you tell anyone that you had the property?’

Burrell faced a trial at the Old Bailey and Prince Charles was distraught at what might be disclosed

‘No,’ he admitted, insisting that the items — including all Diana’s school reports — were gifts.

Burrell’s solicitor Andrew Shaw, for his part, appeared to think the case would never come to trial.

‘You’re making a terrible mistake,’ he told Maxine de Brunner. ‘They won’t let Burrell’s secrets be splashed in the public domain. They’ll never let this come to trial.’

In light of what happened subsequently, his comments were not quite as far-fetched as they seemed.

April 3, 2001

Along with a Crown prosecution lawyer, Maxine de Brunner arrived at St James’s Palace for a meeting. There was no alternative but to prosecute, they told the Royal Family’s senior officials.

Also present was Charles’s divorce lawyer, Fiona Shackleton, to whom he’d now turned for legal advice.

 She revealed that Paul Burrell had sent the prince a handwritten letter in which he offered to return some of the items, provided Charles agreed not to support any prosecution. The letter had been returned on her advice.

The CPS lawyer explained that the case could be closed only if Prince William and Diana’s sister Lady Sarah McCorquodale, who together inherited Diana’s property, signed statements to drop their complaints.

Shackleton’s view was that Charles could not be party to undermining the legal system.

Agreeing to accept the return of some property in exchange for dropping the investigation, she said, would make it look as if Buckingham Palace were participating in a cover-up.

‘It needs to be all or nothing,’ she said.

Sir Robin Janvrin, the Queen’s private secretary, agreed to tell the monarch what had been discussed, and almost certainly did so.

This, of course, would have been the ideal moment for the Queen to recall that she’d allowed the butler to take some of Diana’s possessions for safekeeping. But apparently she didn’t say a word.

As for Charles, he was upset when his own private secretary told him the police intended to prosecute.

Who knew what Burrell might say in the witness box? In effect, he was a time-bomb, having witnessed the prince’s secret meetings and phone calls with Camilla while he was married, and Diana’s many rendezvous with her boyfriends.

He told his spin-doctor Mark Bolland to try to navigate a way out of a prosecution.

May 2

The case against Burrell strengthened.

The police had now had time to watch six videos found in Burrell’s home, featuring Diana talking about the most intimate details of her relationship with the Royal Family, her sex life with Charles, and her affair with police protection officer Barry Mannakee.

The tapes had been recorded by Peter Settelen, the princess’s voice coach, who, soon after her death, had asked her private secretary for the return of not six but 16 tapes.

He’d been told: ‘I am advised by Mr Burrell that he has been unable to trace them.’

What had happened, the police wondered, to the missing ten tapes? [Material from Settelen’s six recovered tapes was used in a Channel 4 documentary last year.]

And there was another tape that worried Charles. Kept in a box of Diana’s and now, he believed, in Burrell’s possession, it described the alleged rape of one member of his staff by another of his staff.

July 19

Burrell’s lawyers now issued a warning to Shackleton. If Burrell were prosecuted, they said, he would have to describe from the witness box not only details of Diana’s sex life, he might also read out quotes from letters in which Prince Philip had allegedly threatened her.

(In fact, the letters were perfectly reasonable, it emerged later.)

Burrell’s lawyers later explained that this was not a threat — the defence was seeking only to protect the Royal Family.

At this point, the CPS and the police asked for a ‘victims’ consultation meeting’ in order to obtain the direct approval of Princes Charles and William to prosecute Burrell.

In anticipation of a police visit to Highgrove, Charles appealed to Bolland: ‘Mark, this is crazy. You must do something.’ The prince was now willing to do anything to avert a trial, especially with William a potential witness.

Burrell simply knew too much. Would he, for instance, dare to describe Diana’s reported use of cocaine to the court? The best way to avoid a prosecution, Bolland agreed, was for Burrell to return all the property he’d taken.

July 24

A top-secret meeting was arranged between Bolland and Burrell. Over coffee, the butler said: ‘I’m sorry.’

He wanted to let Charles know that he’d return all the property, but insisted on telling him so in person.

Throughout the 25-minute meeting, the spin-doctor had been appalled by Burrell’s ‘creepy manner’. The royals’ staff, he thought, were ‘a slimy, weird group with odd relationships’.

Later, he reported back to Charles that the butler wanted ‘a big hug and an offer of a job at Balmoral. He doesn’t want to be cast out’.

The prince repeated thoughtfully: ‘He doesn’t want to be cast out.’ A truth occurred to Bolland then about the royals: ‘No one cares whether Burrell is guilty or not.’

August 3

That very afternoon, the police were expected at Highgrove.

What they didn’t know, Bolland hoped, was that secret arrangements had been made for Prince Charles to meet Burrell a few hours later.

But before the police arrived, the spin-doctor became suspicious that the plan had been leaked to the police, probably by one of Charles’s own protection officers.

The meeting with Burrell must be cancelled, he advised. Charles agreed.

Next, the prince discussed the approach he planned to take with the police.

He intended to ask, ‘Does this really matter? Yes, some items may have been pilfered, but just how serious is it? Not very.’

In the event, however, Charles didn’t get round to saying any of this. Instead, he was palpably shocked when the police told him 2,000 items had been seized at Burrell’s home.

It was the first time he’d heard the actual number.

‘He’s taken the lot!’ Charles exclaimed.

After listening to more evidence against the butler, the prince was asked if he supported a prosecution. ‘We’ve got no alternative,’ he sighed. Before leaving, the police asked Charles not to have any contact with Burrell.

The prince was now in a fix. Officially, he had to support the CPS’s charge that Burrell had stolen the items but privately, he still wanted the prosecution halted.

Another big sticking-point was that Diana’s sister and co-executor, Lady Sarah McCorquodale, was adamant that the butler should be brought to trial.

If she refused to change her mind, there was little Charles could do. Meanwhile, the police confronted Bolland to ask if he’d talked to Burrell. Yes, replied the spin-doctor. His admission confirmed police suspicions.

Bolland was then asked to sign a formal statement as a potential prosecution witness. Legally, this prevented him having any further contact with the suspect. He was relieved — though he worried about whom Charles would rely on now.

Fiona Shackleton? Not if Bolland could help it. While he and Charles wanted the prosecution stopped, she had seemed to waver. They could no longer rely on her, he told Charles.

As for the prince’s private secretary, Stephen Lamport, he was ‘weak and tired’. It was all becoming ‘a mess’, Bolland concluded.

August 18

In an attempt to avert prosecution, Burrell’s lawyer handed the police a 39-page statement signed by his client.

Among other things, it described the butler’s close relationship with Diana — how he would smuggle her boyfriends into Kensington Palace, cancel public engagements so she could be with her lovers, and provide meals for the princess and her man of the moment.

In addition, Burrell hinted that he’d tell what he knew about Diana’s nocturnal visits around Paddington, where she tried to persuade prostitutes to give up their trade by plying them with gifts.

Even the police could see that if Burrell gave detailed testimony about Diana’s sex life in court, the monarchy would be seriously harmed.

Still, there was nothing in the butler’s statement that undermined the charge of theft. So Burrell was once again interviewed.

This time, he claimed that the items found in his house should be seen either as gifts, taken by mistake or handed over to him to be destroyed. He didn’t offer to return anything.

There was no mention of any conversation with Diana’s executors, her sons or the Queen about taking items for ‘safekeeping’. At 2.40pm, Burrell was charged with theft.

A month later, Burrell’s lawyer wrote to Charles, asking for an audience so he could explain ‘the extreme delicacy of the situation’ if his client had to testify.

Charles, who’d taken legal advice, did not reply.

The lawyer then sent further warnings about Burrell’s intention to speak about events of ‘extreme delicacy’ and ‘matters of a very private nature’, and how his enjoyment of Diana’s ‘intimate’ trust would require ‘close examination’ at trial.

Again Charles did not reply. This provoked Burrell’s lawyer to threaten to summon the prince as a witness.

February 13, 2002

Yet another statement from Burrell was delivered to the police — this time about a meeting with the Queen.

They’d talked for three hours, he’d said, sitting on her sofa together shortly after Princess Diana’s death.

The Queen had told him, he said, that his relationship with Diana was unprecedented.

She had spoken about how much she herself had tried to help the princess, and also warned him to be careful — so many people were against Princess Diana, and he had sided with her.

However, the CPS lawyers decided that since Burrell’s statement made no mention of Diana’s property, it wasn’t relevant to the case.

Burrell is pictured behind the Queen. Burrell stood in the dock of Court One at the Old Bailey, accused of stealing 310 items together worth £4.5 million

Burrell is pictured behind the Queen. Burrell stood in the dock of Court One at the Old Bailey, accused of stealing 310 items together worth £4.5 million

August 27

Burrell’s lawyer again approached the police, insisting that a message be passed on to Charles.

His client, he said, was offering to return all the royal items in his possession if the prosecution was dropped.

The message was never delivered, though somehow the prince became aware of the butler’s offer — and hoped it would stop the trial going ahead.

Legally, however, that was impossible: the CPS now had sole responsibility for the prosecution.

Nevertheless, Charles ordered his new private secretary, Sir Michael Peat, to express his concern about continuing with the prosecution if it was a lost cause.

August 30

On the prince’s orders, Peat summoned Maxine de Brunner and another police officer to St James’s Palace.

At the outset he directed de Brunner to a low chair so he could look down on her — a higher chair was noticeably moved away — and thereafter spoke only to the junior police officer, Roger Milburn. ‘How can you be sure that these items were not gifts?’ he asked Milburn.

Milburn redirected the question to de Brunner. Not persuaded by her answer, Peat was emphatic that the prosecution should be stopped. ‘You have not got enough evidence,’ he said. ‘We want the property back without a fuss.’

Both officers were disturbed by Peat’s performance. In his concern to protect Charles, he seemed to forget that Burrell had actually been charged with stealing property belonging to Diana’s executors, not the prince.

Or that any decisions about the prosecution now had to be taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions, who was sure he could prove Burrell’s guilt.

September 11

This time, Peat summoned two of Diana’s executors to the palace — her sister Lady Sarah and the princess’s former private secretary, Michael Gibbins.

Both knew that the initiative for the meeting had come from Charles.

‘The police,’ Peat told them, ‘don’t have enough evidence to mount a successful prosecution and the case must be stopped. There is a risk of acquittal.’

His disdain for Commander John Yates — who was in overall charge of the investigation — and de Brunner and Milburn was obvious, and Gibbins shared some of his doubts.

He also spoke frankly about Charles’s fears that, among other things, Burrell would testify in detail about both Diana’s love life and her anger at the way she’d been treated by the Royal Family.

But it was no good. After two hours of discussion, he’d failed to persuade Charles’s sister-in-law to change her mind.

‘Sarah McCorquodale wanted Burrell to get his come-uppance,’ said Gibbins, who was less certain himself about pushing for the case to go ahead.

‘She was convinced that he had made away with the property. She wasn’t interested in deals.’

After the meeting, McCorquodale called Maxine de Brunner, with whom she’d built up a working rapport.

The trial, she warned the senior policewoman, would be thwarted in some way.

October 14

Paul Burrell, aged 44, stood in the dock of Court One at the Old Bailey, accused of stealing 310 items together worth £4.5 million.

Other items taken from his house were not listed because they allegedly belonged to either Charles or William, and neither wished to appear in court as witnesses.

The day’s proceedings made blazing headlines in all the media, raising increasing concern at St James’s Palace.

October 28

Just after 8.30 that Monday morning, 11 days into the trial, Crown Prosecutor William Boyce was reading his papers in a small room adjacent to the court. He was unexpectedly joined by Commander Yates.

‘I’ve just had a conversation with Michael Peat,’ said Yates, then repeated the private secretary’s exact words: ‘Her Majesty has had a recollection.’

On the previous Friday, Peat had explained, the Queen had recalled a meeting five years earlier, soon after Diana’s death. Burrell had come to the palace to tell her about preserving some of the princess’s papers.

‘The Queen agreed that he should care for them,’ said Peat.

Boyce visibly paled. Taking off his wig, he seemed to shrink.

Only by questioning the Queen in court could Burrell’s version of the conversation be rebutted, and that was constitutionally impossible.

No reigning monarch could appear in ‘Her Majesty’s’ court.

‘That’s the end of the trial,’ was Boyce’s view. Later in the day, Peat told CPS lawyers more about the Queen’s recollection.

On the previous Friday, she, Charles and Philip had driven together to St Paul’s for a memorial service for the victims of the Bali bombing.

Driving past the Old Bailey, she asked why a crowd was standing outside. Charles answered that Paul Burrell was on trial. The Queen was apparently unaware that he was being prosecuted.

Then she mentioned that, some years before, Burrell had sought an audience with her to explain that he was caring for some of Diana’s papers, and she’d agreed that he should do so.

What Peat didn’t go into was what had happened afterwards.

After the Royal Family returned from St Paul’s, there had been unusual activity in St James’s Palace.

Lawyers — among them Robert Seabrook, QC, who’d been advising Charles on the Burrell case — were summoned for a conference to discuss the Queen’s recollection.

Peat was told that Crown Prosecutor Boyce should be informed immediately.

Next, Sir Robin Janvrin was called. Told about the new evidence, the Queen’s private secretary expressed his astonishment. ‘Oh my God,’ an eyewitness heard him exclaim.

Thereafter Janvrin did nothing, allowing Peat to continue managing the crisis on Charles’s behalf. The reason for that at least was clear to observers inside the palaces: Janvrin wanted no part in the undertaking.

Then something very strange occurred. Contrary to QC Robert Seabrook’s advice, neither Boyce nor the CPS was told on that Friday afternoon about the ‘recollection’, and the lack of communication continued through Saturday and Sunday.

According to palace rumours, however, Peat did tell Peter Goldsmith, the attorney general, that the recollection was a ‘golden opportunity to get rid of this embarrassment’.

Early on Monday morning, Peat had finally called Commander Yates to report the Queen’s remarks.

To some in the prosecution and to police at the Old Bailey, the circumstances of the recollection described by Peat lacked credibility.

First, Janvrin, an assiduous official, had been regularly briefed about the Burrell investigation, not least because William and Harry were involved. He would certainly have reported the main details of the case to the Queen during their daily meetings.

Second, the Queen was known to read the newspapers regularly, and for over a year Burrell’s plight had been widely reported. The trial itself had dominated the front pages for the nine days before her drive to St Paul’s.

Third, it was unusual for the monarch and her heir — who seldom spoke to each other — to travel in the same car, for security reasons. The coincidence that mother and son should have been so publicly united on that particular day while driving past the Old Bailey was one that raised questions.

Fourth, the version offered by Peat contradicted that of others in the palaces.

Edmund Lawson, QC, would later explain, in a report commissioned by Michael Peat, that the Queen had in fact been aware of the ongoing trial and had been prompted by the publicity relating to it to mention her conversation with Burrell to the Duke of Edinburgh.

According to the report, she had not previously considered the conversation of any relevance, since the correspondence belonging to the Princess of Wales was but a small part of the property alleged to have been stolen by Mr Burrell.

Lawson’s report would also say that it was the Duke of Edinburgh who had mentioned the Queen’s recollection to the Prince of Wales before the memorial service at St Paul’s.

Peat failed to explain why the prosecution was not told about the Queen’s recollection for two-and-a-half days; he failed to report his own consultation with a lawyer to understand the significance of the recollection; and he omitted to explain why he, rather than the Queen’s own private secretary, Sir Robin Janvrin, asked the Queen about her recollection.

Inevitably, some of those involved in the case questioned whether the Queen had ever met Burrell in the ‘three-hour’ audience he had described in his statement of February 13, 2002.

But three witnesses would have been available had the police sought that information, among them a palace page who claimed to have accompanied Burrell to the Queen’s sitting room, where he remained for between 45 and 90 minutes.

Few believed the butler’s version of spending three hours with the Queen, and in any event his description of their conversation — about documents, and not hundreds of Diana’s personal possessions — was irrelevant to the charges he faced.

Similarly, none of the prosecutors or police expressed at subsequent meetings their outright belief of the Buckingham Palace spokesman’s explanation that ‘the Queen did not realise that her evidence was important, and no one told her’.

Nevertheless, that explanation could well have been true. There was no reason for the Queen, by nature a reactive person who absorbed enormous amounts of information, to have taken any initiative after meeting Burrell.

The surprise was the timing of her revelation, coinciding as it did with Charles’s increasing despair — and the palace’s highly convenient interpretation of that meeting.

‘An act of genius,’ was the judgment of one Whitehall observer. ‘Only a golden bullet could have stopped the trial.’

October 30

Only two people could order the trial to end: the Director of Public Prosecutions, David Calvert-Smith; and the Attorney General, Lord (Peter) Goldsmith.

Calvert-Smith prevaricated, so Goldsmith took the lead. He went to see the Queen to explain the consequences of what he termed the ‘fiasco’, then consulted Tony Blair. Robin Janvrin had also called Downing Street.

At that moment, Blair was immersed in deciding the size of Britain’s military commitment for the invasion of Iraq.

Now he was being asked to consider how to save the monarchy. His decision was that the trial should be brought to an end.

November 1

Crown Prosecutor Boyce announced in the courtroom that the trial was over. Charles and Peat breathed sighs of relief.

So did Burrell: ‘The Queen came through for me,’ he exclaimed. In the ensuing excitement, his brother, Graham, told a journalist: ‘He will have his revenge, but he will do it with dignity.’

Within days, Burrell had offered a string of tawdry revelations about Charles and Diana to the Daily Mirror. He would later follow this up with an explosive book that betrayed Diana’s secrets and portrayed the prince as a heartless schemer.

November 2

With the trial in ruins, everyone was blamed except Charles.

The police were widely accused of incompetence, and Maxine de Brunner — who’d kicked everything off by raiding Burrell’s home — was singled out for particular censure.

At 2.30 that afternoon, de Brunner’s mobile rang. To her surprise, Diana’s sister was on the line.

‘I’m so sorry,’ said Lady Sarah McCorquodale. ‘They shouldn’t have done that to you. It’s disgraceful. We’re totally behind you.

‘A deal was struck by Paul Burrell and the Prince of Wales,’ she claimed.

‘They agreed that the trial would be stopped if three things happened. First, Burrell would not mention certain things in his book; second, William’s property will be given back to William; and a third thing which I don’t know.’

Diana’s sister concluded: ‘They couldn’t afford for Paul Burrell to go into the witness box. Burrell had told the Prince of Wales that he would tell all unless the trial was halted.

‘The Palace have maintained that they didn’t know about the Queen’s and Burrell’s conversation.’

De Brunner wrote down every word of this extraordinary tirade.

But Edmund Lawson, the QC commissioned by Michael Peat to investigate the allegation that Charles’s household had influenced the halting of the trial, said in his report that such an allegation did not stand up to scrutiny: there was simply no evidence to suggest there was any interference by Prince Charles ‘to procure the termination’ of the trial.

Nor was there any evidence to suggest that the Queen’s recollection had been made in order to derail the trial.

December 12-19

At the police’s request, both McCorquodale and Diana’s former private secretary Michael Gibbins agreed to sign a note describing their September 11 meeting with Charles’s private secretary.

Peat, they agreed, had sought to stop the trial going ahead.

‘Let’s nick Peat for seeking to pervert the course of justice,’ Detective Sergeant Roger Milburn said to Commander John Yates after showing him the signed note.

Yates apparently agreed, telling Milburn: ‘You’ve set off an Exocet.’

The scandal, had the prince’s private secretary been formally cautioned and interviewed, would have been immense. But nothing happe

March 13, 2003

Keen to lay the whole matter to rest, Michael Peat published the report that he had personally commissioned from Edmund Lawson, QC, on the Burrell fiasco.

At no stage, Lawson wrote, did the prince or anyone on his behalf try to stop the prosecution.

That was plainly untrue. Bolland, Shackleton, McCorquodale and Gibbins had all described various such attempts, as had the prince’s former private secretary Stephen Lamport, the CPS lawyer and various police officers.

That left the most important mystery — the Queen’s recollection.

And now the circumstances differed from the account Peat gave to the CPS lawyers.

In Lawson’s version, she no longer inquired about the crowds outside the Old Bailey that Friday as she was being driven towards St Paul’s.

Instead, before the memorial service Philip had told Charles that the Queen’s recollection had been triggered by publicity about the trial.

According to Lawson, Charles had told Peat about the recollection only on Saturday — the day after the St Paul’s service.

But this was inaccurate.

Charles’s lawyer Robert Sea- brook had been told about the recollection the previous day, and had immediately gone to Clarence House to advise Peat to inform the prosecution as a matter of urgency.

According to Lawson, Charles suggested to Peat that he might speak directly to the Queen, and he did so on Sunday when she confirmed her recollection to him.

As we know, the police weren’t informed until Monday morning. So who told them? Lawson said it was Charles’s lawyer Fiona Shackleton who’d given the news to Commander Yates.

Yet Yates had actually told Lawson that he was ‘100 per cent certain’ that it was Peat who’d phoned him.

The effect of Lawson’s apparent distortion was to impugn Shackleton.

Lawson’s fee for compiling Peat’s report was never disclosed. He died six years later, without receiving an honour, which he might justifiably have expected.

As for DCI Maxine de Brunner, the chief of Scotland Yard showed his robust support by promoting her to deputy assistant commissioner.

Burrell made about £4 million from his book, while hinting that ‘there are many, many more secrets I have not written about. Very personal, very damaging… not very pleasant’.

Michael Peat, when he left the prince’s service, was rewarded with generous severance terms, including the right to stay on in his five-bedroom flat at Kensington Palace for nearly another year.

And Charles? In the polls, his popularity fell back to the dismal level last seen in the days after Diana’s death.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5516185/How-Prince-Charles-tried-stop-court-case-Paul-Burrell.html

SATANIC WORSHIP AND THE CHURCH

DERRY MAINWARING KNIGHT

&

HIS INTERESTING CIRCLE OF ASSOCIATES

img_7881
Peter Ball

In 1986 an interesting case was heard at Maidstone Crown Court involving a self-confessed satanist and his attempt to defraud thousands of pounds from clergy.   In the case of Derry Mainwaring Knight, he had the most intriguing connections and what transpired in court was a fascinating case involving deception, blackmail, prostitution, child sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, Church of England, Roman Catholic Church, Freemasonry, MPs, aristocracy, showbusiness and, of course, money.

I’m not going to offer any opinion on the case but I think it is particularly interesting to look at the way the detective in charge of the investigation behaves towards witnesses. (See article: Satan Man’s a Rapist – 22 March 1986).

(Most of the articles are from The Times, unless otherwise stated).

Those mentioned during the trial included:

  • Alison Baker: Wife of Rev Baker
  • Rev John Baker: St Mary’s Church, Knight lodged with him
  • Rt Rev Peter Ball: Bishop of Lewes, convicted paedophile
  • Rev Michael Barling: Christian training centre lecturer
  • George Booth: Congregational Minister, Leigh-on-Sea
  • Lord Brentford: Donor
  • Lady Brentford: Donor
  • Clive Bygrave: Disc Jockey – cruise liners Canberra and Sea Princess, East Grinstead
  • Doctor Caspar: ‘Chief of Satanists’
  • Michael Corkery, QC: Prosecution
  • Irene Cranham: Cleaner for Angela Murdoch
  • Judge Neil Denison: Trial judge
  • Ethel: Grandmother of Derry Mainwaring Knight
  • Det Chief Insp Terence Fallon: Former head of Sussex Police, Papua New Guinea police
  • Alan ‘Fluff’ Freeman: Disc Jockey
  • Rt Rev Mark Green: Retired Bishop of Aston
  • David Hamilton: Disc Jockey
  • Lord Hampden: Donor
  • Lorraine Haynes: Prostitute, Shoeburyness, Essex
  • Lord & Lady Ingleby: Refused donation
  • Laurence Kayne: Managing Director, Laurence Kayne of Berkeley Square Ltd
  • Dr Eric Kemp: Bishop of Chichester
  • Jeffrey Klein: Video shop owner, Southend
  • Derry Mainwaring Knight: Accused, Dormans Land, Surrey
  • Margaret Mainwaring Knight: Mother of the accused
  • Hayley Leigh: Dancer, Broadstone, Dorset
  • Geoff Love: Orchestra Leader
  • Randle Mainwaring: Retired bank director
  • Lord March: Donor
  • Rt Rev Lloyd Morrell: Bishop of Lewes
  • Angela Murdoch: girlfriend of Knight
  • Enoch Powell: Accused by Knight of being a Satanist
  • Michael Ransby: Jeweller, Southend
  • Susan Sainsbury: Donor
  • Timothy Sainsbury: Conservative MP for Hove, Donor
  • Donald Scutt: adviser of a religious trust, South Warnborough, Hampshire
  • Det Sgt Brian Smeed: Interviewing officer
  • Samantha Sprackling: Dancer
  • Julie Tremain: Prostitute
  • Rev Colin Urquhart: Christian training centre
  • Michael Warren: Former High Sheriff of East Sussex, farmer & magistrate, Donor
  • Michael West, QC: Defence
  • Willie Whitelaw: Deputy Prime Minister
  • Simon Willis: Disc Jockey, East Grinstead
  • Donna Winwood: Pantomime Dancer, North London

img_7876

The Sainsbury family:

JAMES SAINSBURY;  PIERS GAVESTON BALL, PARK LANE HOTEL, LONDON. 13 MAY 1983.

James Sainsbury, The 20-year-old son of a prominent member of the British establishment was photographed goose-stepping down the high street in Oxford. The Sun splashed with the picture, the youth was attacked widely for his ‘Nazi’ behaviour, his father was given a tough time.

Today, Jamie Sainsbury, whose father Tim had been one of Margaret Thatcher’s ministers at the time of his ‘march on Oxford‘, funds ground-breaking studies in family relations, countless environmental projects, and is the patron of some promising young artists

https://web.archive.org/web/20181106224854/https://www.theguardian.com/observer/comment/story/0,6903,1391490,00.html

James “Jamie” Sainsbury is the son of Timothy and Susan Sainsbury

Toasting Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan

Toasting Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. During drinks after OU Monday club dinner. Worcester College, Oxford.

https://dafjones.photoshelter.com/gallery-image/The-Last-Hurrah/G0000h6nMRA9RkNU/I0000r.Fw6KC0F9M/C0000qlEb16WJQ.A

One of the leading contenders to become the new chairman of the BBC Trust once attended gatherings of a far-Right group who gave Nazi salutes, sang songs glorifying Adolf Hitler and campaigned in favour of ‘racial purity’.

Nicholas Prettejohn, a City grandee who has served as an adviser to George Osborne, is on a shortlist of candidates who are being interviewed for the £110,000 role at the top of the Corporation.

But it has now emerged that when he was a student at Oxford University, Mr Prettejohn attended a meeting of the Monday Club, an offshoot of the Conservative Party that has campaigned for voluntary repatriation of ethnic minorities.

A photograph unearthed by The Mail on Sunday shows Mr Prettejohn, then a 20-year-old student at Balliol College, at a Monday Club event in 1980 which caused national outrage at the time.

Newspapers reported attendees had shouted ‘Sieg heil’, talked about ‘racial purity’ and sung Tomorrow Belongs To Me, a song performed in the musical Cabaret by members of the Hitler Youth – despite the fact that the event was held close to a memorial to members of the college killed fighting the Nazis.

James Sainsbury, son of Sir Timothy Sainsbury, a former Conservative Minister, was pictured at the event performing a Nazi salute.

 He received an OBE in 2013 in recognition of his charitable works.

Eight months before the dinner, Mr Prettejohn had been elected president of the famous Oxford Union debating society – with his political opponents claiming he had been swept to victory by a ‘Monday Club machine’ which mobilised Right-wing supporters.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2720860/Hitler-achieved-great-deal-Ukip-MEP-sparks-anger-tells-youth-wing-copy-Nazi-leader.html

James “Jamie” Sainsbury is in convicted establishment paedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s black book

James “Jamie” Sainsbury  is the son of The Right Honourable Sir Timothy Sainsbury and Susan Mary Sainsbury

James Sainsbury’s sister is:

Camilla Sainsbury, daughter of Timothy Sainsbury, married to Conservative, then Labour, MP The Rt Hon. Shaun Woodward (Childline)

MP Shaun Woodward, who married into the Sainsbury dynasty, and his wife Camilla both appeared in Jeffrey Epstein’s little black book.

James Sainsbury and Shaun Woodward are both involved with children’s charities

James Sainsbury’s mother was involved with Bishop Peter Ball  in the Derry Mainwaring-night satanist trial

 James Sainsbury

“James Sainsbury has been chair of trustees of Home-Start UK since 2000 (for which he was honoured with an OBE in 2013). He is also chair of trustees of the Resurgence Trust, which, among other things, publishes the “Resurgence and Ecologist” magazine. He is a trustee of the Tedworth, Headley and Staples trusts and of the Kay Kendall Leukaemia Fund and of the David Baum International Foundation and the Voices Foundation.

He is a patron of Best Beginnings and a member of the development board of the Bodleian Library.” [1]

Biographical note from Resurgence magazine:

 ”James Sainsbury is Chairman of the Trust. He is also Chair of the trustees of Home-Start, a national family support charity, and trustee to a number of charitable organisations, including the Voices Foundation and the National Byway Trust, which promotes cycling. He also has an interest in psychotherapy and is trained as an Option Process mentor. He is married with two sons.” [2]

Affiliations

    Chair, Resurgence

    Trustee, Headley Trust [1]

    Trustee, Tedworth Charitable Trust [2]

    Director, Sutton Trust [3]

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/James_Sainsbury

James Jamie Sainsbury is in convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s black book as is Shaun Woodward

James Sainsbury received an OBE from Prince Charles in 2013 for his Home Start charity work

2015 Home Start (Alison Ward)/ Lady Wakeham with Camila Batmanghelidjh and James Sainsbury

#earlyintervention @HomeStartHamps Winchester patron Lady Wakeham, @KidsCompanyUK Camila & James Sainsbury

 https://web.archive.org/web/20181107011810/https://www.scoopnest.com/user/alstewitn/576370152108912641

Friends – Convicted establishment paedophile Bishop Peter Ball with Thatcher and Lord Wakeham beside her.

From document recommending ball to become Bishop of Gloucester:

Alison Ward (Thatcher’s secretary and the future Mrs Wakeham) attending a small drinks party with Jimmy Savile/Margaret Thatcher/Ian Beer – (friend of Bishop Peter Ball

alun@ciabaudo:

Would this by any chance explain why Baker/Ball turned to Sue Sainsbury for a donation for Mainwaring Knight? Sainsbury – Gatsby – BASW – Peter Righton …

 

Peter Righton was of a close associate of Nick Stacey, a man of God, who played a central role in the protection of paedophiles. As Director of Social Services, he instructed his staff not to report alleged paedophiles within Kent Social Services.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40547383

On the face of it, the Gatsby Project, a distance learning project for residential child care workers, was a good thing – except that it was carried out with Peter Righton, who was an active member of PIE and was convicted of possessing child abuse images in the early 90s.

The Sainsburys also backed the Tear Fund, a Christian relief organisation closely associated with Cliff Richard, a man accused of child abuse whose name appeared as a patron of the Elm Guest House child brothel.

The Sainsburys were also close to Keith Vaz, a man who rarely fails to get a mention in threads of mine. This time the link is Auchi, a man guilty of fraud whose extradition Vaz tried to prevent:

It would appear that Nick Stacey turned first to the Sainsburys for funding:

Here’s the Prince neatly juxtaposed in a newspaper right next to an article about Derry Mainwaring Knight …

Wednesday 19 February 1986: ‘SATANISM’ MAN’S LUXURY CARS

A man bought a Lotus sports car the day a “highly gullible” clergyman obtained £25,000 for him to finance an alleged crusade against satanism, Maidstone Crown Court was told yesterday.

Derry Knight, aged 46, had convinced the Rector of Newick, Sussex, that he needed the money to break his links with a satanic circle and buy its insignia to break its power.

Mr Michael Corkery, QC, for the prosecution said the Rev John Baker had approached Mr Gordon Scutt, adviser to the charitable P & P Trust.

In a letter, the rector asked: “Please pray for Derry… he needs a great deal of prayer and divine protection”.

The rector negotiated a loan from the charity on 8 November 1984.  “The date is of interest”, Mr Corkery said, “for on that same day the defendant bought a Lotus motor car for £17,000”.

Mr Knight, a record producer, of Dormans Land, Surrey, has denied 19 charges of dishonestly obtaining £203,850 by deception.

Mr Corkery also alleged that Mr Knight had “conned” £37,500 from Lord Hampden, a parishioner of Mr Baker, to buy a Rolls Royce.

“The rector said the defendant needed the Rolls Royce to convince his satanist colleagues that he still had influence”.

Mr Corkery said that Mr Knight spent tens of thousands of pounds on jewellery, clothing and cars.  He would pick up prostitutes and other women, shower them with gifts, and then leave them.

Mr Baker, aged 49, told the court that when he heard of Mr Knight’s problems he immediately prayed.

The case continues today.

20 FEBRUARY 1986: EVIL SPIRITS ‘TOOK MAN OVER’

The record in the alleged Satan confidence trickster case said yesterday he talked with demonic spirits in the man’s body.

The Rev John Baker said that he twice took authority over the spirits in the name of Jesus Christ.

Mr Baker, the Rector of Newick in East Sussex, told Maidstone Crown Court that Derry Mainwaring Knight first went into a trance when he and his wife went to pray with him.

“I recognised the state from having dealt with many people in similar states over the years as being due to demonic spirit infestation”.

Mr Knight awoke from the trance and later they prayed again, but Mr Knight again went into a trance.

The rector said the spirits started to speak out of Mr Knight.  “It was coming out of his mouth but not in his normal voice”.

“As we were in prayer I said something like ‘In the name of Jesus Christ I bind these spirits and adjure them to tell the truth and to declare their ground in this man’s life’”.

Mr Baker said the voice then spoke back to him: “you cannot have him, he belongs to Lucifer.  He was dedicated by sacrifice as a child and he is a Master of the Occult”.

The rector said Mr Knight told him he had wanted to get out of the satanic order since about 1980, but was being held in by his vows, fear and debts he owed them.

Mr Baker told the court Mr Knight had told of two debts, one to a “Chief of the Satanists” in the area.  He was known as Doctor Caspar.

Mr Knight had told the rector that if he had any chance of getting out of the satanic order he had to destroy certain artefacts, including robes and gold and silver which were used for satanic worship.

But the order was not willing to let him have them for nothing, Mr Baker said.

Mr Baker said that after Mr Knight had been given £16,000 he produced a chain of office and bracelet used in satanic rites.

The rector explained that he and Mr Knight smashed up both items in the rectory garden and then took to a jeweller to be melted down.

Mr Knight, aged 46, of Dormans Land, Surrey, denies 19 charges of dishonestly obtaining £203,850 by deception.

The trail continues today.

  • Laurence Kayne: Managing Director, Laurence Kayne of Berkeley Square Ltd

Another witness, Mr Laurence Kayne, managing director of Laurence Kayne of Berkeley Square Ltd, said to have been named as a fellow devil-worshipper by Mr Knight, denied he was a satanist.

The jury had been told earlier in the trial that Mr Knight had boasted he would buy a Rolls Royce at the company because it was run by a satanist.

Mr Kayne said he did not believe in the existence of a devil and worshipped in a synagogue every month with his wife and family.

https://scepticpeg.wordpress.com/2017/01/02/satanic-worship-the-church/

Given the royal family’s extremely close links to the Sainsburys, it is highly unlikely that Prince Charles would be unaware of Peter Ball’s involvement in the Derry Mainwaring Knight case …


Shaun Woodward, friend of Esther Rantzen, married Camilla Sainsbury, daughter of former Conservative MP Tim Sainsbury. After leaving his wife, Woodward was reported to be in a relationship with Luke Redgrave, grandson of the actor Sir Michael Redgrave.

Robert Butler-Sloss, son of the Sloshed Butler put forward by the Establishment as a safe pair of hands to run IICSA, married Sarah Sainsbury, daughter of John Davan Sainsbury.

One such donor was Susan Sainsbury of the eponymous supermarket clan:

 

Bishop Ball was acting at the request of a gullible rector requested by Mainwaring Knight to collect money from the rich and famous:

 

In fact, in 1983 the Right Irreverend Peter Ball of Lewd wrote a letter on Derry Mainwaring Knight’s behalf, requesting donations for his “necessary work”.

Laurence Kayne –  from the Derry Mainwaring trial

Laurence Kayne CeRER
Non Executive
Laurence is an entrepreneur and a sales professional as quoted in the Wall Street Transcript. Laurence has managed a range of businesses, most notably between 1968 and 1987 he was one of the largest pre owned Rolls Royce Dealers in the UK, and in later years with Mayfair Showrooms. He then acquired Lambourn Racehorse Transport, where he secured the Royal Warrant personally supplying Queen Elizabeth II directly from 1989 to 1994.
Thereafter he semi-retired to Ireland with his wife in 1995. Upon his return to the UK Laurence trained in financial services, mortgage advice and equity release between 2005 and 2009. Since the end of 2015 he has partnered with John Lloyd in a part exchange residential property business working with large house building companies to facilitate property owners to acquire new build homes.

Myra Hindley exposed as a ‘practicing WITCH’ whose occult links lead to Jimmy Savile

30th July 2017

MOORS murderer Myra Hindley has been accused of being a practicing witch who worshipped the occult alongside Ian Brady while the duo carried out their evil crimes.

At Ian Brady’s side, monstrous Hindley was responsible for the murder and torture of at least five children in the 1960s.But now it has emerged that the evil pair were versed in the occult, and took their child victims to Saddleworth Moor to carry out sadistic rituals.Hindley has been accused of taking on the look of the witch while Brady behaved as the alchemist, according to Moors murder expert Erica Gregory.Speaking exclusively to Daily Star Online, she said: “Myra was given a high status by Brady from the start.“This was his way of manipulating her into doing exactly what he wanted.“Myra took the role of the persecuted women in history while Brady was taking on the role of alchemist – they even found books on witchcraft in their house when police arrested them.“We have found evidence they were doing rituals on the Moors – we’ve seen knotted ropes, hare and sheep bones with evidence of large fires lit up around oak trees.”

Gregory even believes that the the murders were meticulously planned for ritualistic purposes – with the evil duo choosing to kill their victims on dates important within the occult calendar.“The murders were separated by four months – I believe Brady chose dates and times for his rituals,” she said.“Tommy Rhattigan, for example, was taken in November 1963 – the same day Margaret Murray died – who was a famous witch.“I believe her death, and the fact it was the anniversary of the Battle of Sheriffmuir was a trigger for Tommy to be picked up.”

It is no secret that witchcraft and satanic worshipping were big in the 1960s – with several high-profile Hollywood films airing in the era.And the Moors murderers even had links to infamous Alex Sanders – who rose to notoriety for attempting to raise a dead body in Alderley Edge and was a known friend of Jimmy Savile.“Brady and Hindley sought out Sanders when he worked at the John Rylands Library in Manchester which held books on occultism.“Sanders went on to work on films with Sharon Tate and he was friends with Savile, too – so there’s a clear link.”

This comes after Daily Star Online exclusively revealed that Brady was accused of selling child pornography to the shamed former DJ.Hindley and Brady were given life sentences in 1966.Together, they killed Pauline Reade, John Kilbride, Keith Bennett, Lesley Ann Downey and Edward Evans between July 1963 and October 1965.At least four of them, including Bennett, were sexually assaulted.It comes after Daily Star Online exclusively revealed Ian Brady’s evil map that could cryptically lead to the location of Keith Bennett’s body – which has never been found.

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/632592/Moors-murders-Myra-Hindley-witchcraft-Ian-Brady-Jimmy-Savile-Saddleworth-Moor-Manchester

Erica Gregory – who has devoted years of her life investigating the Moors murders – believes they even formed a twisted “paedophile ring”.

she said: “I believe they went to the BBC studio regularly to make a fuss and try to get in with Savile.

“Alongside David Smith, Brady was selling photographs of children to make money at this time – I believe Savile could have been one of his customers.

“It is well known that Savile visited them both inside. I believe they were in a ring of some sort.”

It doesn’t stop there, though.

In 2014, Dan Davies noted that Savile chillingly replied “I am the Myra Hindley story” when asked on his opinion of it.And Gregory believes that Savile continued to communicate with the killers after their incarceration – visiting them and using songs played on the radio to transmit coded messages.“Savile could have been using his radio for secret messages,” she said.“Brady used music in tapes and songs that he stated reminded him of the Moors.“And Savile knew that if he played a song at a certain time then those listening would get the message.”http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/624549/Moors-murders-Jimmy-Savile-Ian-Brady-Myra-Hindley-paedophile-child-killers-Saddleworth-BBCImage result for lord longford and prince charlesImage result for lord longford and prince charles
Lord Longford, who went on a porno junket with Jimmy Savile & Cliff Richard, amongst others, was also a friend and supporter of Myra Hindley as was Lord  Astor

Brady letters will remain classified until 2051.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/love-letters-between-ian-brady-10326571

Image result for cyril smith and david steel nominated him
Lord David Steel (left) put Rochdale MP Cyril Smith (right) … for a knighthood, despite being told of abuse allegations against him.

The politician, now Lord Steel, was made aware of the reports that Smith had sexually abused young boys in his hometown of Rochdale, Lancashire, in 1979.       

But dismissed the allegations – claiming: ‘All he seems to have done is spanked a few bare bottoms’.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2566158/Lord-David-Steel-paedophile-MP-Cyril-Smith-forward-knighthood-told-abuse-allegations.html

Image result for david steel and cyril smith


Related?.. Another MP, like Ted “Ed” Heath, linked with a satanic child rapist…

Pervert MP Cyril Smith was pals with satanic child sex monster

Victim Michael Roberts reveals his devil-worshipping stepdad Michael Horgan organised abuse

Sept 3 2014

Paedophile MP Cyril Smith was in league with another appalling child sex abuser who set up satanic rituals and raped children as young as TWO.

Victim Michael Roberts, 40, today bravely puts aside his right to ­anonymity to tell for the first time how he was only six when he was sexually abused by 29-stone politician Smith.

michael-horgan

Michael Horgan, who has also used the name Shaun O’Donnell, became known as the High Priest of Satan.

He organised outdoor “parties” for these activities on Saddleworth Moor, where child killers Ian Brady and Myra Hindley had buried their victims.

Youngsters from two to 13 were drugged, tortured and sexually abused during the satanic “ceremonies”.

He was jailed for 10 years and placed on the sex offenders’ register after he was found guilty of six sex abuse ­charges in 1992

The shock revelation over the satanist and MP’s friendship raises questions over any role Smith and Jimmy Savile may have played in Horgan’s paedo ring.

Horgan was also pals with Raymond Hewlett, the child rapist questioned in relation to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

Lawyer who saw Diana’s death crash breaks 20-year silence to claim “other forces” were behind accident

Stanlee Culbreath is speaking out for the first time in two decades to question whether the Princess of Wales could have lived if French emergency services had acted faster.

21 AUG 2017

A witness to Princess Diana’s death crash says her chances of survival were greatly reduced by emergency service delays – and he believes “other forces” were behind the tragic accident.

Retired lawyer Stanlee Culbreath was one of the first witnesses to the tragic crash, but maintained a dignified silence out of respect for the then-young Princes William and Harry.

But now, almost 20 years since Diana’s death, the 69-year-old sheds new details on the crash, critically questioning whether she could have lived if French emergency services had acted faster.

Mr Culbreath said: “I always thought it was suspicious, that other forces played a hand, but now, 20 years on, I question more than ever whether it was a genuine accident. I just think it is dubious.

“If that’s the Princess, why did it take 20 minutes or so to get to her and, when she was finally released [from the car], why did they pass one hospital and take her to another?”

Mr Culbreath told how, at the scene, although at that time unaware Diana was a victim, he commented to a friend, “Damn, a junkie on Main Street would get waited on quicker than this”.

He added: “There are so many questions I ask myself over and over again about how the accident was handled and if she could have been saved.

“I pleaded for the police to help, but they were very nonchalant about the entire thing.”

Mr Culbreath, of Columbus, Ohio, had been in Paris on August 31, 1997, as part of a European tour with his friends Clarence Williams and Michael Walker.

They arrived in the city hours before the crash and took a late-night sight-seeing tour of the Eiffel Tower.

As they made their way back to the hotel in a taxi at around 12.20am, they entered the Pont de l’Alma tunnel and were confronted with the smouldering wreckage of the Princess’s car.

Driver Henri Paul and bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones were in the front of the car while Diana and Dodi were in the back

“Our taxi driver stopped a few feet from their limo,” Mr Culbreath recalled. He explained France has a Good Samaritan law and it was our duty to stop and help. We got out only a few feet away from their Mercedes. The car was up on the wall and the front passenger door was already open.”

At that time, Mr Culbreath did not know the car’s passengers were Princess Diana, 36, her lover Dodi Fayed, 42, driver Henri Paul, 41, and bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones, now 49, who was the sole survivor and only passenger to wear a seat-belt.

He recalled: “We hadn’t heard the bang, as the crash happened just as we got into the tunnel. Their car was smoking, the muffler [from the exhaust] was on the floor.

“I went over and Trevor Rees-Jones had his legs out of the car and was holding a towel or something to his nose, as he was bleeding heavily.

“There were only four or five of us there, so I went over to the car and looked into it to see if we could help.”

Unbeknown to Mr Culbreath and his friends, Diana was in the rear injured and Dodi was already dead. “I didn’t know who was in the back until later but at one point I was… a few inches away from the Princess trying to look through her window,” he explained.

“I remember saying to the guys at the time, ‘Is there an ambulance coming or something?’ as there was no sign of one arriving.

“After 15 or 20 minutes, there was still no paramedic on the scene and I said to my friends, ‘Damn, a junkie on Main Street would get waited on quicker than this’.

“There was only one cop there I could see who told us to get back. He kept saying, ‘Get away, get away’.

“As the window’s in the rear were dark, I could not see who was the in the back. I was pleading with the officer to open the door… it looked like it could be pulled open. He wasn’t doing sh*t. He wasn’t doing anything.

“It was as if those there had decided nothing could be done. It’s just my opinion, but it took them a long time to get her out.

“It could have been up to 30 minutes before help came. We were there for at least 15 minutes. Why wasn’t an ambulance there quicker?

“I never heard an ambulance, the whole time I was there. I never heard a siren. My recollection was that there seemed to be an insurmountable amount time for an emergency vehicle to respond. I said to the guys, ‘I’d hate to get into an accident in Paris as nobody shows up’.

It could have been that her chances of survival were significantly decreased by the amount of time it took for the paramedics to arrive.

“It’s common sense that the longer someone is left, their chances of survival are less.

“When we left, there still wasn’t an ambulance. The speed of which they responded was inadequate. Questions need to be asked.”

During the 18-month French inquiry into the accident, it was determined the crash was caused by driver Henri Paul, who was drunk behind the wheel of the Mercedes-Benz S280, travelling at 65mph. Paul, 41, was the deputy head of security at the Ritz Hotel, in Paris. During the inquest, in 2007, it emerged it took an hour and six minutes from the time Diana was taken from the wrecked car until she reached the hospital.

The inquest heard the princess may have lived had French medics not “squandered” crucial minutes treating her at the scene.

Mr Culbreath said he was also sceptical about the delay in getting Diana out of the wreckage and claimed the door on her side could have been opened. He said: “I thought the car was in a condition where you could open the door.

“I didn’t feel there was enough damage to the car that you couldn’t open the back door – and the front door was already open.

“So why couldn’t you go through that door?

“When the car eventually came out of the tunnel on a lorry it was as big as a pancake, but when I saw it, one side wasn’t. It was the side the Princess was on. I later learned the ‘jaws of life’ were used. Why didn’t they just open the door.

“She wasn’t dead, she was talking.”

Mr Culbreath, who was not called at the inquest, but provided a statement, said he didn’t give an interview until now to protect Diana’s children.

He explained: “My children were the same age as Prince William and Prince Harry at the time.

“I never to spoke to anyone, as I wanted to protect them all.”

Reflecting on the Princess of Wales, Mr Culbreath added: “I thought Diana was a great person. She was always there for people and dedicated herself to the common purpose.

“She was always there for people in their hour of need, for the common man – but when her hour came, it seemed the response was sadly lacking.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/lawyer-who-saw-dianas-death-11022110

Prince Charles’ upbringing:

How many of Prince Charles’ mentors were paedophiles – Sir Jimmy Savile, Bishop Peter Ball and Sir Laurens van der Post 

After the war, Van der Post worked with Lord Mountbatten – yet another alleged paedophile and mentor to Prince Charles

 

Revealed: the secret Sir Alfred Beit diaries that may tell of British royal family scandals

Diaries believed to contain the inside story of British royal family scandals have been suppressed by the late Lady Clementine Beit to protect Queen Elizabeth II from embarrassment.

Do the diaries contain details of the royal family’s oft-cited links with the Nazi party in Germany before the war? Or is it something more personal, some sexual secrets of the royal family that Sir Alfred and Lady Beit want to keep hidden? Because of the “secret” clause in her will, we can now only guess.


Lord Mountbatten was very close to Prince Charles – and acted as a mentor to him

Image result for "mountbatten" + "prince charles"

As depicted in The Crown, Mounbatten is uncommonly close with Charles, taking him shopping for the Eton uniforms he never gets to wear, and urging him to open up emotionally.

Image result for "mountbatten" + "prince charles"

Lord Mountbatten, known affectionately around the palace as the biggest queen in the royal family, had surrounded Charles with homosexuals during the period when he had been entrusted by Queen Elizabeth with her eldest son’s social upbringing.

https://books.google.com/books?id=x0pVQgvw9sUC&pg=PA53&lpg=PA53&dq=Lord+Mountbatten++was+said+to+have+surrounded+Charles+with+homo-sexuals&source=bl&ots=c7ob7p2zk9&sig=X8-acUxycvYSa1DN4DbtEkVokIE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwimlauwj97aAhWIY98KHbmPC4IQ6AEINzAB#v=onepage&q=Lord%20Mountbatten%20%20was%20said%20to%20have%20surrounded%20Charles%20with%20homo-sexuals&f=false

Image result for "prince charles" + "savile"

It’s historically accurate that the two maintained a close relationship, but Mountbatten was also friends with British DJ Jimmy Savile, a man suspected of enabling pedophilia in Britain. (After Savile’s death in 2011, hundreds of allegations were made against him, but during his lifetime they were either dismissed or the accusers were ignored.)

http://www.newsweek.com/uncle-dickie-crown-philip-nazi-753135

uncle dickie charles

 Lord Mountbatten – mentor to Prince Charles

‘I was duped, drugged and broken in’: Dad relives horrific rape in haunting extract from new book about sex and scandal

Playland, Secrets of a Forgotten Scandal Anthony Daly gives his account of the night he claims he was blackmailed into prostitution15 MAR 2018In 1975 Anthony Daly left his home in Northern Ireland hoping to escape The Troubles.He was naive but excited about being in London but after six days in the city he was swindled out of his rent money and began to get scared.So when two wealthy and well spoken men offered to help him he was relieved he’d finally found some kind faces to help him.While his new friends, known to him as ‘Charles’ and ‘Keith’, had been drinking all night he’d stuck to cola. Sadly not everything was as it seemed and his life was about to change forever. As he puts it ‘I was like an unsuspecting lamb to the slaughter’


.https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/i-duped-drugged-broken-in-12193517#ICID=sharebar_twitter
Image result for playland arcade 1970s england
Image result for norman skelhornSkelhorn was also the DPP when the ‘Playland’ scandal broke, which saw the Old Etonian Lloyds underwriter Charles Hornby (friend of Prince Charles)  jailed for the sexual exploitation of homeless boys near Piccadilly Circus. It’s widely believed Hornby was the establishment scapegoat and many other VIPs managed to escape justice. The judge admitted not all the perpetrators were in the dock and one of the defendants, David Archer, said he’d presented police with a dossier naming millionaires and titled and influential people involved in the Playland affair. There was “a tremendous cover up to protect these people,” he argued.https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/simon-danczuk/tom-watson-child-abuse_b_8487142.html?1446809985&ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067&ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/simon-danczuk/tom-watson-child-abuse_b_8487142.html?1446809985&ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067&ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067


Andy‏ @REBELTROOP

I’ve just got to reading about the Playland Trial of 1975. Still shocked by the restrictions put in place, to the files still under lock and key  I believe a vast paedophile network was operating in the 70’s. This book confirms it.
The same names keep on emerging. Peter Morrison, Michael Havers, GK Young, Keith Joseph, The Hornby brothers, Charles Irving, Lords Annan and Arran, Peter Righton, Peter Hayman, Tony Hetherington. Sickening and revolting

Seems the Hornby’s are tainted. Charles Hornby’s son ended up in the dock, threatening police officers with a gun.

The late Chapman Pincher had a thick file on Michael Havers, which he handed back to police and he said it contained information, if aired, could be “catastrophic for the government”

He also said that had he gone to trial, he would have had to call the Prime Minister and Lord Havers, to give evidence in court.

Image result for "butler-sloss" + "prince andrew"

Elizabeth Butler-Sloss with Prince Andrew (friend of convicted billionaire paedophile Jeffrey Epstein)

Related image

Dame Alun Roberts‏ @ciabaudo

I wonder how Butler Sloss feels about the corrupt and depraved picture of her brother Michael Havers painted in the new Playland book? How could a woman with such direct contacts to paedo scene be chosen as chair?

▌│█║▌║▌║ ϻǗŘƑ ║▌║▌║█‏ @1OneMindAtATime


Image result for norman skelhorn

It might be a scandal involving small boys…

Cassandra Cogno‏ @CassandraCogno

Important that Tim Fortescue’s comments are placed in the context of events of the time he was a whip – Playland Trials 1&2

In the context of Heath report, the Playland trials 1 2 & 3 1970-1975 raise new questions about

the “millionaires, titled & influential” people purchasing runaway boys at Piccadilly Circus and how they escaped trial

Tim Fortescue Chief Whip during Playland Trial No 1 1972

Don’t mention the Piccadilly Clean-Up

Prince Charles’ friend Charles Hornby – Lloyd’s underwriter convicted in 1975 Playland trial just before PIE formed

https://spotlightonabuse.wordpress.com/2014/05/10/the-playland-cover-up/

Charles Hornby,convicted 1975 Playland trial,7 years prior his elder brother’s star & royalty-studded wedding

Playland Amusement Arcade trial 1975 – Charles Hornby & his red mini-transit van – David Archer’s dossier 1976
Missing Playland Trial No 2 (1975) dossiers of Sir Robert Marks & David Archer need to be found
Skelhorn was also the DPP when the ‘Playland’ scandal broke, which saw the Old Etonian Lloyds underwriter Charles Hornby jailed for the sexual exploitation of homeless boys near Piccadilly Circus. It’s widely believed Hornby was the establishment scapegoat and many other VIPs managed to escape justice. The judge admitted not all the perpetrators were in the dock and one of the defendants, David Archer, said he’d presented police with a dossier naming millionaires and titled and influential people involved in the Playland affair. There was “a tremendous cover up to protect these people,” he argued.
Any knowledge of Bernard Briggs in Malta ? He was co-owner/manager of Playland & on hols in Malta for 1975 trial of Hornby&co?

justme‏ @zante03

George Kennedy Young mentioned in Playland book

MI6’S GEORGE KENNEDY YOUNG; VIP CHILD ABUSE

George Kennedy Young, former deputy director of MI6.

Truthseeker1‏ @thewakeupcall09:

Paedophile Lord Louis Mountbatten

 

Lord Louis Mountbatten former chauffeur Norman Nield exposed him

Click to access AAS-NZ-paedophile-feature.pdf

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

Lord Mountbatten with young  Prince Charles

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

Mr Fawcett began his royal service in 1981 as a footman to the Queen, becoming sergeant footman and then Charles’ assistant valet. Pictured: Mr Fawcett and Prince Charles in 1992

George Anthony Smith (13 September 1960 – 24 August 2005) was a former footman and valet in the Royal Household of Prince Charles.

Smith alleged:

  • that he was raped by Michael Fawcett, a favoured servant of the Prince Charles; and
  • that Fawcett was himself in a homosexual relationship with the Prince of Wales, who protected him.

The allegations made international headlines in November 2003 and were the subject of a legal injunction in the United Kingdom.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Smith_(royal_servant)

Mar 9, 2018

Prince Charles hands key £95,000 job heading charity empire to former valet Michael Fawcett who left his service after selling off royal gifts

  • Mr Fawcett made £95,000-a-year Chief Executive of The Prince’s Foundation
  • In 2003 he was forced out when an inquiry found he had sold off official gifts
  • Bullying complaints saw him resign in 1998 but he was reinstated within a week

 

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


 
 

Royal Family, Paedophilia, Satanism & Murder

Aug 29th, 2017

HUNDREDS & HUNDREDS OF ARTICLES & BLOGS

Has to be seen to be believed

Another spiritual adviser to Charles:

Has Prince Charles found his true spiritual home on a Greek rock?

12 May 2004

Image result for vatopedi monastery

On Monday night a resplendent yacht docked at the watery entrance to the world’s only monastic republic. A middle-aged man, followed by two bodyguards, stepped on to the jetty of the peninsula in northern Greece and into the “state” known variously as Mount Athos, Aghio Oros and the Holy Mount.

A few monks in black robes and pillar-box hats stood waiting, but, under orders to keep the identity of this particular pilgrim secret, it was a reception without fanfare. Their guest – clean-shaven in contrast to the bearded clerics – was Prince Charles, on his third clandestine retreat to Athos in the past 12 months.

According to friends and associates of the prince, the future head of the Church of England has become enamoured of the Orthodox faith to the point that he has adorned a section of his home at Highgrove with prized Byzantine icons. Many are believed to originate from the Mount, the Orthodox world’s holiest site.

“There is no question that the British royal is Orthodox in his heart,” confided one Athonite monk, making a rare trip outside the remote republic. “Sadly, he is very constrained by his position.”

Athos, they say, encapsulates Charles’s profound admiration for tradition, ancient wisdom and a divine natural order – even if it has maintained a ban on women since AD1060.

Women are still forbidden from going within 500 metres of the monks’ republic. Yellow signs along the shores of the 400-square-mile peninsula shoo away “female intruders”, despite growing calls within the EU to have the ban lifted. For the nearly 2,000 monks who have devoted their lives to shunning sexual desire through prayer, the Virgin Mary is the only acceptable female presence.

The prince, like his friend, the composer Sir John Tavener, who converted to Greek Orthodoxy in 1977, is said to be especially drawn to the Orthodox church’s rugged spirituality. Orthodox faithful are allowed to marry up to three times.

Not since the Stuarts has an heir to the throne taken such an intellectual interest in religion. For years Charles, who assumes the title of Defender of the Faith when he becomes king, has displayed an unprecedented interest in denominations as divergent as Islam and Buddhism.

But his regular meetings with Ephraim, the abbot of Vatopedion – his adopted monastery on the Mount – have helped fuel speculation that the prince is being personally instructed in eastern Christianity, even if it is fiercely denied by courtiers.

The Cypriot-born abbot is said to be a frequent visitor to Highgrove.

Witnesses say that when the prince arrived in Athos days after the death of Princess Diana almost seven years ago, it was Ephraim who induced him to join the faith. Closeted in a chamber alone with the abbot, Charles is believed to have made a “spiritual commitment” to Christian Orthodoxy.

“What people forget is that Orthodoxy is in his family,” Archbishop Grigorios of Thyateira, who heads the 500,000-strong Orthodox community in Britain, told the Guardian.

“One of Charles’s aunts, the Grand Duchess Eugenia, was proclaimed an Orthodox saint after she was murdered in Moscow where she had established a monastery. His paternal grandmother, Aliki [Alice], was a nun for most of her life. She spoke very good Greek and in her later years, when she came to live in London, she kept an Orthodox chapel in Buckingham Palace,” added the prelate. “Aliki was a very powerful woman whom I’m sure had a very strong influence on Charles in his early years.”

As the religious centre of eastern Orthodoxy, Athos is a magnet for pilgrims dedicated to the faith. Many – as testified by the growing number of monks from the EU, Canada, Australia and the US – don’t look back. And among Europe’s wealthy blue bloods, the luxuriant territory is seen as the perfect “detox” getaway.

But the prince’s affection for a place where visitors sleep on lumpy mattresses and rise at 4am has also raised the inevitable question of whether the heir to the throne harbours desires of eventually converting to the religion.

Prince Philip, his Corfu-born father who like Charles is an honorary member of the Friends of Mount Athos, had to switch to Anglicanism from Greek Orthodoxy to marry the Queen.

In their large, decaying monasteries the clerics cherish the sort of Spartan conditions that Charles hated at Gordonstoun, his stern Scottish boarding school. Most also make no secret of their loathing of other western religions.

In the wake of last year’s allegations of rape and the sale of gifts which engulfed the house of Windsor and its staff, senior Greek Orthodox priests launched a spirited defence of the prince. Many denounced the claims as an “international conspiracy” unleashed by forces bent on destroying the reluctant royal’s new-found affection for the religion.

“All these attacks against Charles are doubtless due to the fact that he has embraced Orthodoxy,” said His Beatitude, Anthimos, the Bishop of Alexandroupolis. “If his Orthodox beliefs were ever to be made official, people would find it very troubling.”

Officially, St James’s Palace says the prince’s trips to the car-free Mount are a purely “personal affair”.

“He goes there as a private individual, not in his official capacity as the Prince of Wales,” said Kirstine Clark, a spokeswoman at the palace. “Visits are very much in his private time, so we don’t issue details. What I can say is that he is interested in the architecture and spirituality of Mount Athos.”

But, perhaps because he stands to become the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, Charles is also unusually sensitive about his trips to the Mount. His visits have been shrouded in secrecy. Countless Greeks with access to the community told the Guardian they were under oath never to mention them.

Government officials and diplomats are politely told not to escort the prince to Vatopedion, which he helped restore with money from the auction of his watercolours.

Attending the opening of the newly refurbished monastery last year, the prince said he hoped each of the Mount’s 23 monasteries would soon regain their former splendour. He would, he said, work hard to ensure that happened.

Charles to make spiritual return

AS HE approaches his fifth wedding anniversary next month, Prince Charles is feeling the need for a male-only spiritual recharge: he is contemplating a solo sojourn to a monastery in northern Greece.

 

https://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/adam-helliker/162065/Charles-to-make-spiritual-return

Greece jails Abbot Ephraim in Mount Athos fraud case

2011

Vatopedi is part of the ancient Mount Athos monastic community that has been visited by Britain’s Prince Charles and Russia’s Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.

The abbot of the prestigious Vatopedi monastery on Mount Athos in Greece has been jailed pending trial for alleged fraud and embezzlement.

Greek Supreme Court Charges 14 over Vatopedi Monastery Scandal

2014

Greece ’s Supreme Court indicted 14 individuals earlier today over the Vatopedi Monastery land swap scandal that became public in August 2008. The court struck down a Supreme Court deputy prosecutor’s reversal of the indictments, requested by three of the defendants, which had been issued by a criminal appeals court.

Those charged are Vatopedi Monastery Abbot Ephraim, monk Arsenios, notary Aikaterini Peleki, attorneys Dionysis Pelekis and Dimitrios Pelekis, former head of the Hellenic Public Real Estate Company (KED) Petros Papageorgiou, KED board member Constantinos Gratsios, former director of KED’s real estate management service Georgios Mitropoulos, former Agriculture Ministry secretary general Constantinos Skiadas and former head of Rural Development Ministry Stamatoula Madeli. Also indicted is former Legal Council of State Vice President Grigoris Krombas, as well as Christodoulos Botsios, Stefanos Detsis and Ioannis Dionysopoulos.

The 14 charged are accused of morally or otherwise instigating acts of breach of trust and issuing false certificates in connection with transactions swapping real estate in Lake Vistonida and its shores with prime real estate belonging to the Greek state as well as damaging the state’s interests. The cost to the state is believed to have been at least 100 million euros, while according to financial writer Michael Lewis, a Greek parliamentary commission established to investigate the scandal, estimated the value of government property received by the monastery at one billion euros. The public fury that followed the revelation of the illegal land swaps led the government of New Democracy to cancel the deals and two Ministers resigned, under huge pressure from the media.

Ioannis Aggelou, director of Former Prime Minister Kostas Karamanlis’ office at the time, was the only person to be acquitted under the specific indictments.


Efraim’s ring ran cash slush funds to bribe politicians,  offshore companies, got nearly 200 million euros in loans from banks,  and played a role in the engineered collapse of the banks of Andreas Vgenopoulos in Cyprus which cost tax payers 4 billion euros.

“Mt Athos is currently one large building site in contrast to the dereliction and poverty of the rest of Greece. It seems unreal that humble monks should be employing so much specialist labour. This must be costing hundreds of millions of euros. The ancient buildings have received EU and Unesco grants, but these surely account for a fraction of the lavish expenditure I observed. Such huge grants could not be justified given that access is so limited and entry is forbidden to women,” reports The Spectator.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/09/what-is-behind-vladimir-putins-curious-interest-in-mount-athos/

https://birdflu666.wordpress.com/2016/09/14/vatopedi-monastery-got-109-million-in-loans-from-vgenopoulos-helped-in-4-billion-cyprus-bailout-scam-trial-to-resume-in-greece/

Court acquits all defendants in Vatopedi Monastery land swap trial

ww:

–How could someone who was so closely linked with the aristocracy such as ( Mountbatten and Charles), someone closely linked with so many senior police officers in the UK, So close to senior politicians that for example he spent several Xmas’s with Former PM Thatcher, someone close to the Former PM Ted Heath, knowing that someone with such links would of course be vetted by security services. How could someone like that get away with sexually abusing children for all that time?

If after that and people still don’t know the answer then there is no hope for them.

Why is Savile so important … the key if you like

His connections, he just seems to be in so many places where child abuse occurred or linked to high profile people who have or are claimed to have abused children

He was more than just a stand alone child abuser. He was a procurer, a fixer for elite peadophiles

He is a gateway to unravelling some of the elite paedophile rings that operated at that time.

Savile –Prince Charles

Savile – Royal patronage

Savile – Heath – Jersey- Haut de la Garenne care home

Savile – Mountbatten – Heath – Kincora – MI5/6

Savile – Broadmoor – Sutcliffe –ripper murders- Krays – Clarke

Savile – Thatcher – It would appear most of her cabinet members during that time – Tom Watson MP highlighting the issue now

Savile – Elm Guest House – various high profile politicians and clergy

Savile – Cardinal Keith O’Brien

Savile – King –Gldd –and Harris – let alone the many many other celeb’s convicted of child abuse

Savile – CHARITY fund raising – children’s charities that did nothing to protect – rather provided a convenient database and access point

The list goes on and on. So many disparate groups – all linked by Savile.


Savile: Knighthood committee ‘told about abuse in 1998’

14 Mar 2019

The committee that recommends people for knighthoods received allegations of child sexual abuse against Jimmy Savile in 1998, an inquiry has heard.

The head of the Honours Committee also resisted pressure from Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s to knight Savile, according to letters seen by the probe.

Savile sexually abused at least 72 people, including eight who were raped.

The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse is investigating both institutions and public figures.

Savile, who died in 2011, was ultimately knighted in 1990 in recognition of his charity work.

The Westminster strand of the inquiry heard civil servants were wary of Savile as early as 1984.

In letters exchanged with then prime minister Mrs Thatcher’s secretary, committee head Lord Robert Armstrong cited interviews with Savile published in the Sun the previous year in which the BBC DJ boasted about sleeping with hundreds of girls, having people assaulted, and telling a suicidal man how he could take his own life.

“My committee did not feel that sufficient time has elapsed since Mr Savile’s unfortunate revelations in the popular press in April of this year,” Lord Armstrong wrote.

“He is much in the public eye and it is unlikely that the lurid details of his story will have been forgotten. I fear it would be best if Mr Savile were to wait a little longer.”

He later refused to include him in the birthday honours list, saying time had “served only to strengthen the doubts felt about a knighthood for Mr Savile”.

He had been advised awarding a knighthood to Savile would bring the honours system into “disrepute”, he wrote.

In 1998, the committee received an anonymous letter that said “reports of a paedophilia nature” could emerge about Savile and allegations about his involvement with boys.

It said: “While within limits and bounds homosexuality can be rationalised in a modern society, we must not lose sight that paedophilia goes beyond any boundaries which right-minded people of whatever political persuasions find abhorrent.”

Giving evidence to the inquiry, senior civil servant Helen MacNamara – who currently heads the Honours and Appointments Secretariat – said such a letter would now be passed to police immediately.

She added that she did not know how the letter was dealt with at the time or if any concerns were raised with authorities.

The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse in England and Wales is investigating claims against local authorities, religious organisations, the armed forces, and public and private institutions – as well as people in the public eye.

The inquiry is being led by Prof Alexis Jay, a former director of social services who headed the inquiry into child sexual exploitation in Rotherham.

The inquiry’s public hearings consist of 13 separate investigations, which are expected to last until 2020.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47576543


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.