Once again many thanks to Cathy who provided a link to the full review HERE.
A redacted version of The White Report can be accessed HERE
Documents seized under warrant on 9th January by Operation Fernbridge officers included lists of visitors to Elm Guest House in Barnes. Among the visitors, who were part of a paedophile ring sexually abusing boys in the care of Richmond Council, was Ralph Morris, the headmaster of privately owned Castle Hill special school in Ludlow, Shropshire.
This is a surprisingly informative report.
“Even after the former Tesco worker had been arrested and charged he carried on offending, the court heard”
So, Judge John Dixon jailed Francis Knight for 16 months (likely out in 8 months) after he admitted 18 charges of inciting boys aged under 14 to engage in sexual activity, and making indecent images of children.
He’s going to serve less than 15 days for each charge.
A paedophile stole teenage girls’ identities from Facebook and used them to persuade boys as young as nine to perform sex acts for him.
‘Manipulative’ Francis Knight, 31, who befriended his victims by posing as girls whose accounts he had either hacked or cloned, contacted as many as 250 children online, a court heard.
As Knight, from Portsmouth, was jailed for 16 months, it emerged one girl whose Facebook account he hacked was forced to change schools because of the stigma of the case.
The cases of six victims, aged from nine to 13, were outlined at Portsmouth Crown Court.
But Knight, described as ‘calculated and artful’ by a judge, admitted he had contacted around 250 youngsters over a period of two years.
Even after the former Tesco worker had been arrested and charged he carried on offending, the court heard.
Message from Ian Mulcahey, the police officer in charge of Operation Pallial.
While I am not able to confirm personal details of any individuals who may or may not have been contacted by members of Operation Pallial, for obvious reasons, I would like to share with you the basis on which we currently share or issue information.
Firstly, no information was provided to any victims in advance of the arrest of a man in Suffolk, as it would not be appropriate to announce police action publicly before it had taken place. We did issue a media release after the arrest and again after the man had been interviewed, to confirm that he was being released on bail while we continue to investigate.
As an investigation, following consultation with a number of organisations who represent or support victims, we were encouraged to provide victims who had come forward to Operation Pallial with advanced access to the Public Report on Progress, which was published on April 29.
We contacted everyone who had come forward to report abuse to us since November last year and informed them, in confidence, of the date and time that the report would be made public and how they could access and read it a few hours in advance if they wished to do so.
We have received positive feedback from victims, who appreciated being given advanced warning of the publicity generated by the report, together with an opportunity to see it; rather than hear extracts reported in the news media and online.
We were not selective in informing only a few of those who came forward; in fact we reached the vast majority of individuals in the week before the report was published.
If anyone feels, as a group or individually, that they would like more engagement with us, I would be happy to discuss this. Alternatively, you can approach the Children’s Commissioner for Wales, the NSPCC, Victim Support or the Chair of North Wales Police’s Independent Advisory Group and discuss your needs with them. All of these organisations and individuals meet regularly with myself and other members of Operation Pallial and we welcome feedback on all aspects of the investigation, including our communications.
We will continue to keep victims and witnesses as informed as possible throughout the investigation. Clearly there will be occasions, such as arrests, where this will not be possible.
But only after advertisers begin to walk away.
Still, good news nonetheless.
Facebook is changing their policy on content endorsing rape and violence against women after a social media campaign
Campaign #FBRape, set up by activists, highlighted the flaw in the social network’s guidelines which banned hate speech but not offensive remarks regarding sexual assault.
Following the hugely successful campaign, which saw several companies pull their advertisements from Facebook, the website agreed to change their policies.
In a public statement, Facebook acknowledge their failure to block the offensive content and promised to train staff to be able to spot such posts in order to make Facebook a’ safe and respectful place for sharing and connection’.
‘The guidelines used by these systems have failed to capture all the content that violates our standards.
‘We need to do better — and we will,’ Facebook said in their statement.
It’s very interesting to talk to professionals and discover that not all agree with the report by Professor Jean la Fontaine, an anthropologist, who was appointed by Virginia Bottomley, the then Health Secretary, to research ‘Ritual Abuse’ in 1991. Some ask what the consequences of La Fontaine’s report have been over the last 20 years.
Satanist Ritual Abuse and the Problem of Credibility by Dr Joan Coleman
Do some satanists really commit crimes and abuse children? Many people believe not. My own hard-earned professional experience tells me otherwise.
This chapter is an account of my own journey: a journey from relative ignorance prior to 1980, through growing awareness of the extent of child sexual abuse, through my bizarre, frightening introduction to satanist ritual abuse, to my eventual belief that satanist crime does, indeed, occur. And I would like to think that mine is a reflective, rather than reflexive, belief (van der Hart & Nijenhuis, 1999) – that is, belief that stems from reflecting on the evidence, rather that blind acceptance of what initially seems highly improbable.
Ritual abuse evoked considerable interest in Britain between 1987 and 1994. The subject was taken up by many professionals, mainly psychologists, counsellors, and social workers; numerous children thought to be at risk were taken into care. In 1989, some of us who had encountered it formed an organisation called RAINS (Ritual Abuse Information Network & Support), with the aim of sharing information and supporting each other.
Ritual abuse can be found in a wide range of social and religious backgrounds. In this chapter, I focus on abuse within satanist groups, as that is the type that I myself and most RAINS members have largely encountered.
In 1990, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) issued a press release regarding the large number of such cases they were working with. There were numerous press articles and several television programmes. In 1991, Health Secretary Virginia Bottomley appointed an anthropologist, Professor Jean la Fontaine, to research the subjects of organised and ritual abuse. La Fontaine had already written an acclaimed book on child sexual abuse.
In the summary of her report, La Fontaine concluded that there was no evidence of satanist abuse and that the alleged disclosures of the children were largely suggested by adults. In those cases in which the police had found ‘satanic’ paraphernalia, she maintained that these were simply used by paedophiles to intimidate the children (Great Britain, Dept. of Health, 1994).
Largely as a result of this report, both the media and professionals became cautious about the subject of ritual abuse, and many shied away from it. Social workers were instructed not to mention the words ‘ritual’ or ‘satanic’ in any reports regarding child abuse.
Meanwhile, an increasing number of adults were seeking help with what they were convinced were genuine memories of severe and sadistic abuse that they had undergone as children. The recognition of the reality of child sexual abuse and its resulting psychological effects enabled adult survivors of satanist ritual abuse to feel some hope they would be believed. However, this was not always the case because when ceremonies and sacrifices were mentioned, these were dismissed by some psychiatrists as delusions and many survivors were given inappropriate treatment with antipsychotic drugs. The False Memory Syndrome Foundation (set up in 1992) and the British False Memory Society (set up in 1993) also contributed to the general attitude of scepticism among professionals, and the whole subject of ritual crime became ‘suspect’.
Incidentally, the reader may notice that I have been using the term ‘satanist’ rather than the more commonly used ‘satanic’. In my view, it is important to make this distinction because, although the alleged abuse may be done in the name of Satan, whom the abusers profess to worship, it is nonetheless people, not Satan, who are the abusers.
From ignorance, through uncertainty, to reflective belief
When I was working towards membership of the Royal College of Psychiatrists in the early 1970s, only a few days of the course were dedicated to the subject of sexual disorders, which included perversions and fetishisms, incest, and paedophilia. The latter was considered rare and usually referred to strange men preying on children singly, rather than in groups. When the existence of the Paedophile Information Exchange network was exposed less than a decade later, it was an eye-opener for many that a large number of professional people appeared to be abusing on an organised scale. Furthermore, most of us were still unaware of the extent of child sexual abuse by family members.
Several months ago some documents, known by many as the’ Mary Moss docs’ found their way onto the internet. These documents were soon afterwards seized under warrant by the Operation Fernbridge police, following a raid. One particular document appeared to show a list of prominent visitors to Elm Guest House in Barnes, a place where boys from care homes, including Grafton Close, were taken and abused by men.
I’m going to look at three men named on that list in an effort to demonstrate why people looking into this need to be extremely wary about how they view these documents.
First, we’ll look at ‘Person A’. Like all of the three men, ‘Person A’ is well known.
‘Person A’ is gay though he has never come out of the closet. It is extremely likely that ‘Person A’ did visit the Elm Guest House, it was after all a gay guest house, a safe place for gay men to be themselves at a time, in the late 1970s, early 1980s, when social attitudes to homosexuality were markedly different from today. But I’m unaware of any evidence that ‘Person A’ ever abused young boys and I know people have looked very hard for evidence.
It must be very difficult for ‘Person A’. Not only has he lied about being gay in the past, he also would have to explain what he was doing at Elm Guest House, a place that has become synonymous with the abuse of boys.
So, problem number one when looking at those documents is that they may contain the names of men who had nothing to do with child abuse and who were unaware of what was going on at Elm Guest House.
Now, let’s look at ‘Person B’. ‘Person B’ almost certainly never visited Elm Guest House because, as I’ve already said, it was a place where young boys from care homes were abused, and ‘Person B’ was known to NAYPIC as a man who sexually abused young girls from a care home in a completely different part of London.
Two residents of the care home in question, and who are witnesses to abuse by ‘Person B’ at a ‘party’ in Brighton, exist but both have “moved on with their lives”. This has to be entirely respected and I hope those that read this will join me in wishing them well in the future. I only mention them in passing to demonstrate that ‘Person B’s’ abuse of young girls is not in any question in my own mind.
Patently, Operation Fernbridge, which seems specifically concerned with abuse at Elm Guest House is unlikely to arrest someone unconnected with their investigation. Nevertheless, it’s hard to feel any sympathy for ‘Person B’ being named on that list. It does, however, demonstrate another problem with the ‘list’, that it is not a definitive or even exclusive list of men who visited Elm Guest House.
The third man is ‘Person C’. ‘Person C’ did attend Elm Guest House and did abuse young boys there. Someone I trust without any hesitation has seen a photograph of ‘Person C’ in an extremely compromising situation with a young boy taken at Elm Guest House during a ‘Kings and Queens’ party. There is not anyone who I have talked to who has any degree of knowledge about what was going on who questions that ‘Person C was involved. ‘Person C’ is a child abuser and if there were any justice in this country he’d have already been arrested.
Anyway, I hope this helps people to understand that the ‘Mary Moss Docs’ should be looked at critically. In some areas they are misleading but in others they are correct.