Waiting For Wanless.

In July this year Mark Sedwill, permanent secretary to the Home Office gave some details about a Home Office review which took place last year.

In his letter Mr Sedwill told Mr Vaz that Mr Dickens had submitted allegations of sexual offences over a number of years to several Home Secretaries, including Lord Brittan, rather than just one single dossier.

He said the review had analysed a central database containing 746,000 files from the period 1979 to 1999 and had identified 527 potentially relevant files, from which nine items of information about alleged child abuse were reported to police.

But Mr Sedwill said the same analysis of the central database “identified 114 potentially relevant files had been presumed destroyed, missing or not found”.

The Telegraph

And so Peter Wanless, CEO of the NSPCC was asked to examine and report.

And what has he discovered ?

Now, a source familiar with the Wanless report has told BBC Newsnight: “They have looked inside and behind every single cupboard in the department, and they have been round them twice, and they have not been able to find any of them [the documents].”

BBC News

But just because these ‘relevant missing files’ can not be found does not mean that this report might not possibly contain revealing and new information.

The questions that I would like to have answered, and these are questions that the Home Office are in a position to answer, are these;

1) What is the Home Office definition of a “relevant file” in the context of the 2013 Home Office review and Mark Sedwill’s statement ?

2) As these ‘relevant files’ were able to be identified within a central Home Office database containing 746,000 files there must logically be some descriptive information identifying them as ‘relevant’. Therefore, what information is known about the 114 missing ‘relevant files’ ? What is the exact nature of these files ?

3) Given that the 2013 Home Office review examined files from the period 1979-1999 from what period within those 20 years were each of the ‘relevant’ 114 missing files from and to supply context, what period were each of the ‘potentially relevant’ files that were found from ?

All of these questions can be answered by the Home Office even if the files themselves can not be found and given the increasing public suspicion concerning this entire issue, the Home Office would be wise to provide clarity on them.



Filed under Abuse, News, Politics

10 responses to “Waiting For Wanless.

  1. Cj aka Elderofzyklons Blog

    Reblogged this on ElderofZyklon's Blog!.

  2. Pingback: Waiting For Wanless. | Alternative News Network

  3. artmanjosephgrech

    I never anticipated the files would be found and my belief is that they were deliberately removed..

    To establish this the Home Affairs committee Sedwill was asked if th missing 114 were removed in a block or blocks or individually. It was possible to check this by examining the file files on either side of the missing ones. If there are files either side ( what subject are these as they still exist and if they are relevant child protection issue rules it is reasonable to deduce that the missing were deliberately removed. The next issue arising from this is the interrogation of those who were responsible for the official removal of files to establish if they were directly involved. Following this were would need to contact with Security services, Ministers senior civil servants to establish if they had any knowledge of decisions being taken to selectively remove files.

    all this is not rocket science.

    I know I go on about the Gates Family Inquiry but in that instance the key family file disappeared the day a senior social worker left to help establish a new course to train social workers!

    Now when the social worker was appointed and received the transfer summary this officer, the senior social worker or area officer appeared to have made no effort to find or reconstruct the file. Nor was this done when the social worker became senior social worker and new social worker was appointed. It was only when a new health visitor suggested to the social worker than an attempt should be made to reconstruct the files but unfortunately a child died a horrible death while being left alone with other children before this worked could be completed.

    The local authority then made a search of every file to try and the file ( I cannot remember if this was the Inquest or Trial of a parent. A source recently has made available a letter from Patrick Jenkin then Secretary if State to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher having received a note asking for information from her Private Secretary ( ie to make the request official and recorded rather than a direct chat or phone call bearing in mind that Jenkin was part of a small group of people within Cabinet and government that Mrs Thatcher kept close ( see volume one of the biography of Mrs Thatcher for this aspect of the information. The response of now Lord Jenkins and Chief Inspector Utting can be viewed on Cathy Fox site.

    The significance of this shows the great interest Mrs thatcher had in the particular case and more general subject and need to take action to do something about it.

    Jenkin said he had called for reports and arising from this I was invited on Inspectorate invite to be the Social Services person on the pane.

    The inquiry was established by Bexley Council and the Bexley Area Health Authority and although not a statutory inquiry it was run as a statutyory with a Judge Council for the inquiry and 6/7 interests registering the right the to attend all hearings and interview witnesses.( I have the full list of representation with 50 legal people attending the first day session of opening statements ) The authority then conducted another search in every nook and cranny for the missing file for the inquiry and file nothing.

    The professional child care people on fthe panel refused to accept the way the lawyers wanted to run things after the first day witness were interviewed ( advised by the Social Service Inspector attached) After negotiations whether the inquiry would go on or we would go back to the authorities who seconded us we commenced the interviewing of each witness according to out specialist experience although it was also agreed the lawyers would continue to do their own thing so the inquiry hearings lasted 11 weeks spread over 13 instead of 3. Because we did not sit being fed the information Counsel wanted us to have or ask questions when invited to do so it meant we had to do the work and got through the mountain of paper provided by all the interests who had been involved with the family. It was only late on when I discussed the missing files with the Social Services management and how it had been recreated that I realised ( because I had worked in Children’s departments, attended 13 afternoon seminar on child care law and sat a paper on child care law as part of getting professional child qualifications ( one social worker had only 2 hours on the law) that I realised the managers and social workers had all forgotten or did not know about the child care boarding out register set up with Boarding Out regulations following the 1948 Act and the deputy admitted he did not know, they went back and the following morning advised of two more foster parents who told us they did not understand why they had not been called and about their complaints.

    This was a part of the findings of negligence we made not just in relation to Social Services as the consultant Paedetrician involved admitted he had not read his file and that when he had for the inquiry re realised his failures we listed about 100 situations which the media highlighted aftwer their had been an attempt to prevent publication. What I have not disclosed before is that I offered just not to sign the report ( whitewash) prepared by the lawyers but then the other two child caremet to ask why so I explained and they asked me write tehr eport how I saw it which took six months and then we met and went over the report line by line and was largely rewritten to great effect it was a collective panel report. The chairman contacted and asked what he should do and I advised him that for legal reasons he should present the legal report we would present ours in draft to be checked re legal concerns. The only query which the lawyers sneaked in and a letter was written they had not done their homework.

    A key issue was whether a health visitor had returned on one day and she said at the inquiry she had however from studying the record closely I detected the handwriting and initials were different.

    I would male two other points of interest and relevance. A member of the CSA panel wrote three articles about the Inquiry from the viewpoint of a witness and I have some 200 pages of media coverage before and following publication but Bexley recently refused to publish re Kathy Fox whatdotheyknow com because of a query whether the report had been published. James Wellbeloved MP asked the Leader of the House at the time why Bexley was not publishing the reports. A key figure in getting the inquiry was a senior police officer who won the George medal Balcombe street sieger. The Head of the Metropolitan Police stopped his promotion and he died early his career ruined. Brian Roycroft did his best to rubbish the report directly with me, and with the Social Services Inspectorate .

    Interestingly the Spectator recently drew to attention the article Auberon Waugh wrote in 1982. Patrick Jenkin was only Secretary of Sate to 1981 when Norman Now Lord Fowler took over. I am writing to them to find out if they were told the a matter which we all agreed to cover up at the time and if they know if Mrs Thatcher was told and said about that aspect which could relevant because she was told about another matter and has been accused of covering up

  4. Anon

    If they know there were *precisely* 114 missing files, then presumably they will also be aware of their titles and will have summaries of their contents?

  5. One cannot avoid concluding that Those with knowledge and information from within informed circles who could shed some light on the disappearance of potentially damaging files are either suffering from collective amnesia or are being deliberately obstructive by suppressing vital information

    • Sabre

      Indeed, One cannot, we know it stinks, they know it stinks.

      Their only mission now is to prevent disclosure of detail.

  6. GMB

    ‘Hello X
    I’m sorry I cannot remember if I replied to this. Our specific terms of reference relate tightly to what the Home Office did or did not know between 1979 and 1999…. REDACTED….
    Best wishes and thanks for now.

  7. GMB

    Extract from a confidential email:
    ‘The paperwork exists – it may not be the four Dickens Dossiers but it was described to me so – ‘ I am one of a the few security officers to have read the paper files over the river. I have read the files on (1) named in full and (2) named in full and all of the other MP’s who have abused little boys and girls here in the UK and abroad’.

  8. chrisb

    I can’t see anything not previously known or suspected in this article, but it’s good to see one part of the MSM continuing to highlight directions of enquiry into child sex abuse.