Can be found HERE
Click on image to enlarge
Filed under Abuse, News, Politics
My favourite bit:
” In respect of the second Review commissioned by the Permanent Secretary, Peter Wanless and Richard Whittam QC make clear that they “have seen no evidence to suggest PIE was ever funded by the Home Office because of sympathy for its aims”.
OK, This makes sense, kinda.
It doesn’t seem plausible to me that the Home Office, as an organisation would by sympathetic to PIE.
Although IF they were, then it would make sense for them to give PIE £70,000 from 1977-80.
But they weren’t, so why?
Review 2 had concluded that on the balance of probabilities and in the “Review 2 had concluded that on the balance of probabilities and in the absence of supporting evidence or a corroborative account, the alleged funding of PIE by the Home Office’s Voluntary Services Unit [VSU] did not take place. We have explored further the suggestion made by the whistleblower, and not covered explicitly in the original review, that funding of PIE might have taken place with the knowledge of the police or security services as part of an effort to infiltrate PIE. On the information we have seen during the period of our review, we have found nothing in registered files or in testimony offered by contemporaries in and around the VSU [voluntary services unit] to support what the whistleblower remembers being told. Nor, however, have we been able to dismiss the suggestion entirely.”
I think more digging is required on this one.
“we have found nothing”
Wasn’t that the whole purpose?
Pingback: Home Secretary’s Statement On The Wanless Report | Alternative News Network
Reblogged this on L8in.
Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.