Supplement to the Wanless / Whittam Review

This report was quietly released today;

‘Following the discovery of a file that should have been submitted to Peter Wanless and Richard Whittam QC in their review, the Cabinet Office undertook further searches of the Cabinet Secretary’s private papers collection and identified 4 additional relevant files. Peter Wanless and Richard Whittam QC have reviewed this additional material and produced a supplementary report.’                    gov.uk

Of particular interest is this observation by Peter Wanless and Richard Whittam, 3rd June 2015;

‘More broadly, there were a number of references across the papers we saw that reinforced the observation we made in our Review [Review 2.5] that issues of crimes against children, particularly the rights of the complainant, were given considerably less serious consideration than would be expected today. To give one striking example, in response to claims from two sources that a named Member of Parliament ”has a penchant for small boys”, matters conclude with acceptance of his word that he does not and the observation that “At the present stage … the risks of political embarrassment to the Government is rather greater than the security danger.” [Sir Antony Duff to Sir Robert Armstrong 4/11/86]
The risk to children is not considered at all.’

Full Document:

WW-Supp1
WW-Supp2

WW-Supp3

WW-Supp4

WW-Supp5

WW-Supp6

WW-Supp7

WW-Supp8

WW-Supp9

WW-Supp10

WW-Supp11

WW-Supp12

WW-Supp13

WW-Supp14

WW-Supp15

Advertisements

10 Comments

Filed under Abuse, News

10 responses to “Supplement to the Wanless / Whittam Review

  1. Pingback: Supplement to the Wanless / Whittam Review | Alternative News Network

  2. dpack

    the mention of “one” might be relevant to the reasons for “finding” this letter

  3. Isn’t it strange how the Government documents were only discovered after the deaths of all those named…

  4. Bishop Brightly

    Mr wanless appears to have been perfectly selected.

  5. Reblogged this on Desiring Progress and commented:
    Vital information here.

  6. So, the Home Office letter came from someone who was Head of Children´s Services in Haringey in the 1980s? http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/alumni/alumni-profiles/jeremy-oppenheim/

  7. dpack

    the correspondence re oldfield might be revealing regarding who was saying what,my understanding is that he hand delivered a couple of sheets of a4 to thatcher that simply explained what the “security situation “was including the “clockwork orange/gladio b” aspects and told her exactly who killed neave and dickie and why.
    that did not go down well but as he had the hess papers as insurance for him but mostly for his chums(he knew his cancer was terminal) he was re- retired and the nastier rumors about him were used to “explain”his fall from grace. ps his chums in 6 knew he was gay and did not see that as a problem in a long and effective career.

    the correspondence regarding wallace and holroyd may also include some very interesting data.

    the value of these documents depends on the completeness of the files and the truth or otherwise of the contents but the signatories on each sheet might be very revealing.