William Hague To Be Elevated to the Lords


News today that William Hague is to be elevated to the House of Lords after standing down at the last general general election as the Member of Parliament for Richmond, Yorkshire, a post he had held since the 1989 by-election following Leon Brittan’s resignation to become a European Commissioner.

On the face of it William Hague’s elevation to the Lords is unsurprising. In fact, as one of Parliaments most capable debaters over the last quarter of a century, a former leader of the Conservative Party, and a former Foreign Secretary, it would have been strange if he hadn’t received a peerage in the Dissolution Honours List. Nevertheless, at a time when public concern over Westminster paedophilia and Establishment cover- up, and with very serious and as yet unresolved questions regarding William Hague’s own alleged role in protecting VIP paedophiles when he was Secretary of State for Wales, there will be many who will see William Hague’s elevation to the Lords as at best an insensitive decision and at worst a signal from the Prime Minister that as far as he is concerned it is business as usual for the establishment and the greater media scrutiny of VIP child sexual abuse at this time is only a temporary storm that can be ridden out.

To understand why the decision to give William Hague a peerage is more controversial than the casual observer might otherwise realise we need to examine the decisions that he took while drawing up the Terms of Reference for The Waterhouse Inquiry.

The Terms of Reference for the Waterhouse Inquiry were;

    (a)  to inquire into the abuse of children in care in the former county council areas of Gwynedd and Clwyd since 1974;
    (b)  to examine whether the agencies and authorities responsible for such care, through the placement of the children or through the regulation or management of the facilities, could have prevented the abuse or detected its occurrence at an earlier stage;
    (c)  to examine the response of the relevant authorities and agencies to allegations and complaints of abuse made either by children in care, children formerly in care or any other persons, excluding scrutiny of decisions whether to prosecute named individuals;
    (d)  in the light of this examination, to consider whether the relevant caring and investigative agencies discharged their functions appropriately and, in the case of the caring agencies, whether they are doing so now; and to report its findings and to make recommendations to him.


Whether it was William Hague’s intention at the time or not, what we do know is that Ronald Waterhouse interpreted point a) as a geographical restriction and that abuse of care home children outside of North Wales, notably across the English border in Chester, was excluded and that further restrictions on examining alleged abusers were the consequence of point c).

Concern that the Terms of Reference might be too narrow was immediate as can be see from Ron Davies’ , Shadow Secretary of State for Wales, reply to William Hague’s announcement of The Waterhouse Inquiry.

“Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the terms of reference will be sufficiently wide to examine the whole question of organised child abuse? The allegations centre on a former local authority children’s home network. Does he accept that the nature of the allegations indicates the possible existence of a wider paedophile network, extending throughout society and into its most powerful reaches?” – Ron Davies  17th June 1996



Sir Peter Morrison

One thing seems certain and that is that above and beyond the Westminster rumours regarding Sir Peter Morrison’s interest in young boys, William Hague was aware at the time he was drawing up the Terms of Reference for Waterhouse of at least one powerful Tory,  Margaret Thatcher’s former Parliamentary Private Secretary, former Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party, and formally the Member of Parliament for Chester, Sir Peter Morrison , who had died the previous year. As can be seen by this recollection from Gyles Brandreth who succeeded Morrison as MP for Chester;

The first, and only, official acknowledgement of my predecessor’s possible involvement in child abuse came my way in 1996, when William Hague, then Secretary of State for Wales, came up to me in the Commons to let me know that he had ordered an inquiry into allegations of child abuse in care homes in North Wales between 1974 and 1990 — and that Morrison’s name might feature in connection with the Bryn Estyn home in Wrexham, 12 miles from Chester.

Sir Ronald Waterhouse QC, a retired High Court judge, was appointed to head the inquiry. It took three years, cost £12 million, and when the Waterhouse report appeared it made grim reading.

It named and criticised almost 200 people for either abusing children or failing to offer them sufficient protection. Credible evidence had been found of ‘widespread sexual abuse’, with the existence of a paedophile ring in the Wrexham/Chester area.

But Sir Peter Morrison’s name did not feature.

 Daily Mail

Perhaps it might have been an idea if Justice Macur had published her report, which is looking into whether the Waterhouse Inquiry’s Terms of Reference were too narrow, before Hague was elevated ?


Filed under Abuse, News, Politics

26 responses to “William Hague To Be Elevated to the Lords

  1. dpack

    could he have been a horologist . iirc there was mention of a clock mender with some dubious vip chums and some serious posthumous allegations made against him in a msm press story?although i can now find no trace of it .

    my sincere apologies to the late chap’s family if im wrong ,which is quite likely, but when i found this one i had the feeling he was the chap i remembered and that i had remembered the name and perhaps misplaced the context . for a man with a reputation as a top end expert and restorer his google entries are a bit sparse which makes me consider if some may have been “removed”.

    British Horological Institute
    obt oct 2002

  2. Hi dpack,

    Thanks for your replies.

    If you find out anything about this mysterious “Ray Beech”, I’d be interested to hear it.

    I tried doing some google searches for “Ray Beech” and “Raymond Beech” but nothing that came up seemed relevant to Fernbridge/Midland and CSA.

  3. Does anyone have any idea who Ray Beech is?

    Harvey Proctor named him as one of the people being investigated at the press conference.

    I have been unable to find anything about Ray Beech.

    • dpack

      possibly beech was spooky,no firm data that i recall but the name seems familiar from somewhere,i will try to remember where to look.
      the major problem i have with the whole “nick ” saga is exaro’s involvement as so far a lot of their work seems to have confused rather than clarified matters.

      as to pallial they have done some good work so far i hope they keep it up.

    • dpack

      from that report it is quite plausible that smo did visit but he may have been investigating “the security situation” and having stern but quiet words with mcgrath et al ,rather than taking advantage of the “facilities”.

      the bible smuggling(it was a bit more complex than just delivering contraband bibles but bible smuggling was a good legend if it all went pear shaped with the kgb) is something robin bryans mentions and takes us back to some of the barry school of evangelism allumni among others.

    • dpack


      some of the data and dates given in that make me wonder how much influence oldfield’s attitude to the “security situation” and related matters had over the exposure of blunt as a moscow man (nov 79).
      rather than outing blunt as being a good pal of mcgrath ,henniker et al and more relevantly the anglo irish masonic/spooky /csa (blackmail and reward)connections between them and others which seem relevant to the”security situation”and many other aspects of history thatcher announced he was a soviet mole and anything else was never mentioned.

      the “wars” between 6 and 5 and that between elements of both involved with others in the subversion of democracy and those who thought that a bad idea (on a variety of grounds not least of which was the idea that europe might be the planned venue for the usa to “win” a nuclear world war three)had been going on for some time.

      a closer look at oldfield’s attitude to the “wilson plot”and related matters could perhaps help place some of the events of 1979 into context.

      after smo’s report on the “security situation” perhaps it was decided better to out blunt as a soviet than to have him outed for other reasons.blunt almost certainly did report to moscow but he was debriefed on that and given “immunity from all crimes” in 1963/4,just after philby went to russia.blunt was still active in spookery in 1966 and had an “interesting project “when he phoned bryans who was living on a house boat outside max knight’ home/office at that time.

      tis a complex to try to unravel the truth of secret history from a tangle of , lies,smoke and mirrors that are intended to conceal it

      ps oldfield’s ordinary wiki page has had a recent edit

  4. Operation Pallial chief investigators praise bravery of abuse victims for coming forward:


    Maybe some of the doubters on here could learn from the Pallial cops.

  5. In a previous thread, some people asked why Nick was allowed to live when other victims were killed.

    While I don’t know, perhaps one or more of the following factors can explain why Nick wasn’t killed:

    1) Nick says that his father, who also sexually abused him, was part of the paedo ring. Thus, he may have asked Brittan, Heath and the others not to kill Nick, if only because killing Nick would bring police attention down on Nick’s abusive father. Also, killing Nick would prevent the abusive father from continuing to abuse Nick. Additionally, perhaps Nick represented a source of income for the evil father, if the VIP paedos paid the father for access to Nick. The father wouldn’t want to lose that source of income.

    2) It seems logical that the VIP abusers assumed that no one would believe Nick, so there was no point in killing him (and judging from the reaction by many commenters on this website to Harvey Proctor’s press conference, they were right that many people wouldn’t believe a pleb like Nick).

    3) If they allowed Nick to survive, they could continue abusing him in future.

    4) It would be impractical for the VIP abusers to kill EVERY child they abused. Savile alone is estimated to have abused hundreds. Cyril Smith is also estimated to have abused hundreds. The streets, ditches and waste grounds of Britain would be filled with dead bodies if people like Cyril Smith, Brittan, Savile etc killed everyone they abused.
    (At sea, on Heath’s yacht, it would obviously be easier to dispose of bodies).

    The above reasons may explain why Nick wasn’t killed.

    It’s worth pointing out that many of the victims who were abused in the 1960s, 70s, 80s, and 90s are possibly no longer alive due to other factors like “accidents” such as the Brighton fire, suicides or “suicides”, heavy drinking/smoking/drug use due to the abuse they suffered, etc.

    It’s also probable that there are still many victims of VIP abusers alive, but are afraid to come forward, out of concern for the safety of themselves and their families. Also, many victims probably feel that they won’t be believed (as demonstrated by the reaction of many commenters on here to Nick’s allegations).

  6. The decision by Cameron to give William Hague a peerage despite his involvement in the Welsh care homes abuse cover-up shows is reprehensible.

    At the very least, Cameron should have waited until the Macur report was published, and Hague’s role in preventing Sir Peter Morrison, Thomas Kenyon and other VIP abusers from being named, is properly investigated.

    And not only that, but Margaret Hodge received a knighthood too!!

    Very disappointing.

    Shows that the elites are dedicated to business as usual.

  7. dpack

    to give justice macur the benefit of the dought (so far) the report might well contain material that would prejudice quite a lot of ongoing and expected criminal trials
    perhaps it is best they are dealt with on a case by case basis and the evidence available for each case put to juries before her report is published.
    having said that iirc once complete it is not hers it becomes a moj report and their responsibility to publish or not.

    applying any sort of joined up thinking at this stage might play into the hands of those who would wish the whole horrible business kept secret for a variety of reasons.

  8. Pingback: William Hague To Be Elevated to the Lords. Didn’t he protect paedophiles? |

  9. timsanders2013

    I think ” taking the piss in plain sight ” sums it up quite well.

  10. eviltorypervert

    im very glad to hear this his helped me out a fair few time..

  11. Aardvark

    Are the new incumbents the white wash brigade, complete with a tax funded moat cleaner? The audacity of ‘elevating’ William Hague, who has plenty of history, with the Jilling enquiry whitewash in North Wales,to the House of Protection from the Law. The Government obviously think we all have short memories, or are asleep, or are just so divided and conquered and subjugated to their hypocritical laws, that the plebs have no power to change the rotten system – they are probably right?

    Increasing an already over bloated, over funded, archaic system like the House of Lords, while hundreds of deaths have been linked to the cuts in benefits and where institutional Child abuse is covered up, is sick beyond belief, but what is new in Dickensian Britain.

  12. joekano76

    Reblogged this on TheFlippinTruth and commented:
    Bald oddity Willy Hague

  13. dpack

    the fire that destroyed most of the records and the multiple convictions and ongoing cases under the general banner of “pallial” say far more than i could about the waterhouse whitewash , i could probably add quite a bit to that but now is not the time.

    as to hague i really dont like him,i wonder if he recalls an alleged conversation he may or not have had very early one morning on brighton beach regarding a “promotion”to europe . if it happened and if he does recall it does that make him uncomfortable? if that conversation did not happen i still would not like him.
    even though i dont like him i would not judge him on a rumour however believable the rumour,i dont like him for everything he has said and done that is public record.

  14. When I wrote to Macur, the only part she did answer was that she does not publish her report, she submits it to DOJ and it is up to the Government when they publish it. Interestingly the Welsh Government claim not to have any correspondence as to the timing of its release. So either are not being copied into correspondence from the Wales office or DOJ and are ebing told verbally, or they genuinely do not know (or care?).
    It is a disgrace that Macur will not state wehn she is to submit her report – perhaps it was to allow Hague to go to the Lords? https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/08/01/macur-review-omerta/

  15. BarrieJ

    The Prime Minister doesn’t care what any of the British people think of this decision, or indeed any other that he or his ministers might make. He is totally arrogant and contemptuous as regards the electorate. he knows he doesn’t need our votes to remain in power and with the almost total support of a complicit media can do and say whatever he likes. The image is of a bloated, drunken rich man standing on a balcony urinating on a child begging for food below.
    Our political class disgust me.

    • Llanyboy

      I agree. The Conservatives and New Labour are/were establishment parties. All this migrant hysteria and Islamophobia will only benefit the powerful.

  16. Pingback: William Hague To Be Elevated to the Lords | Alternative News Network

  17. Sabre

    Hague wisely from his point of view excluded scrutiny of decisions re prosecution.

  18. Sabre

    Perhaps Ron Davies’s ‘moment of madness’ was less happenstance and more of a warning of things to come.