Author Archives: chris46

“I know for a fact”

Please see edit below- gojam

There was a comment posted this evening on Needle. “anonymous” posted he knew for a “fact” that Stingemore was the officer-in-charge of Grafton Close children’s home. He offered no evidence or facts to support this.
You may ask why is this so important? What does it matter? Actually it matters quite a lot. By changing one small “fact” the history of the abuse in Grafton and at Elm is being revised. If you look at how Stingemore was referred to when this whole matter came to light last year, he was Deputy Officer-in-Charge.  For example:

Stingemore is believed to be a former deputy head of Grafton Close children’s home Daily Mail 22/07/13
John Stingemore, the former deputy-head of Grafton Close Children’s home Exaro 06/02/13

John Stingemore, the 70-year-old former deputy head of Grafton Close Exaro 07/02/13

It is only because Operation Fernbridge have referred to him as the “officer-in-charge” and that has been repeated by BBC News, newspapers, etc. The new view being promoted by those who seek to cover-up these matters goes like this:
Stingemore was the officer-in-charge of Grafton. He and he alone was responsible for the abuse. When the Director of Social Services, Louis Minster found out about this in 1981, he acted promptly to sack Stingemore and put matters right at Grafton Close CH. There was no connection to Elm Guest House.
Mind you, there are still a few “inconvenient truths” in this version of history. Like was Stingemore operating alone?  Who knew about what had been going on at Grafton for a long time and had done nothing? Why, as serious criminal offences had been committed , weren’t the police called in?
Stingemore WAS the deputy officer in charge at Grafton until he “resigned” in 1981. I know this for a “fact”, because unlike the BBC or the newspapers I DID check this out, at the time, whilst records still existed! By trying to use Stingemore as a fall guy, they protect those above him and isolate what was happening in Richmond from other events.
It may seem a small issue, but its quite a crucial one if the truth about EGH is ever to be told. Is anyone still surprised that there have been no arrests over any matters connected to Elm Guest House?  I won’t be holding my breath waiting for one either. But I can at least ensure that the gospel according to Fernbridge does not go unchallenged. So for the record John Stingemore was the Deputy officer in charge at Grafton Close from 1979 to 1981.
chris fay

Edit: We took this article down for a short while to check the facts. Stingemore’s official job title seems to have been Deputy Manager (this appears to have been confirmed at the inquest into CK’s death). But there was nobody at Grafton who, on a day-to-day basis, was more senior than Stingemore. So he was in charge on a day-to-day basis. Hence he is probably best described as the ‘officer in charge’.

I hope this clears up any confusion – gojam

16 Comments

Filed under Abuse, Fernbridge

Paedophile-friendly Judges vs Society?

Following Gojam’s recent posts on “Judge-mental”, I was struck by a link Martin posted. There has been much discussion lately about paedophile judges and paedophile-friendly judges. This is in response to widespread concern about paedophiles being freed or given ludicrous light sentences for offences most of us would consider to be heinous crimes. When we dare protest at this, we are dismissed as “online nutters”.  We are told how important it is for judges to be “independent”.  They are in possession of all the facts and we should leave sentencing to them!  Really?!  What about accountability to the public? But paedophile-friendly judges are nothing new. They have been doing this for decades.  It is not just the British public who have been expressing concern at the lenient treatment of these evil people.

The link Martin provided was to an article in the Sidney Morning Herald, dated July 1st 1983. Under the headline, “It’s British Justice, but is it just”?, we find the story of Judge David Tudor Price of the Old Bailey. Just a couple of months after presiding over the trial of Carol and Harry Kazir, Judge Price allowed a convicted paedophile to walk free.  He had been convicted of 300 (yes 300!) sexual offences against a 7 year old boy! He had 3 previous convictions for sexual offences against children.

So it has always been! Judges on the whole do seem NOT to consider such offences as serious – look at Ovenden, et al!!
On behalf of all us “online nutters” I say this has got to change. The horror and disgust of the overwhelming majority of the British people MUST be heard.

Maybe that great defender of children, Mr Kieth Vaz MP, chair of the Commons Home Affairs Committee, who said it was everyone’s duty to speak out against the abuse of children – Yes! – would be better concentrating the minds of his committee towards its duty as the law makers.  How about some recommendations for MANDATORY prison sentences for those convicted of CSA offences?  That is the only way most of us will be convinced that the law does treat these offences as serious and paedophile-friendly judges will no longer be able to abuse their power.

This week at the Old Bailey, Judge David Tudor Price let a man who admitted 300 charges of sexual molestation against a boy of seven go free, saying the prisoner had agreed to have medical treatment.  The man, a 34-year-old porter, had been convicted three times previously of sex offences against children, but had never received a sentence.

After the hearing, the boy’s father said: The judge must be cracked.  It’s him who wants medical treatment.  Or else the British system of justice is up the spout.

The Sydney Morning Herald 1st July 1983

7 Comments

Filed under Abuse, Judge Mental !

Elm Guest House, Mary Moss Files – Clarification

I am sorry, in my efforts to try and clarify some of this for people, I seem to have sown confusion. Please accept my apologies, my head is so full of this stuff that it is sometimes difficult to remember what was written down and what is still in my memory.
There are only 3 of the documents that I wanted to put some context and clarification to. All the documents are here.  The rest are exactly as they are and I stand by what I wrote back then. These are the 3 documents and my reasons for comments:

Document 6. It was drawn to my attention that some people though it was a list of abusers. I only want to clarify absolutely that this is a list of VICTIMS that should never have been made public. They are victims!!

Document 103. This is a list of police officers who carried out the raid. It again was drawn to my attention that some people thought these names were involved in abuse at Grafton or EGH. They were NOT. See my previous post.

Documents 104/6. This is a list of names I scribbled down from the registers, whilst the person I was with was talking to Carol. This was the very first time we had acess to them. They were just names and include by the way, victims!  As you can see from later docs we did go on to identify many of the abusers and also the aliases that were used, not just for the Guest House but also the use of the “facilities”.

I hope this clarifies the position. I sought only to protect victims and eliminate innocent people! I stand totally by everything else. It is ONLY that last list I wanted people to be cautious of, everything else is okay.

Once again I appologise for any confusion caused.
chris fay

A compilation of press-cuttings on Elm Guest House and Richmond can be found here

14 Comments

Filed under Abuse, Fernbridge

Elm Guest House – “Mary Moss” files

In the interests of accuracy, and to protect the reputations of innocent people, I would like to set the record straight about certain things contained in the “Mary Moss” files placed online last year.

These were mostly handwritten notes made on a daily basis concerning NAYPIC’s investigation into complaints from young people in the care of Richmond of abuse at Grafton Close Children’s Home, and elsewhere, including the Elm Guest House in Barnes from 1977 to 1982.

Unfortunately, being just notes, they have no real context.  I will try to provide that.  Amongst the documents is a list of boys names. These are VICTIMS not abusers.  These were the names of young people who had complained to us, were strictly confidential and should never have been made public.  Due to the unfortunate circumstances around the police raid on Mary Moss’s home, these were released online.

Also included was a list compiled by me of all the people who had stayed at the guest house in 1981/82.  I know some people feel differently, but in the interest of fairness I will point out again, this is a list of guests NOT abusers. There is no evidence to support that – it was a preliminary list I compiled but I had not yet verified the identity of any alleged abusers.

Also, you may be aware of the claims made by both sides as to the nature of the raid on the guest house in 1982. The Kazirs, their legal team and supporters have always maintained the raid was carried out by Special Branch under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1976. However, the authorities, including the police have always maintained that the raid was carried out by local police in response to complaints by neighbours, under vice legislation.  The only hard evidence was a “notice to detained persons” Carol said was given to her by the police. This was backed up by her solicitor. I gave this notice to the Coroner at the Inquest into Carol’s death.

In trying to ascertain the truth, I carried out some extensive research for NAYPIC and managed to identify about 20 police officers who had taken part in the raid. My hope was to find a friendly one who would come for a quiet drink and I could ask him, or her, what they had been told about the reasons for the raid at the briefing.  Unfortunately, Carol died and as you can imagine no-one was willing to talk to us.

So in the documents is a list of police officers who carried out the raid.  There is no suggestion at all that any of these officers were involved in any way with anything that had gone on at EGH or Grafton. They were just ordinary, mostly decent coppers doing their job.  I hope this is clear.
The only two senior MPS officers who are alleged to have been involved at Elm are named in the documents.  These are Commander Richard Tresstrail then head of the royal protection unit and Paul Henry, a senior officer in Special Branch.

I hope this provides some context to the “Mary Moss” documents and clears up some of the misunderstandings around them. I do think it is important to make absolutely clear that many innocent people have been unwittingly caught up in this as well as guilty ones. I hope this clarifies things.
chris fay

37 Comments

Filed under Abuse, Fernbridge

What is ‘evidence’? -2

Gojam’s post reminded me, at the heart of all this, there are victims.  We must not forget them.  It is important, yes, to bring people to account for their actions, no matter how high up in society they may be, but we cannot forget what victims want.

All my experience has taught me that mostly they just want their voice to be heard.  It is not how some like to present it, as some sort of chase after compensation!

They seek an acknowledgement that what happened to them did happen and it was wrong.  I am really grateful that Exaro have now opened up their website to all.  To all who seek the truth I would urge them to look there and read the VICTIMS’ stories for themselves.  This is not about politics, power or money – its about justice!!!
chris fay

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Kincora, a small footnote to history.

Those who have followed events at the Elm Guest House in Barnes, until it was closed down in a “police” raid in 1982, will know there has always been some dispute over the nature of the raid that took place. Carol Kazir (and her legal team) always insisted that this raid was carried out under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1976. The police and government have always insisted it was under vice law legislation. All I can say is, Carol gave me the “notice to detained persons” issued under the Act, to stop her talking to a lawyer. This I gave to the coroner at Carol Kazir’s inquest in the summer of 1990.

Why has this always been so important and what did it matter which law was used to conduct the raid? Well, without benefit of counsel, Special Branch were the first to question her. They were not interested in the senior politicians or others in high places who had stayed at the guest house. They questioned her for hours, about Sir Antony Blunt, disgaced former spy and Keeper of the Queen’s Pictures; Richard Langley, a royal aide at Buckingham Palace; Commander Tresstrail, Head of the Royal Protection Squad and Paul Henry, a senior officer in Special Branch.

In an unprecedented move, Blunt had been awarded immunity from prosecution for his spy activities. What is less known, is that this immunity applied to ALL of Blunts unlawful activities, particularly in respect of his activities in Northern Ireland and his part in the abuse of boys from Kincora and other homes.

It was this connection that NAYPIC decided to look into in 1990. We believed it showed a direct connection to events in Barnes with Kincora. I spoke with Carol (and her lawyer) about this. They confirmed that Blunt had been questioned as a “witness” and was on the list of witnesses given to the defence of those who had made witness statements. His statement was never used in court, besides he had conveniently died of a heart attack before the Kazir’s trial. This was not the only event happening around this time. Very reliable sources had told us in 1990 that the Cabinet had been briefed around this time about Kincora. The recent release of cabinet documents has confirmed this DID happen. The same sources also said that the Prime Minister and senior members of the Cabinet had also been briefed on events at Elm Guest House around the 24th August 1982, about 2 weeks after the article about a “report” on Elm had been handed to Scotland Yard, carried by the Times.

We spoke to many people in the “know” about Kincora and other homes in Northern Ireland. Amongst these was the well-respected journalist, Paul Foot. He always dismissed Elm Guest House as a distraction from the real cover-up that was Kincora. In his book, he dismissed as rumour that a cabinet member had been involved at Elm. I had great respect for Paul and admired his work and his integrity as a journalist. But we at NAYPIC disagreed with him. There were victims of serious abuse, from care in both Richmond and Northern Ireland – you cannot dismiss one group as more important than the other. All deserve justice.

Blunt had made it very clear to the security services that if he was going to go down for offences in Barnes, then he was going to take everyone else involved, particularly in Kincora, down with him. Luckily for the government, Blunt died of a heart attack before the trial. So all could be covered up again.

I am acutely aware that, although these events may be seen now as history, there are still victims of Kincora and other homes still alive. They deserve answers and some justice. I saw in the presss that a new inquiry was to be carried out. The victims deserve better than yet another cover-up. There should be a full public inquiry. If any of those who carried out this horrific abuse, or those that covered it up, are still alive, then they should be held to account for their actions and brought to justice.

Now wouldn’t THAT be the best footnote of all to history?
Chris Fay

28 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

G4S. Or, why you shouldn’t trust a set of initials, even with a number in it!

Last week bobchewie posted about G4S and their move into the child “warehousing” business with their new glossy brochure, making all the right PC comments. Er, would this be the same G4S (don’t mention the Olympics), who were today slated in a report on News 24 for their handling of deportees?

G4S (I won’t mention the Olympics) were found to be deeply racist, their behaviour violent and their use of “inappropriate” restraint techniques unlawful.  Now, I know G4S (not a word about the Olympics) are a large multi-national, who normally supply bouncers and security people for large public events, shift large amounts of cash around and run prisons.  But running children’s homes???  That’s all we need, another set of initials running private care homes (even with a number in it).  Well I guess we can look forward to about 20 years from now, when allegations of historic abuse of young people in their care, are made.

For the benefit of IDS and other supporters of private provision, can I remind them that Britain is a signatory to both the European Convention and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.  Just a thought, but what about their right to “family life”, while in the custody of hired muscle, how does that work then?

What does G4S (not a word about you know what) think its experiences in running prisons will contribute towards childcare?  So here we have it – another bunch of faceless, annonymous initials running care homes!!

On the subject of groups of initials, I know I’ve become a bit of an anorak on the subject…I’ve spent ages chasing corporate initials around the world.  But in relation to AMI and its involvement in Langton House, Grafton Manor and Kneesworth House, can I say I have finally, finally sorted it out!  Well, possibly or even probably maybe!  Well, here goes – pay attention at the back – right then!  (pause, take deep breath)

AMI bought Langton House in 1972, when it was an approved school. Not to be confused with AMI healthcare who ran it as a Adolesent and Young People’s Unit or indeed AMI plc who registered it as a Nursing Home but were running it as an Adolescent Psychiatric Unit.  Or Grant Health Ltd who purchased Grafton Manor in 1982 and became BMI the same year.  Although BMI were not registered as a company till 1993. And you should not confuse them with BMI Healthcare who bought Kneesworth House in 1985.  Neither had any connection to AMI who were running Langton House as an Adolescent Unit, except when they were taking 40 year old and 50 year old patients from NHS secure mental hospitals. It was 16 to 21 year olds, right?  Except when they were taking 12 and 13 year old referrals from local authorities.

So nothing to do with BMI, or AMI who had become GS Ltd in 1989 and the GSI, leaving BMI Healthcare all alone in 1993.  Well, er, no.  In response to NAYPICs complaints about lack of medically qualified staff, BMI said that PSL (Psychiatric Services Ltd) had been established in 1989 to provide psychiatric services to Langton House. Its only known employee, the company secretary!

So, you’ve all kept up with me?  Good.  Except, in an advert in the British Journal of Psychiatry on 22 December 1985, under a BMI logo, Langton House, Grafton Manor and Kneesworth House were listed as belonging to Psychiatric Services Ltd which was set up in 1989.
Sorry, I must go have a lie down in a dark room, with wet flannel and something strongly alcoholic. These corporate initials put Dr Who to shame.

Chris Fay.

https://theneedleblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/ami-advert.jpg

The controversial contractor G4S has admitted using individual people’s names on planning applications – rather than its company name – in order to hide its true identity while the application is being considered.

The company, which was hit by widespread criticism after it failed to produce enough security guards for last year’s Olympic Games, faced accusations that it was trying to remain under the public’s radar by submitting the applications in the name of a staff member.

After the practice was uncovered by a journalist writing for the openDemocracy group, G4S admitted regularly using the ploy. But it insisted it was an attempt to conceal its identity from commercial competitors, rather than local authorities or residents.

The Independent 02/05/13

Previous G4S stories featured on The Needle are here and here.

7 Comments

Filed under News