DCI Paul Settle Cleared By The IPCC

As many readers will be aware DCI Paul Settle has been under investigation by the IPCC with regards to complaints made by former Exaro ‘witness’ ‘Darren’, who is himself now facing charges of malicious communications against another police force, and already had previous convictions for making false allegations to the police; and former Exaro source Chris Fay.

I can now confirm that DCI Paul Settle has been cleared by the IPCC.

DCI Paul Settle’s only ‘mistake’ (an inappropriate word) was to do his job lawfully by closing the investigation into Lord Leon Brittan following a complaint made by another Exaro ‘witness’, known as ‘Jane’. The allegation of rape made by ‘Jane’ in two police statements was found by the Crown Prosecution Service, DCI Paul Settle, and later the Director of Public Prosecutions, Alison Saunders to have ‘not been made out in law’ – that is to say that the account that ‘Jane’ gave in those two police statements, which seemingly differs significantly from the account that Exaro made public, did not amount to rape.

Unfortunately, for DCI Paul Settle, Exaro exerted political pressure on his superior officers who removed him from the investigation. Since that time DCI Settle has been dogged by false allegations made by supporters of Exaro News, while being hung out to dry by senior MPS management for no other apparent reason than that he, DCI Settle, had made the correct and lawful decision originally to discontinue the investigation and that others, notably Deputy Assistant Commissioner Steve Rodhouse , had got their fingers horribly burned when their new investigation went pear-shaped.

When Sir Richard Henriques published his report in November last year, it concluded that DCI Paul Settle had acted with integrity – while 5 Met police officers including DAC Rodhouse faced an IPCC investigation themselves.

I hope that this decision by the IPCC will draw a line, once and for all, under the repeated libellous allegations online and vexatious complaints, that DCI Settle has at any time passed sensitive or personal information about any complainant to anyone in the media.

THE LONG STRANGE, SAGA OF LEON BRITTAN

Written by journalist and filmmaker Tim Tate and reproduced in full with permission. Originally posted – timtate.co.uk

~

Over recent months two separate police forces have been carrying out enquiries into a snippet of 30-year-old gossip about a dead man. The Met and North Yorkshire Police have been interviewing people who, in the early to mid 1980s, heard a rumour that the then Home Secretary Leon Brittan had molested a young boy at a weekend retreat. I am one of them.

There are a number of oddities to this story, and, together with the rest of the strange saga of Leon Brittan, they shine a light on the frustratingly opaque progress of historic child sex abuse investigations. They also provide a litmus test for Lord Justice Goddard’s Independent panel Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse.

The rumour first.   In the early 1980s I was a researcher on Roger Cook’s BBC Radio 4 investigative programme, “Checkpoint”.  The editor of the series had a source inside 10 Downing Street who was in the habit of passing on juicy titbits of scurrilous gossip about members of Margaret Thatcher’s cabinet.

Why he did this was something of a mystery: “Checkpoint” was a fine programme, but it rarely strayed into political investigations. I never met the source, but according to our editor, he simply enjoyed gossiping over drinks at a private club both belonged to. To my knowledge, nothing had ever been done with the tittle-tattle he related.

The Brittan story, though, was different. According to the source, Brittan had been attending a weekend house party somewhere in North Yorkshire (he was initially MP for Cleveland & Whitby, then Richmond, N. Yorks): at some point he was supposed to have molested a young boy.   Local police allegedly attended, but very quickly were ordered off the case by Special Branch officers. There were no details of where exactly this happened, nor what exactly Brittan was supposed to have done.

Despite the sketchy nature of the rumour – and perhaps because I still lived in Yorkshire and had some relevant police contacts – I was instructed by my editor and the BBC’s (then) assistant director-general, Alan Protheroe, to make some discreet enquiries.

Over several weeks I spoke to a succession of contacts within the police. All said they knew nothing. Finally, I approached an officer in the neighbouring West Yorkshire Police Special Branch with whom I had an occasional, if slightly uneasy, working relationship. He agreed – reluctantly – to make some enquiries: very quickly thereafter he told me he was not going to pursue them.

And there our own investigations stopped. We told Alan Protheroe that we could find no evidence to support the rumour and I went back to work on more regular “Checkpoint” stories.

We were not, of course, alone in hearing this rumour. Private Eye had also picked it up and subsequently ran a short piece suggesting that members of the security service were trying to smear Brittan with false child abuse allegations.

Over the next decades I made a succession of films and wrote a number of books, investigating child sexual abuse and paedophile networks. But I rarely gave any thought to the Brittan allegations until claims about paedophile parties at the Elm Guest House in south-west London surfaced in late 2013.

A  report on the Exaro news website, repeated in national newspapers and over the internet, claimed a video tape had been seized by Operation Fairbank (later known as Fernbridge),the Metropolitan Police’s unit investigating allegations of historic “VIP” child sexual abuse.  According to Exaro the tape showed a senior former Tory minister – plainly Brittan, though since he was still alive he was not named – in compromising circumstances at the guest house.

I had a contact in Operation Fernbridge,   Immediately after the story appeared, I met up with him: he denied absolutely – and vehemently – that any such tape had been seized. But because no official denial was issued by New Scotland Yard, the story fed into the growing public rumour-mill about ‘paedophile politicians’.

Two further issues quickly emerged which further inflamed the mood. The first was the mystery over what had happened to a dossier given in 1984 to Leon Brittan (while he was Home Secretary) by a back-bench Conservative MP, Geoffrey Dickens. Newspapers at the time had reported  that this dossier – which stemmed from Dickens’ earlier attempts to have the Paedophile Information Exchange proscribed – named a number of high-profile active child abusers.

In dealing with enquiries (in 2013) about what had happened to the Dickens material The Home Office did not exactly cover itself in glory: it initially claimed that it could not find 11 files, some of which included the dossier; then was forced (after a succession of Freedom of Information Act requests and demands by the Home Affairs Select Committee) to disclose that it had discovered the remnants of not 11, but 114 files relating to correspondence from Dickens or other MPs about alleged paedophiles and the prosecution of child sexual abuse.

The Home Office had also maintained in 2013 that the files themselves had been destroyed in line with “applicable document retention policies” at the time. Yet a year later it was forced to admit in response to my FOI request that it didn’t actually have a copy of this policy: it did not explain the apparent conflict between the absence of this policy and its previous assurance that the child abuse documents had been properly destroyed.

29875-Tate letter 28 Aug 2014 Final-1

Leon Brittan, for his part, was initially unable to recall the Dickens’ dossier before later remembering that he had passed it on to his officials who had in turn discussed it with the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The second incident was a story in the Express and on the Exaro News website alleging that in 1982 a Customs Office called Maganlal Solanki had seized child pornography films or videotapes sent or brought to the UK by Russell Tricker, a convicted British paedophile living in Amsterdam: one of these allegedly showed a former Tory cabinet minister sexually abusing children.   Once again, Brittan was not named, but there were clear hints in the stories that he was the politician in question (in 1982 he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury).

Mr Solanki had unquestionably seized the tapes and films referred to. An official 1982 notice in the London Gazette recorded the seizure and his name was shown as the Customs officer responsible.

This did not specify the exact nature of the material – child pornography was then not legally defined, nor indeed was simple possession of it specifically illegal: the notice simply stated that the films and tape were indecent.  Crucially, though, it listed the title of the video as “LB”. [Note: in the 1980s there was a commercially-produced series of child pornography films entitled “Loverboys”.]

The coincidence of these initials with those of Leon Brittan led the Express reporter to doorstep Mr Solanki at his home in Leicester. The reporter recorded the conversation. The Express and Exaro claimed that during the interview the now-retired Customs officer confirmed clearly that the seized material showed the politician sexually abusing children.

I obtained a copy of the recording and transcribed it. Far from confirming the Express/Exaro claims, this clearly showed that Mr Solanki had repeatedly refused to confirm the reporter’s allegations that Leon Brittan was shown on the tapes. The most he appeared to concede was that the ex-minister was “involved” somehow with a tape: but he made clear that he was not at liberty to talk and told the reporter to speak to H.M. Customs.

However, the story had another twist in it.   In April 2014 I met with the senior Operation Fernbridge detective with whom I had previously spoken. Over the course of a two hour, off the record interview he told me that his officers had also interviewed Mr Solanki. The former Customs officer had, according to the detective, insisted that he couldn’t remember anything about the 1982 Tricker seizure – much less having viewed the tape and films. (Mr Solanki is in his 80s and somewhat infirm).

But what he said next was even more potentially explosive. He told the officers that he clearly remembered stopping Leon Brittan on another occasion – he could not recall the year, but it was at some point in the 1980s – when the politician came into the port of Dover from Europe. Mr Solanki recalled that he was on normal duty, working in a two-person team with another officer.   Mr Solanki observed the driver of a car behaving suspiciously: he pulled it over and the two officers discovered video tapes inside.   Mr Solanki told the Fernbridge detectives that he took the tapes away to his office, viewed them and saw that they were child pornography.   The detectives asked what exactly was on the tapes: Mr Solanki was embarrassed, but said they depicted boys and girls, clearly under 12, having sex with each other.

How, the detectives asked, did he know the man he stopped was Leon Brittan ?   Mr Solanki explained that he had asked to see the man’s passport. Additionally, Brittan had described himself as “an MEP”.

This posed a problem. Leon Brittan was never an MEP. He went from being a government minister to the backbenches following the Westland Affair, before being knighted and appointed European Commissioner For Competition in 1989.  The detectives eventually decided that Mr Solanki was telling the truth as he recalled it, but that he had most likely misheard (or misremembered) the phrase “MEP”, when in fact Brittan had said “MP”.

Mr Solanki also told the detectives that he had seized the tapes, sent Brittan on his way and referred the incident to his superiors. He indicated that the videotape seizure would have been recorded in the log book kept by Customs officers at Dover. The senior Fernbridge detective was making plans to look for these when we spoke. He was also trying to locate the date on which – according to vaguely remembered details – late one evening in the 1980s the Westminster press lobby gathered, at short notice, outside Downing Street, apparently having been briefed to expect an announcement concerning Leon Brittan.

Meanwhile, he was simultaneously following another two lines of investigation concerning Brittan and child sexual abuse.  The first was the old rumour about him molesting a boy at the weekend house party. In the intervening years, the incident now had two separate alleged locations: North Yorkshire and London.   But Operation Fernbridge had been unable to trace anyone who had any first hand knowledge: most importantly no alleged victim could be found in either place, and the detective now believed that the story was something of an urban myth which had probably arisen out of the mysterious late-night gathering of press in Downing Street.

The second lead was very much firmer – and very much more disturbing.   It involved Elm Guest House in south-west London.  In 1982 the Metropolitan Police had raided the guest house believing – correctly – that it was being used for (adult) male prostitution. The officer in charge of the raid had alerted the local social services department that there was a possibility at least one child might be on the premises and that, if so, a social worker and a temporary place of safety would be needed.

The police did indeed find one child – a boy of around eight years old – in the guest house. He was taken to a local children’s home and, according to a document the Fernbridge detective found in the council archives, was jointly interviewed by a detective constable and a social worker.

Fernbridge tracked down the (now-retired) officer in question.   He was interviewed and described the boy as being the most sexualised child he had ever seen. He also said that the boy described being sodomised by nine adult men at the guest house, but seemed somewhat surprised that the police were concerned. He told his interviewers that “Uncle Leon” would take care of the problem, and that “Uncle Leon” worked up at “the big house”. The former officer said he had understood this to be a reference to Parliament and had realised that Uncle Leon was probably Leon Brittan.

All of this should have been recorded in a statement. But the Fernbridge team was surprised to discover that although a statement of sorts did exist, it was not signed by the boy; nor did it make any mention of “Uncle Leon”. They questioned the retired constable: he explained that it was late at night when the boy was questioned and he had taken a joint decision with the social worker that the statement could be signed after the boy had got some sleep.   But next morning the boy had “acted out” and refused to sign.

The Fernbridge officers also questioned the retired officer about why he hadn’t recorded the “Uncle Leon” information in the (unsigned) statement: he then apparently became uncooperative, giving the distinct impression that he was concerned about either disciplinary proceedings or a potential threat to his police pension.

Fernbridge went on to track down the boy – now a man in his early 40s and living in America. A US Marshall, previously on secondment to the Metropolitan Police, went to see him. Although the man initially seemed willing to speak, he later refused to do so.

Shortly after the Fernbridge detective gave me the above information, he left the unit. I have not spoken with him since and do not know whether he was ever able to progress the investigations into Leon Brittan.

What I do know is that he was absolutely convinced that there was prime facie evidence that Brittan had a sexual interest in children; and that – unless he was lying to me (which I doubt) – Operation Fernbridge holds documentary evidence suggesting that Brittan was involved in either the attempted importation of child pornography, or the sexual abuse of a young boy. Or both.

In November 2014 a separate Metropolitan Police investigation – Operation Midland – was established to examine claims of historical child sex abuse and murder at the Dolphin Square apartment block near Westminster. Exaro News claimed the credit for this, alleging that its reporting of allegations by two men it called “Nick” and “Darren” had forced the Met to open the inquiry.   The men claimed that their abusers had included two former Conservative MPs, one of them a former Cabinet Minister.

Leon Brittan (who had been ennobled as Baron Brittan of Spennithorne in 2000) died in January this year. Within a week Exaro named him as the former Cabinet Minister being investigated by Operation Midland.

In February, the Sunday Times columnist Dominic Lawson (son of former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Nigel Lawson) defended his father’s former Cabinet colleague. He attacked the Exaro allegations as part of what he saw as a long-standing campaign by “foil-hatted conspiracy theorists who see the Palace of Westminster as nothing other than a cover for satanic rituals”.

The thrust of Lawson’s attack – that irresponsible reporting of anonymous allegations was tarnishing the names of dead men whom he simply presumed to be honourable – was given more life than it deserved by Exaro’s involvement in an Australian television programme in July.   Whilst it unquestionably raised the profile of the story internationally, the 60 Minutes Special presented the claims by Exaro’s stable of complainants as established facts rather than allegations under police investigation.   It named Leon Brittan as an abuser.

I have no means of knowing whether the claims by “Nick”, “Darren” and the other complainants whose cause Exaro has promoted are accurate.   They are very serious allegations and are rightly being examined by the Met.   But in so far as they relate to Leon Brittan, this police investigation poses a problem.

Because Brittan passed away in January this year, there can be no criminal proceedings.  Therefore none of the evidence being collected by Operation Midland – nor the documentary evidence already held by Operation Fernbridge (let alone the enquiries still being made by North Yorkshire and Scotland Yard detectives into the mysterious house party rumour) – will ever be produced in court.

There is only one forum now in which the allegations about Leon Brittan can publicly be examined: Lord Justice Goddard’s Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse.

This week I formally asked the Inquiry’s press office the following questions:

1. Has the Inquiry yet established direct contact with Operation Fernbridge ?
2. Will the Inquiry be examining documentary evidence held by Operation Fernbridge concerning its investigations into the late Baron Brittan ?
3. Specifically, will the Inquiry secure from Operation Fernbridge copies of all such documents including, but not limited to, formal statements made under caution, officers’ notebooks, internal memoranda and historical documents acquired during its investigation into the late Baron Brittan ?
4. Does the Inquiry plan to require public testimony from the current head of Operation Fernbridge, AND its former senior investigating officer, [NAME REDACTED HERE] concerning the late Baron Brittan?
5. Does the Inquiry plan to require public testimony from the former Customs and Excise officer Maganlal Solanki who gave evidence to Operation Fernbridge concerning the alleged seizure of child pornography from the late Baron Brittan ?
6. Does the Inquiry plan to take evidence from the US Marshall formerly attached to Operation Fernbridge in connection with a visit he made at the request of Operation Fernbridge to a suspected victim of Baron Brittan ?
7. Does the Inquiry plan to publish the documents acquired and/or generated by Operation Fernbridge during the course of its investigation into Baron Brittan ?

The Inquiry has yet to provide a response.

The long, strange saga of Leon Brittan is a litmus test of how rigorous and open Lord Justice Godard’s enquiry intends be. The enquiry must summons – as it has the power to do – Mr. Solanki and the officers from operation Fernbridge to give evidence on oath. It must also obtain all the statements taken by Fernbridge which relate to Brittan.

Leon Brittan was no obscure politician or ordinary Cabinet Minister. For more than two years he occupied one of the three great offices of state: Home Secretary.  Unquestionably, he should have been subjected to positive vetting by MI5 before being appointed: Goddard must insist on seeing those vetting reports.   She must also discover what, if any, subsequent vetting took place before David Cameron appointed Brittan as a trade advisor in 2010.

And, just as crucially, she must reveal all of this evidence to the public which is, after all, paying for the Inquiry.

There remain, too, legitimate and unanswered questions about Brittan’s opposition to proscribing the Paedophile Information Exchange (and indeed about PIE’s alleged involvement with the Home Office itself while he was a Minister Of State there between 1979 and 1981).

The announcement last week that further (and previously undisclosed) Cabinet papers from the era had been located and in some unspecified way referred to Brittan,  make it even more vital for the Inquiry to examine – publicly – the claims that the former Home Secretary was involved in the sexual abuse of children.

If it does not, then the public will have every right to doubt the integrity of the Goddard enquiry – and to question why substantial sums of public money are being devoted to a series of police investigations which will never see the light of day.

And rightly or wrongly the as yet unproven allegations of an overarching Westminster plot to protect a powerful paedophile politician will become entrenched in the public mind as unchallenged fact.

Elm Guest House And Why The Truth Matters !

When I first started looking into historical child sexual abuse I rather naively thought that no one would possibly lie about a subject that was so serious. I was wrong and this post reveals how I came to realise that. It will also help readers to understand why The Needle has sought to navigate a course between those that believe and report everything and anything and those that believe nothing and report that no allegation is true. What I and the Needleteam have come to realise is that the greatest threats to the truth, which is certainly in the public interest to understand, are the false witnesses who appear to corroborate existing allegations of the testimony of genuine survivors. These false witnesses are like a poison which contaminates the truth. After a while the truth and the lie become so associated that once the lie is unearthed, as invariably it always is, the truth is dismissed along with it and with the truth goes any hope the genuine survivor has of justice and any chance the public have of understanding the gravity of the complex child sexual abuse issue in the UK.

What I have come to realise is that it is extremely easy to cover-up child sexual abuse but you don’t do it by testing the evidence, you do it by providing false corroborative evidence and exaggeration. You build it up then knock it down and the truth gets buried in the rubble of lies. The process of embellishing the truth with lies and exaggeration has been a cooperative effort between some elements of the Alternative Media (AM) who will often publish any unsubstantiated rumour believing that there is little consequence and some elements of the Mainstream Media (MSM) who have spotted a rich vein of stories, stories that sell newspapers. Often the relationship between the established media and the ‘new’ media is symbiotic with false stories in the MSM becoming embedded as ‘truth’ in the AM and with MSM outlets, with fewer professional journalists because of increasing financial pressures due to the emergence of online media, searching for new angles in the AM thus turning rumour into ‘truth’. It is almost an alchemical process like turning lead into gold but when the tallyman comes for payment you’ll find that the result is worthless and don’t then be too surprised if the tallyman is wary even when you offer good coin.

Anyway, those are general points, I want to write now about a specific one to help illustrate it.

In December 2012 a raft of documents suddenly appeared online posted by Mary Moss, formally of NAYPIC, which appeared to be related to the Elm Guest House which was the subject of what was then a new police investigation, Operation Fernbridge. The significance of the documents only appeared to increase when officers from Operation Fernbridge raided Mary Moss’s home and seized the documents. I had already spent a few months looking into allegations of historic child sexual abuse across the UK and, like a great many people online, I began to try to decipher and understand the documents in the public domain but, unlike most others, I very quickly found myself in a privileged position with access to many of those connected in some way to those documents. I learned from Chris Fay, a former NAYPIC advisor, that the documents were written by him circa 1990 and that they were private notes and speculations that were never intended to have been put in the public domain but as they had been put into the public domain Chris Fay was eager to help us understand them. It may interest readers to know that one of the first things that Chris Fay wanted to clarify was that he had found no evidence that a pop star mentioned in the documents had sexually abused children. Chris Fay was very generous with his time and not adverse to having long held beliefs tested and although I have come to the conclusion that the documents are at best very misleading, at worst mostly very wrong, I remain extremely grateful for the time he gave us.

Another source I talked to in the early part of 2013 was a man by the name of Clive Godden who was described in the documents as a “private investigator”. Mr Godden’s input primarily regarded the allegation that child sexual abuse at Elm Guest House was connected to a ‘child pornography’ racket run by London mobsters. At the very centre of this set up was a man called David Hamilton Grant. David Hamilton Grant was a small time film maker during the 1970s which included low budget pornography. Initially, we believed him to be dead but when we discovered that news of his death was slightly premature and he was living in Southern Europe we became intrigued to say the least. It all seemed to fit, it all seemed so plausible but we were to learn that allegations connecting David Hamilton Grant to Elm Guest House were a determined fabrication.

Mr Godden had talked to Operation Fernbridge, he maintained that he had spoken to Carole Kasir, had seen compromising photographs in her possession  of VIPs, including Leon Brittan, with young boys, and that he, Clive Godden, had in his possession Carole Kasir’s notebook, which he described as his “insurance policy”. Then one day he told me that he had evidence of a police raid during the late 1980s on a boat house used by David Hamilton Grant as storage in which the police at the time had seized ‘child pornography’ including some produced at Elm Guest House. He even gave me the date, the names of the police officers involved and the search warrant reference number. I explained to Clive Godden that if true I could not publish anything without first having talked to Operation Fernbridge. After all, if physical evidence of child sexual abuse at Elm Guest House implicating VIPs existed somewhere in a police warehouse then it was extremely important that they had the opportunity of retrieving it. Clive Godden eagerly agreed and I called Operation Fernbridge and gave them the details and they promised to get back to me. When they did a few days later they explained that they were already aware of the information and seemed remarkably unperturbed by the prospect of the details being published.

Ah! What a great story it would have been. Imagine, the police had seized evidence of child sexual abuse involving VIPs and done nothing !!

There was just one problem with it. It was complete crap.

If it had not been for the advice of Exaro’s Mark Conrad who was investigating the very same issues at the time, and who cautioned that I should be careful and dig further, I might have published then and I’m very grateful to Mark for that.

Clive Godden had promised to send me a copy of the search warrant and other documents by post and impatiently I waited for them to fall through my letterbox and then I could write my big story. When several days later a thick A4 manilla envelope arrived I sat down and started to go through the documentation. Slowly it began to dawn on me that something was very wrong. I found the copy of the search warrant and found to my disbelief that Mr Godden had filled out half of it himself and his account of how he became interested in David Hamilton Grant which he had recounted on the phone on several occasions looked even flakier now that it was written in black and white before me. Yet still the notion that anyone would lie about an issue as important as child sexual abuse was so alien to me that I refused to immediately accept it. I first decided that Clive Godden had only slightly embellished his account but slowly any veneer of plausibility to Mr Godden’s story fell away.

The boat house had been used by David Hamilton Grant as storage and the police had indeed raided it but far from seizing ‘child pornography’ produced at Elm Guest House involving VIPs, the police instead seized a cache of counterfeit VHS videos. Nothing but a van load of ‘knock off’ pirated tapes of Convoy, ET, or something similar.  No wonder Operation Fernbridge were so laid back. Oh, what a fool I’d been !

Mr Godden’s tale started to unravel and the truth began to emerge. The inconvenient fact the Clive Godden’s wife had run off with David Hamilton Grant, which had always left me uncomfortable, now became a motive for a remarkable campaign of vindictiveness which has stretched back three decades. Somehow, Mr Godden was able get David Hamilton Grant deported from Cyprus and a local newspaper reported the departure of this ‘evil child pornographer’. He fled to Turkey pursued by Mr Godden who, using the evidence from the Cypriot newspaper story, was able to get a Turkish newspaper to run something similar and then, astonishingly, by producing both the Cypriot and Turkish newspaper stories and other evidence he had cobbled together he managed to get stories printed in the UK including even The Sun. Creating  in the process a false canon of media stories which appeared to corroborate his tale.

At a stroke I had to re-evaluate everything in the documents but more importantly I had learned a crucial lesson and luckily for myself it was one I learnt at a very early stage of my investigations and that is that people lie and their reasons for doing so aren’t always immediately apparent. By no means does everyone lie but a minority do and my starting point that nobody would lie where child sexual abuse was concerned was both naive and deeply flawed.

Now, here is my main point. There are many untrue elaborations and false witness testimonies in the Alternative Media and in the Mainstream Media regarding Elm Guest House but regardless of all of them and after two years of critical investigation I would still maintain that there was child sexual abuse there, that VIPs were involved, and that, as evidenced by the recent IPCC investigation, there are serious questions to be answered regarding why the police did not adequately investigate at the time.

I don’t tell you the story of Clive Godden seeking to undermine the truth regarding Elm Guest House, I tell you it to demonstrate that the truth can and will withstand false evidence and this is not a point specific to Elm Guest House it is a more general one. The danger for the campaign to expose historical child sexual abuse does not lie in the exposure of untruths, it only becomes damaging when ‘campaigners’ continue to maintain that what can be demonstrated to be false is true because when this is done the truth is buried in the rubble of the lies.

 

New information on Carole Kasir via Exaro

Three new pieces of journalism by Mark Conrad and David Pallister have been published today which give very good background information on Carole Kasir, who with her husband Harry owned and ran Elm Guest House from 1979 to 1982.  Much of the information has been put into the public domain for the first time.

Carole Kasir’s past: fractious family life and failed relationships

Meanwhile, following failure of her first marriage, Carole began to use the surname, “Weichmann”. The Press often wrongly reports that Carole was German by origin, but Exaro has uncovered the roots of this mistaken belief.
Carole became convinced that she was not the daughter of the man who was widely recognised as her father. Instead, she claimed to friends, her mother had an affair with a German man, and she was the result of this liaison.
It is unclear whether Carole identified “Weichmann” as her real father or simply adopted a Germanic name that she liked.
In any event, Carole saw the change in her personal identity as her chance for a fresh start.

Carole “Weichmann” had another daughter with a Chinese man known as “George”. However the relationship between Carole and “George” also failed. Their daughter would stay with Carole, and ended up living at Elm Guest House.
By 1971, Carole met and married Haroon Kasir, known as “Harry”. He was born in India, although he was from the part of the country that later became Pakistan after partition.
Carole and Harry, the year after their wedding, had a son.

Exaro News 01/04/15

Carole Kasir and her squalid life at Elm Guest House

Police arrested Harry and Carole Kasir and charged them with keeping a “disorderly house”, or a brothel.  They also arrested a 17-year-old boy who worked as a masseur at the guest house, but he was later released without charge.

And they arrested nine men.  Five of them had been watching, naked, what would later be called in court a “thoroughly obscene” video but they also were not charged…Judge Tudor-Price, delivering the sentence, talked of “unwholesome activities” at the guest house.  ‘Those disgusting films were harmful to the people who saw them and led to the acts of gross indecency.’

Exaro News 01/04/15

Carole Kasir ‘boasted about VIPs who visited Elm Guest House

Up to her sudden death at the age of 47 in 1990, Carole claimed to be unaware that her guest house was used by paedophiles.

But acquaintances told Exaro that Carole was ‘manipulative’ and ‘promiscuous’, accusing her of abandoning her original family.

Once source who visited Carole as she held forth at her large kitchen table at Elm Guest House told Exaro: “She always denied that young boys went there, or that she knew about abuse.”

“We used to say to her, ‘There is only one door into the guest house, and one door out of it, Carole.  It is not Buckingham Palace.’ ”

The source, speaking on condition of anonymity, added “She would not say anything in response.”

Exaro News 01/04/15

The latter passage effectively states that neighbouring witnesses saw boys arriving at, and departing from, Elm Guest House.

All three articles are well worth a read by anyone with an interest in Elm Guest House.

Tony McSweeney Guilty

Father Tony McSweeney has been found guilty on 4 charges . One count indecent assault and three counts of making indecent images of a child.

He was found not guilty on four other charges.

That might be the end of Operation Fernbridge and it will be interesting to see if the police or CPS comment. I’ll wait and see if they do before commenting myself in more detail about Grafton Close and Elm Guest House.

Tory Mandarins ‘Close Ranks’ Following Leon Brittan’s Death

You’d have thought that these senior Tories who when asked to comment on an embarrassing development are the first to hide behind the need to not jeopardise ongoing police investigations when it suits them, would refrain from pressuring others to go public with information which might still be part of an important police investigation into VIP paedophiles.

I’ve a message for them;

The police will not be cowed by establishment pressure from political has-beens. The police will not be given the bum’s rush because friends of a person who has come under police investigation think that he will be exonerated if more information is made public prematurely.

The Tories claim to be the party of law and order. That espoused respect for the law seems to be distinctly absent as they use the power of the Tory media to put pressure on the police with these juvenile responses.

“Put up or ‘shut up'” a playground response to a grown up issue.

Politicians fuelling rumours about Leon Brittan’s involvement in a Westminster cover up of child abuse were this morning ordered to come clean about what they know or ‘shut up’.

Former Cabinet colleague John Gummer, now Lord Deben, said MPs were ‘making innuendos and insinuations in order to make themselves look as if they know something when they don’t’. He said it was ‘wicked’ to make allegations without any evidence.

The Tory peer’s outburst comes after campaigning MP Simon Danczuk said Lord Brittan’s death was a ‘sad day’ for the victims of child abuse who wanted to question the former home secretary about the missing ‘Dickens dossier’ of paedophile allegations handed to him in the 1980s.

Daily Mail

Leon Brittan Accused Of Attempting To Smuggle Child Abuse Images Into UK.

I’m very grateful to journalist Tim Tate for leaving this comment, quoted below, which has confirmed my suspicions about the provenance of The Daily Telegraph story, also quoted below, which alleges that Leon Brittan had been caught trying to smuggle indecent images of children into Dover while he had been an EU Commissioner in the late 1980s.

Tim Tate is on the byline of the original Daily Telegraph story

“Almost a year ago I interviewed a very senior detective who was handling the Brittan investigation. He was very clear that the Customs Officer (referred to above) had made a clear and credible statement about stopping Brittan at Dover, and seizing child pornography video tapes from him. The Customs Officer stated that he viewed the tapes and was able to describe what was on them.

That statement is – or should be – still held at the Metropolitan Police station from which the investigation was conducted.

I believe that it is essential that the historic child abuse enquiry – assuming it survives – is given a copy of the statement.” – Tim Tate

A senior Tory politician said to be part of a child sex ring was allegedly stopped by a customs officer with child pornography videos but got off scot-free, police have been told.

The former MP was driving back to the UK via Dover when a customs officer pulled him over because he was “acting suspiciously”. The border guard, who is now retired, has told detectives that when he searched the MP’s car he found videotapes of children “clearly under the age of 12” taking part in sex acts.

He passed the material on to his superiors, but the MP was never arrested or charged.

The Telegraph

 

Was Leon Brittan A Paedophile ?

Leon Brittan has died, he was aged 75.

You’ll find fulsome obituaries elsewhere and perhaps even praise but I want to focus on the truth, or not, of the allegations that Leon Brittan was a paedophile.

Over the last two years there have been many rumours and news stories alleging that Leon Brittan was a paedophile, though you may not have realised as he has invariably been euphemistically alluded to as “a former senior Tory cabinet minister” or something similar. There had been some concern among journalists, and even this blogger, that the continued and ubiquitous use of this term might itself have become so synonymous with Leon Brittan that its use might itself have precipitated legal action if Lord Brittan decided to take that route.

The allegations are not new they go back to the early 1980s at least, as Bernhard Ingham, former press secretary to Margaret Thatcher, has confirmed recently to Sky News, he was aware of the allegations at the time and even asked him about them at the time. I’ve also talked to journalists who investigated these rumours in the late 1980s.

Clearly now that Leon Brittan is dead, I’m free from legal constraints and I can say exactly as I wish but just because I can write what I wish, doesn’t mean that I should. Ultimately, I’m only interested in the truth and not rumours.

About 15 months ago I discussed the allegations with a source close to an investigation looking into these and other similar allegations. I asked the source directly whether he thought that Leon Brittan was a paedophile. After a pause he replied that in his view 80% of the allegations were false but that the remaining 20% of allegations left him with the view that Leon Brittan did indeed have an unhealthy sexual interest in children.

It is with this in mind that I will refrain from repeating every allegation that has been swirling around the internet over the last two years because I agree with that source, there are many allegations that are false, as an example, there has been a suggestion that the police have a video of Lord Brittan at a “sex party”. This story is untrue.

So, I’m going to lay to one side all of the stories that I believe make up the 80% of false allegations and look instead at the allegations that I believe make up the 20% of allegations that have substance, or at the least raise questions that need answering.

I’ll touch briefly on the allegation that he raped a 19 year old female student, who is referred to in the press as ‘Jane’, in 1967. My view is that this allegation is credible but it is also my belief that after such a long time, and with no evidence beyond the victim’s word against Lord Brittan’s, a successful prosecution would have been very unlikely and that if the CPS had decided to proceed it would have put a great deal of pressure on the victim ‘Jane’ with little result. But for clarity, I believe her.

The second allegation I wish to mention is the one related to Elm Guest House.

It is my belief that the Daily Mail story, extract quoted below, refers to Leon Brittan. I say this because I had heard very similar accounts from other sources before this story had been published, some close to events at the time. I just didn’t have the first hand source/sources that The Mail had and so I couldn’t publish.

I’d recommend that readers, read this story once again.

The man recalled that during the boy’s testimony at Richmond Police Station, he had spoken of an abuser whom he called ‘Uncle XXXXX’. This abuser worked ‘at the big houses’, the boy said.

As the boy talked, at least two of those officials present came to independent realisations of his testimony’s significance.

If ‘Uncle XXXXX’ had done what was alleged, this was not just a sordid suburban scandal, but one of national importance.

The Daily Mail

I should note here that the victim in that Elm Guest House story has not felt able to co-operate with the police, hence no action could realistically be taken.

Another credible allegation is that Leon Brittan was stopped by British Customs trying to enter Dover with indecent images of children in the late 1980s while he was with the European Commission. This story, below, refers to that allegation.

A senior Tory politician said to be part of a child sex ring was allegedly stopped by a customs officer with child pornography videos but got off scot-free, police have been told.

The former MP was driving back to the UK via Dover when a customs officer pulled him over because he was “acting suspiciously”. The border guard, who is now retired, has told detectives that when he searched the MP’s car he found videotapes of children “clearly under the age of 12” taking part in sex acts.

He passed the material on to his superiors, but the MP was never arrested or charged.

The Telegraph

I am very aware that there will be many who will be disappointed that I’ve not related other allegations. As I’ve tried to make clear I want to stick only to those that I believe can be substantiated. If the victim at Elm Guest House speaks out then that allegation can be substantiated, if documentation exists, as it should, that Leon Brittan was stopped by a customs officer trying to enter the UK with indecent images, that too can be substantiated.

 

Food for thought?

The first effect of broadcasting Nick’s detailed allegations is that anybody wishing to make a false allegation has now been given not just rumours, which in truth have been flying around on the internet for years, but a detailed and apparently first-hand description of exactly how another witness says the abuse took place. This, of course, flies in the face of good policing practice in which the account of one witness is never given to other potential witnesses precisely because of the danger of contamination. It is true that neither Exaro nor the BBC has actually given the names of the alleged abusers but 5 minutes on the internet would supply a selection of Tory MPs and cabinet ministers about whom rumours have swirled. Most of those who were cabinet ministers in Mrs Thatcher’s first administration are now dead, so the tidbit that the Minister in question is still alive narrows the field to about 10 suspects.

In any case involving multiple complainants the defence always strives hard to show that the complainants may have colluded with each other, or at least that later complainants knew of the substance of an earlier complaint, while the prosecution tries to show that such collusion or awareness is unlikely. Well, Exaro and the BBC together have comprehensively ensured that any future complainant will be aware of the detail of Nick’s complaint and his evidence will for that reason be devalued. In a nutshell, if a future witness relates similar details to Nick’s he will be accused of having learnt them from the BBC and Exaro interviews. It is on such issues that cases turn.

Barrister Blogger 16/11/14

Transcript Of Audio Tape

Foreword.

Any transcription as difficult to hear, in places, as this is going to be open to interpretation. It is completely understandable that others may have different interpretations. We respect that and do not suggest that a different interpretation is more valid than our own. Nor do we dispute that what we have labeled as [inaudible] might be heard by keener ears.

For example, Exaro have quoted a passage  “The person was involved and that is why we had to seal the video.  And then the department, the superiors took over.”

We have down;

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
Well, well that person was involved and, er, that’s why we had to seize the video

REPORTER
OK

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
And then, er, the department superiors took over and that’s the end of my [inaudible]

Minor differences.

Before The Telegraph story HERE and the knowledge that the customs officer was aware of a different incident, it is quite understandable that the journalist might have misinterpreted the customs officer’s answers. However, in the light of that story I think it is quite clear that both parties were at cross purposes.

Our understanding is that Paul Peachy of The Independent did not make a recording of his encounter and this is the only other interview with the customs officer that we know of in February.

For me this exchange near the end is telling, I’ve bolded this in the transcript.

REPORTER
Did you tell him [Paul Peachy] as well that it was him, or had you mentioned

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
No, I told him exactly what I am telling you, and I can’t say more than what I say already. All information, that’s the place in Dover [inaudible] you’ll be able to tell you what happened.

As I understand it, Paul Peachy walked away thinking he had nothing.

To me it is clear that the customs officer does not believe that he has told the journalist anything more.

For obvious legal reasons redactions have been made.

~

 Duration: 18’ 47”

Note: This recording appears – from the audio quality (muffled and affected by clothes rustles) to have been covertly recorded. At no point does the reporter indicate to the EX CUSTOMS OFFICER that he is being recorded.
REPORTER
(Footsteps; ‘beep’ & rustle precede first audible words from reporter)
… from Amsterdam: do you recall ?

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
Er [inaudible] something I er
[woman’s voice – inaudible]

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER

[inaudible] official er … I am bound by secrets act.

REPORTER
OK

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
I am not supposed to [inaudible] anything

REPORTER
OK

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
Er if you [inaudible] about this, you’ll have to go to the right channel. [inaudible] I can’t really …

REPORTER
No, of course, and what I will do is I wouldn’t name you, I wouldn’t put anything to do with your identity …

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
[inaudible]

REPORTER
It’s just background information as to what the…

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
What sort of information ?

REPORTER
Well, what was contained on it ? ‘Cos we think that there might have been, erm, pornography involving children that would involving also mainly prominent people, erm, at the time in terms of like MPs, er, that kind of thing

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
Why don’t you approach the department ?

REPORTER
We have. But it’s not, er which department – the

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
Customs

REPORTER
Excise. Well, they said that they, erm,

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
Did you go to right channel, like er, er, department in Dover ? They’re the people who have all the records. I am bound by Secrets Acts not to, not to disclose any sort of information in my career. So I hope you understand what I’m trying to tell you.

REPORTER
Of course. Of course. But would you be able to just sort of let me know, off, completely off the record: the material that was found on that coach involved videos of children, and it also involved children with a prominent MP.

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
[inaudible]

REPORTER
That MP, his name’s [REDACTED NAME].

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
Yeah ?

REPORTER
Is that correct ?

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
Um, hum

REPORTER
[inaudible] Have you spoken to the police ?

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
Not recent

REPORTER
Did you speak to them at the time ?

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
Er, hah, it’s a long time ago and as you probably know we get lots of these things and I was involved in quite a few. I can’t be [inaudible] one particular case. All records are kept at Dover: I think you’ve got to go there.

REPORTER
OK. Do you know whereabouts in Dover ?

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
Yeah, it’s er, I’ll give you the address [inaudible] .. [lengthy pause – no dialogue just atmosphere]

REPORTER
Did you yourself view the, er, any of the footage of [inaudible]: did you have to sit down and watch what was on the videos

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
Oh yeah, I can’t just seize them just like that. Er, you want to have address ? It’s HM Customs & Excise

REPORTER
Yeah

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
Priory Court – P-R-I-O-R-Y Court, C-O-U-R-T, Johns Road, Saint Johns Road, Dover, CT 17

REPORTER
What was it, sorry ?

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
CT – T – 1 – 7, S for Sugar, H

REPORTER
H; OK
From what you remember, though, was there actually abuse taking place by this MP ?

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
Sorry ?

REPORTER
Was the MP, [REDACTED NAME], er, actually abusing children on the video ?

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
Well, I can’t disclose anything, sorry

REPORTER
No

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
I can’t disclose anything

REPORTER
Off the record, you’ve told me that he, it was [REDACTED NAME]

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
What I can suggest is that you can approach my [inaudible] there and ask for the details. Whatever the [inaudible] you and they’re supposed to tell you. But I am not supposed to tell you anything.

REPORTER
No. Well this is just off the record, it’s for research really

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
Well, I can only, can’t say

REPORTER
But [REDACTED NAME]
[NB: it is not clear from the recording whether these three words are spoken by the reporter or the EX CUSTOMS OFFICER]

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
Not everything

REPORTER
But [REDACTED NAME] was involved, was in, on one of the videos ?

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
I don’t understand, er, [pause] a long time ago. Some detail, whatever, I don’t know. But I think you’re right about this to go to Dover, and go to this place: they should have all my records, all the records of the event.

REPORTER
OK

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
So, rather than ask me, [inaudible] I might be telling you something or

REPORTER
No, no, what I’ll do is I’ll go and check, whatever you tell me now I’ll go and check the details. Er, this, this points, St Johns Road, HM Customs & Excise, Priory Court, is that an archive system ? Is that the archive ? The archive, the Customs Excise, this particular address here, is that the archive where they have all the information ?

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
[inaudible] er, our HQ in Dover
REPORTER
OK

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
As I say, this was long time ago; they might not have all the records at there, they might have forwarded it to London office, you know

REPORTER
Sure

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
But,er, your best bet is Dover.

REPORTER
But you remember watching the videos, you had to ?

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
Well, as I say, you can’t just seize things without reason

REPORTER
Was there, was this an intelligence, this was tipped off from the Dutch intelligence ? Er,that tipped of the British police and the British Customs & Excise that this coach had a, did contain, erm, material involving children ?

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
Sorry, I can’t say anything

REPORTER
Alright, OK

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
I’m bound by the [brief cross talk – inaudible] all the details will be kept, are kept when [inaudible] they should have all the information

REPORTER
And this, this, the only reason I ask about [REDACTED NAME], it says, under his name here it says [REDACTED NAME], one videocassette entitled [REDACTED NAME]. And it’s come to my attention that it might be, that it involves, so I’m told, it involves the MP [REDACTED NAME]

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
Well, I say, well I recollect a complete, a complete list. It happened a long time ago and, er, so what [inaudible], so when another case comes along it is passed on to the head of headquarters and they are the people who will [inaudible] all the information. Because it’s something I don’t want to involved

REPORTER
No. Of course. Which is why you passed it on to some, which is why you passed it on to the police at the time in 1982. Erm, but they haven’t spoken to you recently.

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
Who ?

REPORTER
The police

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
What for ?

REPORTER
For ? Because, because of who it might contain on the actual videos

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
A gentleman came yesterday and you are the next one. Prior to this I had no [inaudible] with anybody

REPORTER
Was the, was the gentleman who came yesterday police ? Or a journalist ?

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
Journalist

REPORTER
Do you know where, was he from The Independent ?

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
[inaudible] Independent newspaper

REPORTER
Paul, his name was, wasn’t it, Paul Peachey. OK. And what did you say to Paul, did you tell him anything else about what

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
I said the same thing. And as I say, I’m bound by

REPORTER
Oh, no, no, I completely
EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
I, I can’t really, I can’t [inaudible] this particular case

REPORTER
No, OK, I understand that but, I mean is there any, having come from London I wanted, really wanted to sort of get a few

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
I understand but I

REPORTER
Look, if you, you, um, remember, can you tell me what you remember about it that you can, so and which I can, I can get checked [inaudible] this place in Dover.

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
[inaudible]

REPORTER
I was just wondering whether I could make a note of what you remember about this particular case so I can get this checked with Customs & Excise at St John’s Road in Dover

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
You’ve got enough details there, and if you contact the, er, Dover office where records are kept, they will know to what to tell you. Then, er, you know, you will get an idea what they are after

REPORTER
OK. Is it public record though – will they, er, to provide, ‘cos what I wanted to know, which they might not tell me, which I was hoping I might be able to get a, just a [inaudible]

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
You’ve got enough, enough [inaudible] there, once you mention my name and the date and the case, you know, they’ll be able to tell you what happened.

REPORTER
OK

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
And [inaudible] say where to go [inaudible]

REPORTER
Alright, well what they might not be able to tell me is who, what was on the video. Are you able to just sort of let me know if I’m barking up the wrong tree by

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
Sorry, don’t, don’t try to force me because I can’t
REPORTER
No, no, no, you can’t tell me

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
No

REPORTER
But I’m not far wrong when I say certain members, certain MPs at the time, were included in those videos ?

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
[inaudible] because [inaudible] you can

REPORTER
Cabinet

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
[inaudible]

REPORTER
So it was [REDACTED NAME], wasn’t it [brief cross-talk – inaudible] he was part of the EC at the time

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
But as I say, I mean, I can’t, I can’t pinpoint everything

REPORTER
No

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
In reality my memory is failing me as well

REPORTER
No, of course

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
You know

REPORTER
Do you know, he was never, I don’t think [REDACTED NAME] was ever charged with anything

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
Because if that case was passed on to our headquarters and then what happened I don’t know.

REPORTER
OK. Erm. And do you know and when you say it was Europe it was the European Commission, wasn’t it, EC ? Um. Do you know what was happening on it, was it, the one that [inaudible] that this member of the cabinet was abusing children or was just on a video ?

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
I can’t remember now.

REPORTER
Just that you might of, he was on the video

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
Well, well that person was involved and, er, that’s why we had to seize the video

REPORTER
OK

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
And then, er, the department superiors took over and that’s the end of my [inaudible]

REPORTER
OK. And you saw him on the video ?

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
I can’t tell you that

REPORTER
OK. Well [inaudible] we, er, we haven’t gone to [REDACTED NAME] yet, we’re trying to sort of, might be the next port of call. He lives up in [REDACTED LOCATION] now [inaudible]. But you’ve certainly had no calls from the police, Yewtree, you remember Yewtree that was set up after the Jimmy Saville scandal ?

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
[inaudible]

REPORTER
They haven’t contacted you at all

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
No, no, no: nothing actually. The last thing was the gentleman came here [inaudible] that’s it.

REPORTER
Before that it was probably what, 80s ? 1982, when you last spoke to the police ?

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
Er, I haven’t spoken since to anybody
REPORTER
OK. Um.

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
I mean this is, this was my job and it happened and everything was then sorted out then [inaudible] was closed. [inaudible]

REPORTER
Are you surprised though that [REDACTED NAME], never

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
Pardon ?

REPORTER
Are you surprised that [REDACTED NAME] never, um, was facing any police investigation ?

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
Nah

REPORTER
You weren’t surprised. Is that because it was perhaps a cover-up ?

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
It’s difficult to say

REPORTER
You can’t say because of, er. OK.
Er. Is there any contact number I can get, your phone number ?

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
My [inaudible] ?

REPORTER
Yeah, it’s er, it was just it, it will only be to check things with you, nothing more

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
It’s er, [REDACTED LOCATION]

REPORTER
And that’s [REDACTED TELEPHONE CODE], is that right ?

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
[REDACTED TELEHONE NUMBER]

REPORTER
Yeh.

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
[REDACTED TELEHONE NUMBER]

REPORTER
[REDACTED TELEHONE NUMBER]. OK

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
Could you, er, card or something ?

REPORTER
I’ll check. If I haven’t, I’ll leave you with all my contact details. I usually do carry some around with me but I’ve been, but I’ve had a bit of a clean out of the wallet. Er, [inaudible] my own, I’ve got other people’s business cards. But what I’ll do is I’ll write down all my contact details. Erm, do it on this.

[Lengthy pause – no dialogue, atmosphere only]

As I’ve said, everything you’ve told me is off the record. [inaudible] towards [REDACTED NAME], that’s off the record as well

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
That’s lovely, thank you [inaudible]

REPORTER
No, no, I understand completely. I mean his name’s come up a number of times and we’ve been told that it was his initials [REDACTED NAME] stood for [REDACTED NAME]. Um, but we didn’t know what was on the videos, whether or not it contained any abuse, or whether or not it was simply him, just somewhere in Amsterdam. Was it, was it taken in Amsterdam or was it

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
I can’t remember that now

REPORTER
No

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
I, I, you know, as I say [inaudible] long time ago which we get all this [inaudible]

REPORTER
Umhum

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
So, [REDACTED NAME] or whatever the name was this, er, [inaudible] anything else. At the time. It was so, [inaudible – hurried ?] could be anybody you know ? This is normal thing, the only thing [inaudible] it was a job and that’s all. Never thought that this would like, you know [inaudible]

REPORTER
No. But when you watched the video of him did you instantly recognise [inaudible] ?

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
I can’t tell you that, I don’t know. I can’t remember offhand now.
REPORTER
When did you find out that it was [REDACTED NAME] ?

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
You know we [inaudible], you know, I, I don’t think I can go on too much of that

REPORTER
Of course

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
It’s not fair, really

REPORTER
No, no, no, whatever you tell me is completely off the record, I’m not gonna mention your name or anything at all, it’s all off the record, but as I said , it was told to me that it was [REDACTED NAME]; you’ve seen a video of [REDACTED NAME], on a video containing, contained on that coach. Um. But we’ll do is that I’ll check that with, see if there’s any more details at that address that you gave me in Dover. Is that all the information, you can’t give me any more information ?

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
No, I can’t honestly; I’m not supposed to give you any. You can understand my position

REPORTER
Yeah, of course, of course. This, er, Paul, who spoke to you yesterday, did he mention [REDACTED NAME]’s name ?

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
[inaudible]

REPORTER
Did you tell him as well that it was him, or had you mentioned

EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
No, I told him exactly what I am telling you, and I can’t say more than what I say already. All information, that’s the place in Dover [inaudible] you’ll be able to tell you what happened

REPORTER
Yeah. Ok. [inaudible]

[Interview recording ends: no further dialogue – 39 seconds of atmos followed by cough and sniffs & sounds of door being opened or closed]

Tim Tate Comments On The Exaro ‘Audio Tape’ Story

Tim Tate has been making documentaries, writing books and campaigning on this issue for more than 25 years. His commitment to exposing the truth about child abuse is unquestionable.

So, by all means doubt me but I hope you’ll pay more attention to Mr Tate who as you’ll read has actually listened to the audio tape.

~

“Unless there is another recording, I have heard this encounter between Mr Solanki and an unnamed reporter in its entirety (18-plus minutes).

.

Nothing in the recording I have heard (and listened to extremely carefully) supports or justifies Exaro’s story.  Mr Solanki refuses throughout to discuss the allegations made by the reporter, referring him constantly to Customs & Excise in Dover.

.

Nor does he name the ex-cabinet minister: only the reporter does so, repeatedly pressing Mr Solanki to confirm.  Mr Solanki does not do so.

.

There is a reason (other than the fear of breaching his duty of confidentiality) why Mr Solanki does not confirm the reporter’s allegations concerning the Tricker tapes.  That reason is that Mr Solanki has given a formal statement to the police telling the true story of what he does know about the ex cabinet minister: I wrote that story for the Daily telegraph: it can be viewed here.

.

Tory MP allegedly found with child porn in 1980s faced no charges police

.

If Exaro has heard the recording as it claims then it must know that it’s allegations are false.  This is not the first time that Exaro has over-egged the pudding and published wildly inflated (and downright inaccurate) stories.  Doing so damages the credibility of those campaigning for proper investigation into this country’s shameful record of covering up child sexual abuse.”

Victim To Sue Over Human Rights Breach And The Case For Jersey’s Inclusion In Inquiry.

My apologies for not posting about this story in The Independent on Sunday at the time.

It covers two important areas. There are actually more than two big stories here but I’ve got to be mindful of ‘fair usage’ and I’m quoting a great deal already. [follow the links and read the full story]

The first is the news that at least one victim intends to sue the government as he believes that Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees respect for home life has been breached because of his treatment since being approached at the beginning of 2013. This follows an intervention earlier in the year by Keir Starmer, the former Director of Public Prosecutions and head of the CPS, who said:

“The principles and practices that underpin our justice system were developed long ago. There are good reasons for protecting those suspected of or charged with criminal offences – the answer to the current conundrum is not the conviction of innocent individuals. But our justice infrastructure was set in stone before the words “victims’ rights” were ever uttered, and long before they were given real meaning by legislation such as the Human Rights Act. (Indeed, it is a sad irony, unmentioned by those who advocate the repeal of this act that those with the most to lose are victims.)”

After such an intervention such legal action seemed inevitable

The victim told The Independent on Sunday: “I intend to sue the Government for breach of its human rights obligations, and I know of at least one other victim doing the same. The impact of the police enquiries three decades later was horrific. It instantly took me to my emotional state at the time of the abuse.

“I had built a safe world, and instantly all safety was gone, replaced by fear, anxiety and depression. Despite the best efforts of the police officers, there is nowhere to get any help – and it is no one’s job to provide it – and there certainly isn’t any money to make it happen.

“Well over a year later, help is no nearer, my world is horrific. The legal issues continue, and my life will never be the same. I am lucky enough to be single – if I had a family, or kids, I would never be able to testify – the pain is just so great and it reaches everyone around you.

“I just hope I get some meaningful help so that I might be able to enjoy the last part of my life. People choose not to come forward because of the impact. I had no choice – my safe world was ruined by that knock on the door! I’m sure dozens of people, hundreds, even, would come forward if they felt there was more trauma counselling available.

“If the politicians really want to get to the bottom of this, it’s a ludicrous false economy not to spend the money on counselling. The only people it serves are the guilty.”

The Independent

The second part of the story makes a powerful case for the inclusion of Jersey in the independent overarching inquiry into historical child abuse. It reveals two important cases that directly link mainland UK care homes and Haut de la Garenne.

David Cameron has said that he will “leave no stone unturned” and thanks to Dr Liz Davies and John Hemming MP it must seem clear that Haut de la Garenne is one big stone that the new inquiry must turn over.

Campaigners have continued to express concern about the government’s investigation into child abuse, announced last week. Yesterday it emerged that Baroness Butler-Sloss, who is leading it, kept allegations about a bishop out of a report on child abuse because she “cared about the church”. Campaigners also want Jersey, a Crown dependency, to be part of the investigation. The Channel Island has been the subject of many allegations over children in care at the Haut de la Garenne home, and in 2008 it emerged that at least five children were illegally placed in care in Jersey by Birmingham social services. “Given that children were trafficked from the Midlands to Jersey for sex abuse, you would think it was a bit odd to omit Jersey from the inquiry,” Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming said yesterday.

Dr Liz Davies, a campaigner on child abuse, agreed. “Nicholas Rabet, former deputy superintendent of Islington’s home at Grosvenor Avenue, was charged in Thailand in 2006 with abusing 30 local boys, and we know that he had links with Jersey,” she said. “I have seen evidence from a child who was sent to Jersey in the summer holidays from the Grosvenor Avenue home. I have also spoken to survivors from Jersey who went to an Islington children’s home for a holiday. In Jersey they were abused on yachts, in the big mansions there and in the opera house. The opera house is where British celebrities came. They mentioned Jimmy Savile and Wilfrid Brambell. It would be absurd not to include Jersey.”

The Independent

‘Leon Brittan Alleged To have Been Involved In Sexual Impropriety ?’

Well, I’m shocked! SHOCKED I TELL YOU!!

Could it be true that the former Home Secretary, in charge of the police, judiciary, and domestic intelligence services has had a file about him passed to the CPS ?

No, I can’t believe it. For he is “an honourable man; So are they all, all honourable men.”

Peter McKelvie, ‘The Source’, requests independent inquiry.

 

Dear Sir Tony,

You will no doubt be aware of the growing clamour, now joined by a cross-party group of over 40 MPs, for an Independent Hillsborough type Inquiry in to decades of organised abuse by networks that have infiltrated both the care system and the boarding school institutions of this country.

These networks include politicians, both national and local, from all political parties as well as residential social workers,police officers, teachers, judges, civil servants to name but a few.

You will no doubt be aware of the PMQ yesterday, 11th June, by Duncan Hames, until recently PPS to the Deputy Prime Minister, in which Mr.Hames asked for the Prime Minister’s support for such an Inquiry but Mr. Cameron felt that the Home Office had the situation under control and no further measure was required.

I am the retired Child Protection Team Manager who approached MP, Tom Watson, in October 2012, as a result of which Mr. Watson also asked a PMQ, on 24th October 2012 which subsequently led to the setting up of Operation Fernbridge by the Metropolitan Police.
You may recall that the PMQ involved the allegation that an elite paedophile ring had a link with No.10.

As you will know Operation Fernbridge is ongoing and I receive regular feedback on the progress of that investigation.

I would like to ask for your support as my local MP for an Independent Inquiry and would like an appointment with you please to discuss my reasons in much more detail.

On a website called Spotlightonabuse:The Past on Trial you will see my Open Letter to David Cameron, with copies to Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband and also their responses.
You will also see details of a meeting a close colleague, and acknowledged expert on child protection, and I had with Norman Baker, Minister of Justice at the Home Office on 15th May 2014.

I can forward you copies of all these documents at any point.

There are grounds to look closely at the behaviour of over 40 Members of the Commons and Lords, some living and some now dead, in connection with the actual abuse of very vulnerable children or with its cover up. This number is likely to grow during the course of a proper investigation.

I think the case against Cyril Smith and Peter Morrison is strong evidence of how easy it was for paedophiles to remain hidden within the corridors of power. Their cases are unfortunately the tip of the iceberg.

You are the ideal MP for me to approach not only because you are my constituent MP but because I understand that you are, according to your Wikipedia entry, “one of the last of those made a Minister by Margaret Thatcher still to be in the House of Commons”

The allegations I took to Tom Watson which resulted in the current Police investigations involve Mrs.Thatcher’s period as Prime Minister.
Many questions remain unanswered about a number of her key appointments and as her personal assistant in the 1974 General Election and, upon her becoming Leader of the Conservative Party in 1975, you joined her Private Office and so I must assume were very close to her and by definition some of the people I believe should be subject to an Independent Inquiry.
Your perspective could be extremely helpful.

The persistence of Mrs. Thatcher in pressing ahead with the Knighthood of Jimmy Savile despite opposition from her closest advisers, his alleged attendance at multiple private Chequers parties, his being granted the keys to Broadmoor in 1988, together with her appointment of Peter Morrison, a well known paedophile according to a number of fellow MPs, as her PPS raise many serious questions that need answering and only an Independent Inquiry on a Hillsborough based model will satisfy the electorate.

There are allegations against MPs of all parties under several different Governments and this is not a party political isue.

I can go in to much more detail in a face to face meeting but at this stage would ask for your support in joining the 40 plus MPs who have already pledged their support for an Independent Inquiry

Yours sincerely,

Peter McKelvie

Spotlightonabuse

Richmond child sex abuse trial postponed

Westminster Confidential

The trial of John Stingemore and Father Tony McSweeney – due to start on May 6 at Southwark Crown Court – has been postponed.

Southwark crown court today  said that there will be no hearing on the 6 May and that it is due to make a fresh announcement on future court dates on 13 June.

Exaro understands that 71 year-old Stingemore, the former officer in charge of the Grafton Close children’s home in the London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames, is suffering from ill-health and was recently admitted to hospital.

Privately, sources close to the case have expressed fears that Mr Stingemore may not be fit enough to stand trial unless his health improves significantly.

Mr Stingemore’s solicitor was unavailable for comment this afternoon.

John Stingemore, of Stonehouse Drive, St Leonards-on-Sea, East Sussex, faces five charges of indecent assault, once count of taking an indecent image of a child, and one…

View original post 101 more words

In praise of Simon Danczuk

Simon Danczuk has led the front pages this week with his explosive account of how an MP could hide a lifetime of abusing children.

The Westminster reaction to his Cyril Smith allegations? Embarrassed coughs.

Good on Simon for having the courage to speak his mind. Since his 2010 election, itself a feat of endurance, he’s demonstrated a forensic mind and a canny eye for a story. He represents a diminishing Westminster breed, a ‘character’ who speaks with an authentic voice and with conviction. In the bland world of party slogans and ‘lines to take,’ he stands out. I admire him.

And despite these qualities, maybe even because of them, I hope our colleagues in the Parliamentary Labour Party are rallying round to support Simon. Because he’s about to realise what it’s like to be on the receiving end of the liberal establishment at its most savage.

Our central concern should always be the survivors of sexual abuse.

Yet the daggers are already being sharpened in the salons of North London. ‘How can he serialise in the Mail?,’ ‘Why is he criticising Labour people?,’ and ‘He’s not a proper journalist’ are just three of the attacks I’ve heard whispered in the last few days.

This is an attempt to undermine the substance of his argument: that career child abuser Cyril Smith covered up his activities with the collaboration of colleagues in Westminster and beyond. Since then the fog of collective amnesia has enveloped his party and anyone ever associated Smith.

I’ve not yet read Simon’s book but I saw the report of television journalist Liz MacKean, who was one of the first to highlight that Special Branch intervened so that Cyril Smith died avoiding the justice which his victims deserved.

As Simon pointed out on Radio 4 yesterday, Smith is not the first MP to be named as a child abuser. Two former ministers have named Sir Peter Morrison as a ‘well-known pedarast’.

There are three things that need to happen in relation to these serious allegations.

First, all the child abuse inquires in local authorities, the NHS and other public institutions such as the BBC must be wrapped into one national independent review of historic abuse cases. In Australia, they’re having a Royal Commission. We could adopt the same practice. MPs of all parties have written to the PM urging him to make a decisive move in the right direction.

Secondly, let’s acknowledge what the police privately admit: investigating child abuse is hopelessly under-resourced. Worse, whistle-blowers in the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre tell me their work is being diluted as the National Crime Agency (NCA) absorbs them into the new organisation. Recent parliamentary questions have yielded obfuscated answers on how many dedicated specialist investigators with arrest powers are working full-time on abuse inquiries. One whistle-blower told me that a very senior director at the NCA said child abuse is ‘not their priority.’

What also needs to happen is for political parties to unite on child abuse. They need to work with campaign groups who wish to see the law changed so we have mandatory reporting of suspected abuse in regulated settings such as private boarding schools. There’s a remarkable man called Tom Perry who runs the organisation Mandate Now- he needs our support.

I’ve already documented my reasons for asking the Prime Minister about an historic case of child abuse in October 2012.

Since then, there have been numerous arrests and people are facing charges, so I have to be careful what I write.

But I can say there have been some shocking claims made, many of which police are investigating.

Labourlist.org

Email From Colin Peters

Well, you’ve got to hand it to Martin Walkerdine. In his pursuit of the truth it appears he’ll go to any lengths.

I’ll just note that this reply from Colin Peters corroborates the information I already had regarding the long suggested idea that Colin Peters had visited Elm Guest House.

Hello Martin Walkerdine

(Whoever you may be)

I am aware of a report that appeared in The Independent on Sunday in the early part of last year and I DENY CATEGORICALLY that I have ever been to the guest house to which you refer or had any knowledge about the activities reported in the newspaper.

At my own request I approached the Operation Fernbridge team shortly after the story appeared and had an hour long discussion with two officers at my flat and they made it clear that in their view the Independent story connecting me with the Barnes affair was without foundation and that I was not a suspect in their enquiry.

Indeed, do you not think I would have been arrested and charged if the police considered that I was involved in the affair?

Regards

Colin Peters

Do You Have Information For The Police About Child Abuse ?

Last October The Needle published the contact telephone number for Operation Fernbridge/Fairbank-  HERE. To our knowledge this was the first time this telephone number had been made public.

The telephone number for Operation Fairbank and Operation Fernbridge is – 0207 1610500

Following this appeal for witnesses to come forward we did receive some indication from a couple of people that they had contacted the police as a result of that post. We’d like to thank them for their feedback which is an encouragement to us.

However, we are aware that there are probably many others who read The Needle who have valuable information but who have as yet not talked to the police.

There may be many reasons for this. We can certainly understand that talking to the police about abuse that you have suffered as a child may seem like a very big step to take. Actually, calling the police and talking to them does not commit you to a long drawn out process and it might help the police and other victims who have already come forward.

It might be that you feel that the abuse you suffered as a child may seem insignificant or perhaps an isolated incident. The truth is that people who sexually abuse children rarely abuse just one child. If you were abused it is extremely likely that the abuser abused other children. You will almost certainly not have been the only victim.

There may also be a perception, due to the media’s preoccupation with celebrity, that the police are only interested in actors, popstars, politicians and other famous people. Again, this is simply not true. All are investigated with equal determination, there is no differentiation. There is no such thing as a ‘celebrity’ child abuser, there are only child abusers. If you contact Fernbridge and another police operation is dealing with allegations connected to the abuse you’ve suffered, that is not a problem. They will make sure that you are put in touch with the correct police operation.

As I tried to make clear in that post from October, this really is the best time to come forward. The police are far more open-minded, sympathetic and understanding than they have ever been. Contrary to what some people have said, I can categorically assure you that the Operations Fairbank and Fernbridge are both very much active investigations and the police will almost certainly be interested in what you have to tell them but these investigations will not remain active forever, Now really is the best time to contact them.

Again, the telephone number for Operation Fairbank and Operation Fernbridge is – 0207 1610500

I know that there might be some people who want to talk but do not trust the police. I can say that everything that we hear would suggest that those fears are completely unfounded.

However, if this is the case you can also contact the National Association for People Abused in Childhood (NAPAC). This organisation is founded by Peter Saunders who is a survivor of child abuse himself. If you talk to them it will be in complete confidence but if after talking to them you decide to go to the police, they can support you in that process.

Here are NAPAC’s contact details just in case.

NAPAC provides the only national freephone support line for adults who have suffered any type of abuse in childhood. Because of the large volume of calls we are sorry that many people are unable to get through. Unfortunately, we do not have the resources to call you back which also means that any answerphone messages cannot be answered.

Call 0800 085 3330 for free from landlines, 3, EE, Vodafone and Virgin mobile phones.
Call 0808 801 0331 for free from O2, EE and Vodafone mobile phones.

Telephone support line opening hours:
Monday
10:00am-9:00pm
Tuesday
10:00am–9:00pm
Wednesday
10.00am-9.00pm
Thursday
10:00am-9.00pm
Friday
10.00am-6.00pm

Email support – Please send your emails to support@napac.org.uk

Good luck !

 

 

Op Greenlight: Court Artist.

 

See, I told you it would be like you were actually there!

Pseudo-Image

Attending Southwark Crown Court yesterday, I was struck by a charge which Father Tony McSweeney pleaded not guilty to which referred to the possession of an indecent ‘pseudo image’ of a child. This was not the most serious charge but it is one that needs an explanation. Certainly, I’d never heard of this before.

What does it mean ?

Below is the definition from wikipedia.

Father Tony McSweeney

A pseudo-photograph is “an image, whether made by computer-graphics or otherwise howsoever, which appears to be a photograph”.

Although the term pseudo-photograph can be applied regardless of what it depicts, in law its meaning is especially relevant regarding child pornography.

In the UK, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 amended the Protection of Children Act 1978 so as to define the concept of an “indecent pseudo-photograph of a child”.

Wikipedia