Political Persecution In The ‘FREE’ Country Of Great Britain

Written by Boadacea

Is one free to object to the political policy of immigration?

Often we hear about the oppressive regimes around the world, the absence of freedom in various countries and the political persecution of dissenters in those places. Frequently we are expected to give political asylum to those people who claim asylum in our country after them allegedly being persecuted for their beliefs in some horrible oppressive country elsewhere. We hear that the Muslims hate us and attack us because they ‘hate our freedoms’. There is a constant stream of statements that reinforce the belief, albeit sometimes by implication, that we in this country are ‘free’.

However, are we free? Are political dissenters persecuted, suppressed or oppressed? Are we free to discuss and hear political policies/ideas/facts?

Well of course we are not free. We live under a massive level of surveillance, with our communications, movements and data monitored and collected. We are forced to work for many extra hours a week to pay our taxes (being forced to work without reward and under duress is not being free). We can be arrested and imprisoned if we offend a member of a more important group(1) (yet us being offended counts for almost nothing(2)).However, here the focus is on the issue of political oppression. Is this country free in a political sense(3)? There are various ways in which political freedom could be examined. For example, may one express one’s political beliefs, proposed policies, etc. without fear or sanction? Are people free to examine and discuss political ideas and related facts (historical or otherwise)? Are certain political ideas suppressed, and their proponents persecuted? Are people scared to express certain dissenting views? Space does not permit a full examination of the concept of political freedom, and this short essay will focus on the issue of whether a particular political idea is suppressed, and its proponents oppressed and/or persecuted. Actually, it is a particular form of dissent – dissenting from the government’s political policy of mass immigration.

Is opposition to immigration inhibited in this ‘free’ country?
In a ‘free’ country a political view cannot be banned – that would expose lack of freedom; the people need to believe they are living in a ‘free democratic’ state, it helps to keep them from rising up against an oppressive regime. However, can a government suppress a dissenting view and/or oppress its proponents to the extent that the dissent poses no effective threat? Can the government with the arms of the state (and media, etc.) effectively suppress dissent to their political policy of mass immigration to the point that there is no effective opposition?

If people face persecution, and even prosecution, for expressing a certain political view and/or dissent to a certain political policy, then this is political suppression. If the arms of the state, including the state-broadcaster (the BBC), the education system, etc. all agree on a particular political policy and propagandise its greatness, then this can act to inhibit certain political ideas. If political parties (and/or their supporters) that object to a certain political policy face persecution by the state, then this is political oppression. If open debate on a government political policy is effectively impossible, then this is inhibition of dissent. If all major media organisations demonise those who express dissent to a political policy, then this has a psychological/emotional effect on the public, and acts to suppress dissent. If the information given to the public in relation to a political policy (and related matters) is distorted or censored, and even untrue, then this can act to manipulate people and suppress dissent.

In relation to open debate and discussion of the political policy of mass immigration, it is almost impossible to hold a rational and fair debate on this topic. Debate is inhibited by various means. One such means of suppressing open debate is that of straightforward banning of debate. Often this is phrased in a saccharin-coated phrase such as ‘no platform for ‘racists’’ or ‘no platform for fascists’ and suchlike rather than openly stating that this idea is banned from discussion.

21062011515[1]

21062011515[1]

The National Union of Students (NUS) bans any speech that is labelled by them as ‘racist’ or ‘fascist’; this ban under the ‘no platform’ guise(4). People using these sorts of phrases attempt to deceive others as to what is really going on: really these people are stopping certain political ideas, facts, beliefs, etc. from being stated or heard. This ‘no platform’ also achieves many other matters, including: giving the impression, albeit by implication, that dissenters are not worthy of being heard; achieving an ‘immunity from criticism (or truth)’(5); etc. However, by claiming a ‘high moral ground’ this ban on debate purports to be for some sort of moral reasons. Of course, the nebulous-power-word ‘racism’ is not a proper word, so such cries are not rational(6). Also, the term ‘fascist’ is thrown around in a non-rational manner (see Orwell(7)), in fact, often in an ironic manner; could it not be classed as ‘fascist’ under some of its definitions to ban open debate of dissenting views? Could one not label the banning of certain inconvenient truths as fascist?

This silencing of certain political ideas/beliefs, etc. is found in many contexts. As well as the ‘no platform’ in universities, there is a ban on dissent in many other contexts (including businesses, schools, state organisations such as the NHS, etc.) and only certain views can be heard or stated. Even during our elections such silencing is found to occur. For example, Mr Nick Griffin was not allowed to give his election declaration speech on stage during the 2001 elections, this prompting Mr Griffin and Mr Treacy to wear gags while on the stage with the other candidates(8):

img609

img610

In some contexts gagging of dissenters is claimed to be for reasons of ‘maintaining the peace’ or ‘community cohesion’ or suchlike – this usually prompted by threats or actual instances of violence(9) and other crimes by ‘lefties’ and/or immigrants.

$(KGrHqUOKjkE29zTBlvOBN1V4K3e3!~~_12

So violence by those supporting the government’s political views is used as an excuse to gag dissenters(10). Surely the police should act to stop the violence? Enforce the law? Would such threats, were they ever to occur, by anti-immigration proponents be pandered to in this manner? Does this mean that the most criminal and violent win? Is this a safe message for the state to be sending out? Is this moral? Interestingly, those threatening and involved in such crime and violence frequently are linked to the government in various ways(11), which might explain the lack of the law being enforced when they break it(12). Such people could hence be being used by the government as a form of informal/unaccountable/deniable enforcers(13). Such people act as state-sponsored enforcers, but with full deniability by the state(14). This all further acts to intimidate the people from dissenting to this government policy.

11111111

Another means by which dissent from the political policy of immigration is inhibited is, of course, the fear of being labelled ‘racist’. ‘Racism’ is a nebulous-power-word, not a properly-defined term, and should not be used in rational discourse. However, it is this very fact of low referentiality that largely contributes to the power of this term (as analysed and explained by Dr Thomas Turner(15)). The establishment has contributed significantly to the social construction of this term (see Dr Turner’s book qv). People fear the consequences of being labelled as ‘racist’ – these consequences including the social(16), financial, legal and also the physical fear of being attacked by ‘anti-racists’ and/or immigrants. Most people understand that the law is not properly/fully enforced against the immigrants or ‘anti-racists’ in this context(17) – they have an almost free pass to enforce the will of the state against ‘racists’, including by use of violence (as noted above). Hence, people are intimidated into silence and acquiescence. Dissent is inhibited.

In fact, people are too scared even to state certain truths in relation to immigration for fear of being labelled ‘racist’ – by this means open and honest debate is further inhibited as many do not even have the true facts to consider. Many truths cannot be stated, and ‘racism’ is not the only excuse for suppression of truth – other means including those of ‘causing offence’, ‘stirring hatred’ and matters such a ‘maintaining community relations’ (often code for: not letting the people know the truth in case they rise up; having no riots; there being no challenge or disruption to government immigration policy; etc.). If one states certain matters one can be accused of being ‘an extremist’, a ‘right wing extremist’, ‘threat to security’, ‘dangerous agitator’, or other scary-sounding labels – such labels can, amongst other things, render one liable for various acts of state suppression and the government is currently seeking more legislation to further silence such truths and debate. The government deems such people as a danger to the state. More honest people will be imprisoned. When true facts that pertain to government policy are suppressed, then this is not political liberty. Neither is this moral nor honest. However, in an inversionist manner, those stating the truth and acting with honour will be imprisoned under the manipulative lie of them being ‘evil’. This is not open and honest debate, and this is not freedom.
21092011576[1]
Political parties and other organisations that object to the political policy of mass immigration are subject to much suppression and persecution. Of course the general factors, including those noted above, apply also here. The mainstream media, including the BBC, make sure that the coverage of such parties is very unfavourable, and frequently the coverage is dishonest (the BBC is not impartial as its charter states). Hence, the unsuspecting public often believe such parties to be dangerous and monstrous. This distorts the democratic political process. However, the persecution and suppression of such parties and organisations also is conducted by many other means. For example, a police officer was forced to resign after being seen while off duty at a football match wearing a BNP badge(18). Have any public servants been punished in any way for wearing other forms of political badges(19) while off duty, e.g. any pro-immigration badges? So it is permissible to support the policies of the government in relation to mass immigration, but not to dissent from them (even while off duty). Many have faced persecution for belonging to or even merely supporting the BNP. For example, a bus driver was sacked for belonging to the BNP(20). The BBC sent an undercover journalist to film Mr Nick Griffin giving a speech and this resulted in Mr Griffin facing two criminal trials – and he was not convicted of any crime(21). During his speech in 2004  he predicted that Muslims would launch an attack on our country and objected to the sexual ‘grooming’ and rape of our children (before any reports such as in Rotherham were released). His predictions and claims were proven to be accurate and true. It is fair to conclude that those organisations (including political parties) dissenting from the establishment’s support for the political policy of immigration do face suppression and persecution. Such suppressive acts not only directly inhibit dissent (and truth), but also others are frightened from dissenting.

img627

There are various pieces of legislation that act in such a manner as to suppress dissent, this by threat of arrest, (e.g. ‘hate laws’). For example, words that might ‘insult’ and ‘stir up hatred’ can result in imprisonment(22). The application of these laws has disproportionately been such that they act to suppress dissent(23). Of course, as is frequently found in this ‘soft totalitarian’(24) state, this is all wrapped up in a cloak of ‘compassion’ and ‘moral values’. But to whom is the compassion being shown? To those who object to what is fairly described as an invasion of the country? As genocide(25)? Can the indigenous people not object to these hateful acts being perpetrated upon them without being arrested (and, ironically, accused of hatred)? Would hatred not be valid in some such instances? Should one hate those who have facilitated or committed mass rape of children or genocide? Does this situation not alarm and distress normal people? Why should the state think it is acceptable to arrest people for their beliefs and emotions anyway? Does the invasion and mass rape not offend you? Are you not offended, insulted or distressed that, by various means, you dare not object to this? Not even to the genocide? Feel threatened or alarmed? And is it moral to ban the truth? How can proper political decisions be made if based on lies and not on truth? Why should ‘offence’ or ‘insult’ be criminalised – and also only is certain contexts? If a comment were to stir up hatred(26) against a group, then if the statement is true, perhaps that group should not be loved, hey? If there were truths that if stated might offend or insult a group (s), or even stir up hatred, then to ban their statement is still to ban truth and takes away true and useful information from the public.This legislation can act to disempower the true victims in many cases, and to give the false impression that the perpetrators are the victims. Also it can act, inter alia, to protect the perpetrators from truth (in case they don’t like to hear it, and/or possibly face the consequences of it becoming widely known). So if the presence of group X meant a significant increase in rapes of children from group Y by group X, then one could not say this because group X might not like it (never mind what group Y don’t like, including their children getting raped, some groups are more equal than others). Better to pretend we are all the same (and at the same time don’t forget to celebrate the diversity!). If group B get arrested or stopped by the police at twice the rate of group A, then even if this were because group B committed twice the rate of crime, one could not state this fact/truth in case group B were insulted and this fact might cause resentment of group B. Better to let them off the crimes they commit and equalise the arrest figures, never mind if the other people are victimised by the crimes (and not to bother if any of this alarms/distresses/threatens/insults them, or even could be interpreted as inciting hatred against them). This all acts to suppress certain truths and challenges to government policy – and often in an insidious and surreptitious manner.

Hence, by various means there is a lack of freedom in this country in relation to the political freedom of dissenting from the government political policy of mass immigration. People are misinformed and are intimidated by various means. Dissenters are oppressed and are susceptible to prosecution by the state. Organisations and political parties dissenting are liable to much mistreatment from the state – this is political persecution.

You will acquiesce, you will not dissent. It’s called freedom. Orwell warned us about this:
“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”

1. http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/unmasked-merseysider-jailed-anti-semitic-tweet-7966903
2.Even those in government can insult the English and/or the British without sanction – and certainly without going to prison. For example, saying the English are a race too lazy or incapable of working, etc. is fine, but don’t say it about Africans, etc.
3.Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19:
‘Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.’
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
4. http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2013/11/controversial-university-speakers/
5. ‘Immunity from criticism’ refers to the fact that if no criticism, challenge, debate, alternative ideas, etc. are allowed, then those with this immunity can merely state their ideas, beliefs, policies, etc. and do not have to face any criticism or challenge on them. Such people do not need to defend what they say in any way and can merely state what they wish and leave the impression almost as though it is correct and perfect – with no alternatives.
6. See Dr. T. Turner
http://www.amazon.co.uk/MULTICULTURALISM-WHAT-DOES-Smokescreens-Mirrors-ebook/dp/B00HCQN1B0
7. George Orwell is quoted as stating that: ‘The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable’’
8. http://news.sky.com/story/38512/gagged-bnp-silenced
9. See: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b02_1370111676
10. http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/republic-of-ireland/bnp-leader-banned-from-university-28670319.html
11. These links to the establishment, frequently by those purporting to be ‘anti-establishment’, will be examined in a forthcoming essay
12. Ironically and dishonestly, many of these types pose as very ‘anti-establishment’ and rebellious.
13. https://cigpapers.wordpress.com/2013/06/03/who-are-the-uaf-unite-against-fascism/
14. And of course not all of them are in direct contact with the state in relation to the enforcement, but most of them understand that they will be very unlikely to be held account for threats, violence, etc. against anti-immigration people. Of course, some of them are in direct contact as will be discussed in future essays.
15. http://www.amazon.co.uk/MULTICULTURALISM-WHAT-DOES-Smokescreens-Mirrors-ebook/dp/B00HCQN1B0
16. Many fear social rejection if labelled as such a ‘witch’
17. Also see: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8ec_1269378544
18. http://www.civilliberty.org.uk/newsdetail.php?newsid=479
19. Communist badges? Even anarchists badges?
20. But won on appeal as this breached his human rights, e.g. see: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2229211/Bus-driver-sacked-member-BNP-wins-legal-battle-claiming-dismissal-breach-human-rights.html
http://andrewbrons.eu/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=641:arthur-redfearns-right-to-freedom-of-association
21. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/6135060.stm
22. For further reading on threats to freedom of speech in Britain see:
Johnston, P. (2013) Feel Free to Say It. Threats to Freedom of Speech in Britain Today. Civitas, London.
Also, relatedly, see:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2614834/Arrested-quoting-Winston-Churchill-European-election-candidate-accused-religious-racial-harassment-repeats-wartime-prime-ministers-words-Islam-campaign-speech.html
23. One could interpret some of this legislation in such a manner that it would render many politicians guilty of the offences therein. For example the Public Order Act 1986 makes it, amongst other things, a criminal offence to state certain matters that threaten, abuse or insult and are likely to stir up racial hatred. Are not many pro-immigration speeches thus covered? What about those who state that the immigrants ‘do the jobs Brits are too lazy to do’?
24. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/thought-police-muscle-up-in-britain/story-e6frg6zo-1225700363959
25. https://cigpapers.wordpress.com/2013/10/05/stop-white-british-genocide-campaign-join-now/
26. And how can this be shown to be the case? When would it not be resentment, disapproval or disgust, etc. and actually be hatred? Besides, how could causing hatred even be thought in a sane world #to be illegal?

Female Paedophile MP Abused Boy In State Care

Written by Cigpapers

Co-Investigation by Watt Tyler

This article appeared on the Coleman Experience blog here:

http://thecolemanexperience.wordpress.com/2014/01/12/who-was-the-female-mp-assaulted-child/

It’s an article describing a young boy in State Care being sexually abused by a VIP paedophile ring including a female MP. At the end of the article we’ll narrow down the possible offending female MP.

Female MP Abused Boy in CareVicitm Andrew AshGeoffreyDickensMPHouses Of ParliamentBuckinghamPalaceCharles and palPaedo Ring Number 10MP Vice ChargesHouseMissing BoysMissing Martin AllenVIPHellthatcher and savileSavile SatanTop Tory AbuseThatcher and Cameronfilthy britainElm Guest HouseEGH AdvertElm ListRichmond CouncilWarwickSpinksJason SwiftIslingtonCentrepointPrincess Diana CentrepointGrafton CloseNo to Secret CourtsSecret Family CourtChildSnatcherDerek Laud Big BrotherIan Greerdolphinsquare pimlicoScallywagScared FilthThatcherCabinetBanthePIEBBC PaedosJill DandoRolf Harris Mark Speightesther savileesther savile Savile and RantzenChildlineNaughty Esther RantzenThatcherandSavileBryn Alyn Abuse HomeBryn Alyn HallJillings ReportWestminster CouncilWestminster Councillors- Simon Milton and Robert DavisMaida Vale SignFreemason Brothers in the ShadowsFreemason SymbolFreinds ReunitedJanner and GellerSavile and QueenSavile and Philip

If you thought for one minute that Britain is really as it appears to be, you’re very sadly mistaken.

Beneath the pomp and pageantry lies a network of paedophilic depravity, so vile and despicable, it literally beggars belief.

From the Elm Guest House scandal to North Wales care home abuse via Dolphin Square; to sickening Warwick Spinks and the Amsterdam connection; from Jersey’s Haut de la Garenne to Kincora in Northern Ireland; from the vile BBC to complicit police and government authorities; from MP’s through to the Royal Family themselves; the whole filthy lot of them are in on it.

The VIP paedophile ring has been able to operate by ensuring all sections of society are controlled by abusers and then children are snatched from Britain’s streets or stolen from loving families (via secret family courts) and thrown into care homes to be trafficked by filth.

This shocking article from the Sunday Express sheds more light on the role of politicians in this sordid and sickening web:

” Andrew Ash (pictured at 14) claims he was abused by two MPs in London in the 1980s [HULL NEWS & PICTURES]

She is alleged to have forced a boy in care to perform a “vile”  sex act at one of a series of drug-fuelled parties in Westminster in the Eighties where boys and girls as young as 13 were allegedly abused.Last night her alleged victim told the Sunday Express: “I want justice.”

Andrew Ash, now 45, said he has given Scotland Yard the name of the former MP. We cannot name her for legal reasons.

Mr Ash claims he was frequently ferried down to London from the North of England, where he was in care, to take part in sex parties.

He says they were organised by a paedophile ring involving David Smith, Jimmy Savile’s former chauffeur who killed himself last year before he was due to stand trial for sex offences.

He said: “It wasn’t just politicians, there were also a number of celebrities, including Jimmy Savile, who seemed to have a lot of good links to MPs and powerful businessmen.

“There was usually drugs like cocaine and speed available as well as bottles of champagne.”

Of his encounter with the female MP, he said: “She was extremely drunk and was laughing as she did it.

“I didn’t really know what was going on but the others around her were goading her on.

“I must have been about 13 years old at the time and felt humiliated.” We can also reveal that security services have been working closely with Yard detectives because of the highly sensitive nature of the allegations.

The Sunday Express understands police seized video footage and photographs of an alleged sex party from a well-known paedophile last year.

Mr Ash claims officers have footage which shows a senior male MP in the same frame as him, although no abuse takes place on camera. He said he is speaking out now because he is frustrated by the lack of action after being interviewed for 70 hours by the Met Police’s Paedophile Unit.

He says he was abused by the male MP on another occasion too. He said: “I remember being filmed with this MP, who was abusing me in a garage of a very prominent building behind a Rolls-Royce.

“Another politician turned up with a video camera but the man abusing me just smirked and joked, ‘OK, OK, I’ll vote any way you want’ as if he was being blackmailed. What I want to know is why they haven’t arrested him yet if they have this evidence.“All I want is justice and for the truth to come out because these people have been protected for far too long.”

Mr Ash said two Met officers called at his home in Yorkshire last May.

Interviews were conducted mainly at a safe house in Bridlington, East Yorkshire, but also in London. “The interviews were usually carried out in blocks of three, normally every Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.

“On at least two occasions there were two other officers present that I didn’t recognise. They didn’t ask me a thing, they just scribbled notes.

“I asked who they were but all I was told was that they were from ‘upstairs’. It was clear from the tone that they were intelligence officers.

“They had obviously been made aware of the high-profile names and the sensitive information I had given police.”

Dutch intelligence officers attended at least one interview because Andrew told of being trafficked to Amsterdam on a number of occasions to be abused by a group of paedophiles including convicted child killer Sidney Cooke.

He claims Cooke, now 84, made him film the paedophile abusing another young boy on video. It is feared Cooke may have abused and killed young boys in the Netherlands.

Mr Ash also told police he was abused by a big-name celebrity.

He said: “This particular person was able to get youngsters into glitzy nightclubs in the West End. After one evening he invited me and a young girl back to his house where he made us have sex before joining in.”

Mr Ash is being helped by anti-abuse campaigners Bill Maloney and Chris Fay.

Mr Fay said: “The police have spent a good deal of time with him, listening to his evidence, and now potentially have compelling information that Andrew was at one of these parties with at least one prominent former MP.

“He hopes by speaking out, other victims may come forward.”

This appalling account of VIP abuse is just the tip of the iceberg.

When we finally discover the full extent of just how wide the filthy paedo ring operating in this country really is, it may well mean the end of Britain as we know it.

The clock is ticking on Britain’s dirty secrets.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/453381/Female-MP-abused-boy-in-care

A List Of The 19 Female MPs Elected in 1979:

Josephine Richardson (Labour) 1923-1994 (deceased) MP from 1974 to 1994

Margaret Thatcher (Conservative) 1925–2013 (deceased) MP from 1959 to 1992

Sheila Faith (Conservative) born 1928  (retired) MP from 1979 to 1983

Jill Knight (Conservative) born 1924 (now in House Of Lords as Baroness Knight of Collingtree) MP from 1966 to 1987

Sheila Wright (Labour) 1925-2013 (deceased) MP from 1979 to 1983

Ann Taylor (Labour) born 1947 (now in House Of Lords as Baroness Taylor of Bolton) MP from 1974 to 1983 and 1987 to 2005

Gwyneth Dunwoody (Labour) 1930-2008 (deceased) MP from 1966 to 1970 and 1974 to 2008

Joan Lester (Labour) 1931-1998 (deceased after serving in House Of Lords as Baroness Lester of Eccles) MP frpm 1966 to 1983 and 1987 to 1997

Sally Oppenheim (Conservative) born 1930 (now in House Of Lords as Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes of Gloucester) MP from 1970 to 1987

Shirley Summerskill (Labour) born 1931 (retired) MP from 1964 to 1983

Judith Hart (Labour) 1924-1991 (deceased after serving in House Of Lords as Baroness Hart of South Lanark) MP from 1959 to 1987

Elaine Kellet-Bowman (Conservative) born 1924 (retired) MP from 1970 to 1997

Janet Fookes (Conservative) born 1936 (now in House Of Lords as Baroness Fookes of Plymouth) MP from 1970 to 1997

Peggy Fenner (Conservative) born 1922 (retired) MP from 1970 to 1974 and 1979 to 1997

Joan Maynard (Labour) 1921-1998 (deceased) MP from 1974 to 1987

Dr. Oonagh McDonald (Labour) born 1938 (retired) MP from 1976 to 1987

Lynda Chalker (Conservative) born 1942 (now in House Of Lords as Baroness Chalker of Wallasey) MP from 1974 to 1992

Betty Boothroyd (Labour) born 1929 (now in House Of Lords as Baroness Boothroyd of Sandwell)  MP from 1973 to 2000

Renee Short (Labour) 1919-2003 (deceased) MP from 1964 to 1987

A List Of The 23 Female MPs Elected in 1983:

Josephine Richardson (Labour) 1923-1994 (deceased) MP from 1974 to 1994

Elizabeth Peacock (Conservative) born 1937 (retired) MP from 1983 to 1997

Jill Knight (Conservative) born 1924 (now in House Of Lords as Baroness Knight of Collingtree) MP from 1966 to 1987

Clare Short (Labour) born 1946 (retired 2010) MP from 1983 to 2005

Marion Roe (Conservative) born 1936 (retired 2005)  MP from 1983 to 2005

Judith Hart (Labour) 1924-1991 (deceased after serving in House Of Lords as Baroness Hart of South Lanark) MP from 1959 to 1987

Lady Ann Winterton (Conservative) born 1941 (retired  2010) MP from 1983 to 2010

Gwyneth Dunwoody (Labour) 1930- 2008 (deceased) MP from 1966 to 1970 and 1974 to 2008

Margaret Beckett (Labour) born 1943 (currently MP) MP from 1974 to 1979 and 1983 to present

Edwina Currie (Conservative) born 1946 (retired 1997) MP from 1983 to 1997

Margaret Thatcher (Conservative) 1925–2013 (deceased) MP from 1959 to 1992

Sally Oppenheim (Conservative) born 1930 (now in House Of Lords as Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes of Gloucester) MP from 1970 to 1987

Elaine Kellet-Bowman (Conservative) born 1924 (retired) MP from 1970 to 1997

Peggy Fenner (Conservative) born 1922 (retired) MP from 1970 to 1974 and 1979 to 1997

Angela Rumbold (Conservative) 1932-2010 (deceased) First elected in 1982 by-election then MP from 1983 to 1997

Harriet Harman (Labour) born 1950 (currently MP for Peckham) first elected MP in by-election 1982 to present

Janet Fookes (Conservative) born 1936 (now in House Of Lords as Baroness Fookes of Plymouth) MP from 1970 to 1997

Anna McCurley (Conservative) born 1943 (retired 1987) MP from 1983 to 1987

Joan Maynard (Labour) 1921-1998 (deceased) MP from 1974 to 1987

Dr. Oonagh McDonald (Labour) born 1938 (retired) MP from 1976 to 1987

Lynda Chalker (Conservative) born 1942 (now in House Of Lords as Baroness Chalker of Wallasey) MP from 1974 to 1992

Betty Boothroyd (Labour) born 1929 (now in House Of Lords as Baroness Boothroyd of Sandwell) MP from 1973 to 2000

Renee Short (Labour) 1919-2003 (deceased) MP from 1964 to 1987

Jewess Harriet Harman in butterfly brooch.

Jewess Harriet Harman QC MP in butterfly brooch.

The most obvious suspect is Harriet Harman QC MP of the Paedophile Information Exchange but we need more clues than we have already. However Harriet Harman is still an MP. Here’s an article on the evil Harriet Harman:

https://cigpapers.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/harriet-harman-in-butterfly-brooch/

However if the accused is really an ex-MP and is still alive the 17 suspects are:

Sheila Faith (Conservative) born 1928  (retired) MP from 1979 to 1983

Jill Knight (Conservative) born 1924 (now in House Of Lords as Baroness Knight of Collingtree) MP from 1966 to 1987

Ann Taylor (Labour) born 1947 (now in House Of Lords as Baroness Taylor of Bolton) MP from 1974 to 1983 and 1987 to 2005

Sally Oppenheim (Conservative) born 1930 (now in House Of Lords as Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes of Gloucester) MP from 1970 to 1987

Shirley Summerskill (Labour) born 1931 (retired) MP from 1964 to 1983

Elaine Kellet-Bowman (Conservative) born 1924 (retired) MP from 1970 to 1997

Janet Fookes (Conservative) born 1936 (now in House Of Lords as Baroness Fookes of Plymouth) MP from 1970 to 1997

Peggy Fenner (Conservative) born 1922 (retired) MP from 1970 to 1974 and 1979 to 1997

Dr. Oonagh McDonald (Labour) born 1938 (retired) MP from 1976 to 1987

Lynda Chalker (Conservative) born 1942 (now in House Of Lords as Baroness Chalker of Wallasey) MP from 1974 to 1992

Betty Boothroyd (Labour) born 1929 (now in House Of Lords as Baroness Boothroyd of Sandwell)  MP from 1973 to 2000

Elizabeth Peacock (Conservative) born 1937 (retired) MP from 1983 to 1997

Clare Short (Labour) born 1946 (retired 2010) MP from 1983 to 2005

Marion Roe (Conservative) born 1936 (retired 2005)  MP from 1983 to 2005

Lady Ann Winterton (Conservative) born 1941 (retired  2010) MP from 1983 to 2010

Edwina Currie (Conservative) born 1946 (retired 1997) MP from 1983 to 1997

Anna McCurley (Conservative) born 1943 (retired 1987) MP from 1983 to 1987

Justice Denied Blog Names Their Five Top Suspects:

The Justice Denied blog has named their five top suspects as:

1. Edwina Currie – an MP at the time, now retired and not deceased.Edwina Currie appointed Savile to run a taskforce in charge of Broadmoor mental hospital in the 1980s, where he is accused of sexually assaulting patients

2. Margaret Thatcher – an MP at the time (actually Prime Minister), now retired and deceased.

3. Virginia Bottomley –  not an MP until 1984, now retired and not deceased. Her husband Peter Bottomley is named on the Elm Guest House paedophile VIP party list.

4. Harriet Harman – an MP at the time, not retired and not deceased.Major player in the Paedophile Information Exchange.

5. Ann Winterton – an MP at the time, now retired and not deceased.

If the abuse happened in 1982 or 1983, as it seems, then the only two out of the five fitting the description ( MP at the time, now retired and not deceased) would be Edwina Currie and Ann Winterton. Read more from Justice Denied here:

http://google-law.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/so-who-is-woman-mp-who-abused-mr-ash.html

Welcome To Britain – Child Sex Abuse Capital Of The World

 filthy britainJason SwiftSavileCharlesBishop Peter Ball Prince CharlesSavile Gordon Browncyril smithHague Savile Elm Guest HouseDolphin SquareJerseyDSC_0119Warwick SpinksJillings ReportMI5

If you thought for one minute that Britain is really as it appears to be, you’re very sadly mistaken.

Beneath the pomp and pageantry lies a network of paedophilic depravity, so vile and despicable, it literally beggars belief.

Don’t be fooled into thinking Jimmy Savile was an isolated case either.

He wasn’t.

Why did the NSPCC ( Britain’s biggest Child Charity ) sign off the investigation in to Sir Jimmy Savile, saying no one else was involved and there was no Police corruption?

From the Elm Guest House scandal to North Wales care home abuse via Dolphin Square; to sickening Warwick Spinks and the Amsterdam connection; from Jersey’s Haut de la Garenne to Kincora in Northern Ireland; from the vile BBC to complicit police and government authorities; from MP’s through MI5 to the Royal Family themselves; the whole filthy lot of them are in on it.

Consider this:

How many children have been raped, buggered or abused by celebrities?

How many children have been raped, buggered or abused by social workers?

How many children have been raped, buggered or abused by teachers?

How many children have been raped, buggered or abused by police officers?

How many children have been raped, buggered or abused by members of the clergy?

How many children have been raped, buggered or abused by diplomats?

How many children have been raped, buggered or abused by members of the armed forces?

How many children have been raped, buggered or abused by members of the intelligence services?

How many children have been raped, buggered or abused by politicians?

How many children have been raped, buggered or abused by members of the judiciary?

How many children have been raped, buggered or abused by members of royalty?

Allegedly, many.

Now consider this:

How many children have been filmed being abused?

How many children have been filmed being abused and the abusers have been blackmailed by Intelligence Services?

How many children have been filmed being abused and the films have then sold for thousands of pounds?

How many children have been trafficked before being abused?

How many children, wrongly taken from their parents via secret family courts, have ended up being abused?

How many children have been abused in care homes?

How many children have gone missing after being abused?

How many children have died or been murdered after being abused?

How many children are, at this very moment, suffering horrific abuse?

Allegedly, many.

Welcome to filthy Britain.

No child’s safe here.

Didn’t you know?

Who The Fuck Is Chris Spivey? Written by Matt Taylor

If you haven’t heard of Christopher D Spivey, well I don’t blame you. He’s the up and coming voice of the alternative media.
Chris Spivey [pronounced Spy-Vee] first hit the head lines as a feature writer for the Sovereign Independent Newspaper. He’s a tattoo artist and body piercer, a single father [whose 18 year old daughter has recently given birth to a healthy baby boy] and the man most likely to trigger a British revolution.
I first heard of him via Facebook in 2012, after the Jimmy Savile scandal broke. As far as I can gather he’s just a normal guy from Rochford in Essex. He’s got two Rottweiler dogs and he’s built like a brick-shit-house. He raised his daughter alone since she was 6 months old, and by all accounts he’s a loving father who cares about the world around him.
Like the vast majority of the population, I got my news from such places as BBC, Sky, Channel Four and ITV news programmes. I used to pride myself on having a comprehensive understanding of the world around me by investing in the 45 minutes of Newsnight and the hour of Channel Four news everyday. It was only when I got a Sky box that I discovered other news channels such as Press TV, RT and the news channels from India, France and China. Slowly but surely I found myself watching these channels in favour of the old, finding them more informative and balanced. Surprisingly, I got really upset when Press TV [the Iranian news channel] was taken off the airwaves by Ofcom.
I soon came to realise there was a choice in the type of news you could get. Either the mainstream [MSM] namely BBC, Sky, ITV or the alternative [AV] which is made up of a diverse set of blogs, newspapers, websites and programmes screened on obscure TV channels such as Showcase TV, Edge Media TV and Paradigm Shift TV.
Chris Spivey’s articles stuck out as a high-light and my view of the world has been changed irreversibly ever since.
I was once a Royal Military Policeman who pledged an oath of allegiance to the Queen of England. I joined the Army ready to kill and be killed for my country. Kill and be killed on behalf of who I thought then was a great and illustrious Queen.
But reading Monsters Inc by Chris Spivey [the first article which I read of his] I now consider our great and illustrious Queen Elizabeth II to be a monster, a charlatan and an immoral person. Chris Spivey would describe her differently, maybe as a ‘cunt and a slut’ but that’s just how he talks, ‘Don’t cha know’.
Now, I have been called naive before but I’ve never really agreed with that description. I like to think of myself as an intelligence free thinking individual who takes people at face value and who is willing to listen to what anyone says with an open mind.
If someone tells me they’ve seen a UFO, I’ll believe them until such time it’s proven that they’ve lied. If someone says they’ve seen a sex video of the London Mayor Boris Johnson having rampant sex with Samantha Cameron, the Prime Minister’s wife, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt until such time I’ve seen the tape myself or when they’ve been exposed as a liar. I like people and take people at face value until such time they have been exposed as frauds or liars.
I’ve read books recommended by Chris Spivey such as The Falsification of History by John Hamer which totally threw me of kilter and which I’m still recovering from. But I’ve also read other books which he doesn’t recommend about the subjects he covers, to get a balanced view. Many personalities in the alternative media ask the reader never to take them at face value and to do their own research on the subjects they cover.
The reason I’ve taken Chris Spivey’s articles on board is because they are well crafted, articulated, researched and written. Another major factor is that I like them. He injects humour, personality and passion into every piece. If any of you have read his articles you know he swears like a trooper and if you haven’t yet, you’ll be shocked by the language he uses. Then there are his pictures he accompanies with his articles. You have to see them to appreciate their artistic value. But I understand why he uses such language and images. Number one, he’s real and doesn’t hold his punches and number two, he’s pissed off and angry with the status quo.
Make no mistake, Chris Spivey is writing and circulating articles with libellous accusations. Quite frankly I am shocked with everything he comes out with. And that is only because I believed the MSM to be the authority on news and that if it wasn’t reported by the BBC then it wasn’t true. The AV has changed all that.
Okay, let’s get down to the nitty gritty…. WHO THE FUCK IS SPIVEY?
This man writes well crafted and researched articles which tell, amongst many things:
  1. Tony Blair tried to rape his daughter. [See here for article]
  2. The Royal family are Satanists. [See here for article]
  3. Prince Philip is a paedophile. [See here for article]
  4. That all the Parliamentarians and Lords in the House of Commons are paedophiles. [See here for article]
  5. That Gordon Brown is a paedophile. [See here for article]
  6. That the Woolwich hacking murder was a fake and an acted scenario. [See here for article]
  7. An ex South African terrorist worked for the NSPCC. [See here for article]
  8. That David Cameron may have sacrificed his first born to the Devil. [See here for article]
  9. That Lord Mc Alpine is a nonce [as he likes to call paedophiles]. [See here for article]
  10. and that Madeline McCann is buried under the drive way of Robert Murat. [See here for article]
‘Unbelievable’ wouldn’t you say? How can someone circulate such disgusting accusations and get away with it? Surely this man should be arrested for libel and slander and thrown into a dark dungeon for the next one hundred years…
But no…. Chris Spivey backs up every accusation with well researched and verified public evidence. The proof is there right under the surface and all you have to do is scratch and see for yourself that he’s onto something. He’s got a point… What he says rings true… And the blaring FACT that he hasn’t been thrown in prison says a lot about what he says; namely that the accused daren’t take him to court for libel because what he says is true.
After all, Sally Bercow, the wife of the House of Common’s speaker John Bercow, recently lost her libel case in the High Court for sending a tweet which didn’t specifically accuse Lord Mc Alpine of being a nonce but yet Chris Spivey specifically calls Lord Mc Alpine a nonce in dozens of his articles but yet no lawyer has got in touch.
Giving credit where credit is due he covers a wide spectrum of subject matters. Exclusives are common-place. If it wasn’t for him we wouldn’t have known about former ANC/MK terrorist Heinrich Grosskopt holding and abusing an important position within the NSPCC. If it wasn’t for him we wouldn’t know the true nature of the renowned MP Tom Watson. If it wasn’t for him we wouldn’t have known where Madeline McCann’s body maybe buried. If it wasn’t for him we wouldn’t known a lot of things. Most importantly, if it wasn’t for him we wouldn’t have known that the British Establishment and Royal family is invested with perverts, murderers and Satanists.
img143
He writes about subjects which are important and relevant. He comments on the news of the day and wipes away the cloak of mediocrity to unveil the stark truth and reality of the subject matter. He doesn’t hold punches and lays the facts on the line. He’s fearless of bullies and doesn’t give a hoot about threats from Lords, Kings or Queens. The man is a brick wall of opinion and righteous stance. He fights passionately for the rights of children, the downtrodden and abused. If ever you were in a war, Chris Spivey is the type of guy you’ll want standing next to you.
Chris Spivey seems untouchable… And as a consequence very likely to be the one who triggers a British revolution which will see every MP in the country and Royal family member put in jail for either sex crimes or treason… [Don’t think it hasn’t happened before!]
He seems even more determined than ever to bring the House of Cards crashing to the ground after the birth of his Grandson.
“Young Clay makes me more determined than ever to see the downfall of these wholly corrupt, nonce infested, so called democratic governments. I will not rest till there is real change for the better in this country.
My new little man deserves better. Your children and grandchildren deserve better… Let’s go to war.”
You might think that he hasn’t been pulled up because he’s simply irrelevant. A lone voice in the throng of bloggers and alternative journalists who are epidemic across the internet…
You’ll be wrong. Firstly, I’ve heard of him, and I’m your average Joe-the-public type of guy. I visit his website [www.chrisspivey.co.uk] once a day for any new articles and I’m not alone because 30,000 to 40,000 others do the same everyday too. He’s a prolific blogger who checks the newspapers so we don’t have too. If there is any news worth mentioning, Chris Spivey will bring it to our attention. His following is increasing everyday and it’ll only increase further with his appearances on the radio and up coming festivals.
Chris Spivey is a clear and present danger to the British Establishment and I amongst many, welcome it.
After all I agree totally with his sentiment:
“THIS IS WHAT YOU HAVE TO LOOK FORWARD TO YOU FUCKING PLEBS.
The elites raping our kids and getting away with it. And why?
BECAUSE THEY ARE ALL FUCKING NONCES THAT’S WHY!  THE ROYAL FAMILY, THE GOVERNMENT, THE POLICE TOP BRASS, AND THE FUCKING JUDGES TOO. VILE, EVIL, CHILD RAPISTS.
The quicker the blind cunts who think the likes of us are mad realize that fact, the sooner we can protect our children. Until that time comes, the sick cunts with money and power will keep on and on.
WAKEY, FUCKING WAKEY.
I am so fucking angry at the moment, I would fucking hang the Monsters myself.
CUNTS.”
Suffice to say Chris Spivey is not going away. I am positive that once EVERYONE embraces the alternative media and switches of the mainstream news, then a British revolution is inevitable.
Chris Spivey has demonstrated through public record and research that our politicians are criminals, paedophiles and murderers. He has demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that the British Royal Family are Satanists, murderers and frauds.
Chris Spivey has proven beyond reasonable doubt that EVERYTHING we are told by the MSM is a lie and that there is an alternative point of view…
Read Chris Spivey at your own risk. Your opinion of the world will never be the same again…
Let’s go to war….
!Bw7b-h!!Wk~$(KGrHqN,!hEEv1+zyBfNBMLN9YlcZw~~_12
 

BBC/ISLINGTON/JERSEY CHILD SEX ABUSE CARE HOME SCANDAL

BBC/ISLINGTON/JERSEY CSA CARE HOME SCANDAL by Cigpapers

Islington Borough of London

Islington Borough of London

Islington is a borough of London that was formed as a Borough Council in 1965. At the start of the 1970s Islington Council ran 12 Care Homes for Children who were in the care of the State for various reasons. The Council was run by politically correct multiculturalists of the Labour Party.At the start of the 1970s there were several militant groups in London promoting sexual deviancies , among these were the Gay Liberation Front , the Paedophile Information Exchange and Paedophile Action for Liberation. GLF , PIE and PAL were all funded by the Government via the Scottish Minorities Groups and shared many members as well as their London address.

Join the campaign.

Join the campaign.

The GLF demanded that Islington Care Homes were handed over to its’ members to run , and any political resistance was met with accusations of homophobia. GLF , PIE and PAL were all being represented by the National Council for Civil Liberties at the time who were lobbying the Government for them, and threatening legal action against any resistance to their take over of Islington Care Homes. GLF were in complete control of Islington Care Homes by about 1974.

GLF Founder Member Peter Tatchell

GLF Founder Member Peter Tatchell

Quite predictably Islington Care Homes soon became the centre of an international Child rape/pornography/torture and murder ring. Virtually all Children who went through Islington Care Homes between 1974 and 1997 were seriously sexually abused , raped , tortured and in some cases murdered. Thousands of vulnerable British mostly Working Class Children were repeatedly raped and it is estimated hundreds are still missing presumed murdered. In one case a 12 year old boy and his six year old sister were taken in to Care when their parents died in a car crash and the boy was made to repeatedly rape his sister for the gratification of paedophiles, including senior Labour Politicians and BBC Executives.

Leader of Islington Council Margaret Hodge

Leader of Islington Council Margaret Hodge – a close friend of Tony Blair who later made her Minister For Children.

At the start of the 1970s Islington Council started trafficking Children to the Haute de la Garenne Care Home in Jersey, and the Casa Pia orphanages in Portugal. It is believed the non compliant Children , or ones who had parents making complaints , were taken to Jersey for rape, torture and murder. The more attractive/compliant Children were taken to Portugal for Eurocrat paedophile networks. Even though hundreds of Children were shipped to Jersey and Portugal there is no record of any ever returning.

Sir Jimmy Savile at Haute de la Garenne Care Home in Jersey he always denied visiting.

Sir Jimmy Savile at Haute de la Garenne Care Home in Jersey he always denied visiting.

      Jimmy Savile’s nephew , Guy Marsden , remembers attending “Showbiz Parties” at large private houses round London in the 1970s run by BBC executives with his Uncle Savile. At these “Showbiz Parties” attended by Politicians , Judges , BBC Executives , Radio One DJ s and celebrities Children as young as 9 , mostly from Islington Care Homes, were raped and tortured. There was also the production of Child pornography at these “Showbiz Parties” using BBC equipment and Staff.

Are Children safe near the BBC?

Are Children safe near the BBC?

Islington Council also had a large trade in Child pornography and Children with Lambeth and other Councils.
The Gay Liberation Front , who ran Islington care Homes from about 1974 to 1997 , had a special technique for dealing with non paedophile staff. They would send Children for “weekenders” with known paedophiles, if the Social Workers delivered the Child they then knew they would comply with anything. If they refused they could be fired. Social Workers Liz Davies and David Cofie refused to comply and resigned so they could raise their concerns with Scotland Yard. Liz Davies had refused to deliver a 7 year old Child to a known paedophile. All concerns raised with Islington Council were treated as homophobic and anyone who got in the way of the GLF was harassed and attacked, sometimes physically. Scotland Yard were very corrupt at the time and refused to investigate despite overwhelming evidence.

Press were silent for years due to political correctness.

Press were silent for years due to political correctness.

      Eventually the Evening Standard newspaper started covering the story and the Police were forced to investigate. Only one serious conviction was obtained against Roy Caterer and he received seven and a half years in Prison. The Police then called the case closed and refused to investigate any further. It is believed Roy Caterer received around £300,000 in pay offs for being the fall guy, over half of this may have come through a third party from Islington Council’s budget. This also happened in the Jersey Child sex abuse case where a small time, low level paedophile takes the fall and everyone else walks free with the case closed.

BBC involved in sexual abuse of Children.

BBC involved in sexual abuse and rape of Children.

 Liz Davies Writes Margaret Hodge MP An Open Letter:

Last Friday (August 1st, 2014), Margaret Hodge, Labour MP for Barking and Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, issued a statement on the poor treatment of whistleblowers, and how they are often victimised by managers (see Rayeev Syal, ‘Public service whistleblowers ‘treated shockingly’, report finds’, The Guardian, August 1st, 2014). Hodge was earlier Leader of Islington Council from 1982 to 1992, during which time the council was beset by a terrible child abuse scandal affecting most of the children’s homes in the borough. Liz Davies was a social worker for Islington Council who acted as the principal whistleblower about this scandal; she is now Reader in Social Work at London Metropolitan University. Below I reproduce, without permission from Dr Davies, an open letter from her to Margaret Hodge in response to Hodge’s recent comments.

See also Liz Davies’ website, in particular this page featuring videos of various TV reports about the Islington child abuse scandal, as well as this account of Davies’ work with journalist Eileen Fairweather, who broke the news of the scandal. A wide range of articles about abuse in Islington can be read at the Spotlight blog here and here.


Open letter to Margaret Hodge MP

Dear Margaret Hodge,

You rightly say that, whistleblowing is ‘crucial’ and has to matter ‘right to the top of an organisation’. Your perspective has certainly changed since the time when, as leader of Islington Council, you so seriously hindered my investigation of crimes against children. As the main ‘whistleblower’ I have been struggling since the 90s to put the record straight about the murders, sexual exploitation, neglect and physical torture of children both within the care of Islington social services and in the local community. I have also tried to expose the connections between Islington networks and those in other parts of the country.

We have all learnt a lot in the last 20 years and I am continually discovering more about what actually happened during those years when, as a social worker, I was working to protect vulnerable Islington children. It would seem now, in the context of your statements on whistleblowing and your support of the National Inquiry into Organised Abuse of Children, that it is certainly appropriate to move forward in order to increase all our understanding about what led to the cover up of organised child abuse in the Borough.

A few years ago, as more information came to light, you apologised for your mistakes and provided the explanation for your actions that you were misled by senior officers. However, I now question why you did not give evidence to this effect to the final Islington Inquiry in 1995. Also, you have not said if you referred these managers to the police and to the appropriate regulatory body in order to prevent them working with children. So many of them, whose names I remember clearly, have progressed in their social work careers without ever having been accountable for their actions or inactions.

Most puzzling is my discovery of how much was previously known about child abuse in Islington since the early 80s and I, of course, realise that you were council leader from 1982. Am I to believe that you really did not know that there had been a long established pattern of sexual exploitation and even the alleged murders of children within Islington’s care? These events were well covered in the local and national media and, in this context, I cannot understand why my disclosures just a few years later were met with such disbelief. Geoffrey Dickens MP, for instance, exposed the sexual exploitation of Islington children. This was just four years before I raised similar concerns about children’s safety in the neighbourhood of Islington where I worked and for which you were the local councillor. This area was just a few streets away from the location that he was including in one of his now famous dossiers. I have to question why I was not informed at the time about these very serious cases. All this prior intelligence would have validated some of my enquiries and greatly assisted my investigations. If I had received support and understanding from you, I would have been far better able to protect the children who were so severely harmed. Instead, every obstacle was put in my way. My only professionally ethical option at the time was to work covertly with police. When our work achieved a major conviction I thought I would be believed but instead I was further silenced by managers. I now question if you were informed about this conviction and the circumstances in which young people were disclosing? I wonder if you were also informed about all the professionals working alongside me in the investigations and how many were told by their agency representatives on the Area Child Protection Committee that there was no evidence.

What exactly did influence your decision-making at the time? What led you to take a stand, for instance, in publicly blaming a brave whistleblowing residential worker? After raising the alarm about child sex abusers accessing children as young as 9 years old in a children’s home, he was dismissed and prevented from working with children for many years. What led you to dismiss my substantial report about a local network of sexual exploitation? Your support from ‘the top’ of the organisation might have been able to reverse the path of history and protect so many children. I am now being contacted by survivors who feel more able to come forward in the current climate. It is deeply worrying that so many of their files are missing. When I attended the Inquiries not a single one of my records was to be found. What is your understanding now of such negligence?

There are so many questions I would like to ask you. Did you know that after presenting 4 hours of evidence to one Islington Inquiry none of my information was included in the report? Did you know that one of the people who was the subject of one of the 14 Islington Inquiry reports returned to Children’s services in recent years and had not been barred from work with children? I do not know the 32 names listed by Ian White, in the Appendix to his final report, of professionals deemed unsuitable to work with children. I do know two social workers who should never have been named on the list as they were whistleblowers. In the light of your recent comment that some whistleblowers are treated badly I would expect that you would agree that the list of 32 needs to be urgently reviewed.

The White Report in 1995 (Report of the Inquiry into the Management of Child Care in the London Borough of Islington) made reference to 61 children I had identified as possible victims of an organised abuse network. It went on to conclude that, ‘while some individual children were at risk of abuse, the Police found no evidence of connections between these such as would support the assertion that there was organised abuse’ (p. 42). I would like to know in the light of current knowledge, and with hindsight, what your opinion is of this finding.

You say that there should be sanctions for those who victimise whistleblowers. The Islington Inquiries were not a legal process and no-one was required to give evidence. Do you think, therefore, that it is too late to call to account those who obstructed my investigations and those who misled you? Other authorities are now interviewing former whistleblowers and considering what action can be taken to right the wrongs of the past. I have not been asked by Islington authorities to assist in identifying perpetrators or to help survivors in understanding what happened to them. As one example, I recently learnt from the media about the unnamed Islington children’s home supposedly related to Savile – no-one has asked me if I know which home it might be. I remain a registered social worker and am therefore appropriately qualified to professionally assist with child protection investigations and I would readily contribute my knowledge about networks of abuse in the area.

I am pleased that you are now supporting whistleblowers. I am one of them and I now ask for your full support in helping to unravel what really did happen in Islington about which you must surely know so much. It is a story which includes your story which has never been told. Many politicians are now bravely coming forward to speak out about organised child abuse – it is surely your time to contribute your account of what really happened.

Yours sincerely

Dr Liz Davies
Reader in Child Protection
London Metropolitan University
l.davies@londonmet.ac.uk
3rd August 2014

Copies to;

Cllr Richard Watts, Leader of Islington Council
Cllr Joe Caluori, Executive Member for Children and Families
Andrew Johnson, Islington Tribune