Message from the source of Tom Watson’s PMQ: Does the British government have a formal policy to protect paedophiles?

The more you look in to the sewer the deeper it gets.
We can add the Lord Chief Justice to the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions ( as in the cases of Sir Peter Hayman,Cyril Smith etc ) to the list of our most senior judicial figures who are party to Establishment cover-ups at worst and the making of appalling decisions totally out of sinct with public opinion at best.
Members of the judiciary who make comments such as possessing and distributing indecent images of children is like collecting cigarette cards, raping a 7 year old is something that could happen to anyone of us, to stop someone teaching because he has sexually abused children would be a serious loss to the teaching profession should not only be immediately removed from the Bar but should have their own backgrounds looked in to. The path for a victim to get justice is so difficult even before they come face to face with judges holding theses views

It never ceases to amaze me how far the Establishment will go to protect itself, even brazenly right in the glare of the public spotlight
Where are the investigations and Inquiries in to the role of politicians etc in the cover ups over child sexual abuse

Immediately after the Newsnight debacle John Whittingdale was so fast out of the traps to demand the head of the  BBC’s Director General that he was in danger of tripping over all the mikes that were in front of him when he decided to be interviewed by every media oulet he could possibly get hold of. David Cameron immediately followed this up when the Savile story broke by stating that “every institution” must look at themselves and fully investigate why no-one reported/exposed such staggering levels of abuse. EVERY institution includes Parliament, Government, Attorney General, DPP.

John Whittingdale and David Cameron are remarkably silent on this now.

I would like to suggest where they could start and there are numerous historic situations which are not subject to current Police investigations and therefore there is no conflict of interests

The BBC and the NHS will no doubt be severely censured over Savile further down the line.

At least these institutions did not have a formal policy to protect paedophiles

I would suggest that Parliament and indeed Government did

How else are we to interpret Chief Whip, Tim Fortescue’s statement on national TV ( ref. Michael Cockerell’s BBC Documentary ) that rather than refer to the Police when an MP is caught sexually abusing a child it is just kept as a matter of record in the Dirt Book to be used as a vehicle of control in the voting lobby at a later date !!!!!!!!!!!!!

How else do we interpret Edwina Currie’s statement, in her attempt to sell as many copies of a book as she could, that everyone at the top of the Thatcher Government knew Peter Morrison was a “PEDERAST”  – his reward promotion to be Deputy Chairman of the Tory Party, a Minister, Thatcher’s PPS and in charge of her 1990 election campaign

How else do we interpret Gyles Brandeth’s statements that everone in his constituency knew that Peter Morrison was a ” filthy pervert”

How else do we interpret the cover ups at the highest level manifested in statements from puppet Attorney Generals and DPP’s re. Peter Hayman, Cyril Smith, MP’s allegedly caught up in various Police/US Customs sting operations etc etc

How else do we interpret the treatment of Geoffrey Dickens at the hands of Parliament at the time and the convenient loss of his ” Dossier” since.

When and in what form will David Cameron be true to his word and order an investigation in to the role of Government, Parliament, the main political parties, the security services in at best a failure to expose child abuse from within their ranks and at worst a highly sophisticated cover up over the generations

THE DIRT BOOK: How the sexual abuse of children is used for political gain

Advertisements
14 comments
  1. May i add Colin Wallace clockwork orange kincorra boys home

  2. rainbowsophie said:

    Very well and succinctly put Murun ! How, when you put this down so bluntly can any politician worth their salt (and not complicit) not immediately call for a full and thorough investigation ! Do we not have any that are uncorrupted and have a strong moral compass apart from those who have already spoken? are they all so fearful of reprisals/retribution that none will take a proper stand on the subject, or be questioned by the likes of Paxman ? The very fact that they are not implies even more just how deep and high this corruption goes. I deplore the current state of government.

    • murunbuch said:

      Just to make it clear, this wasn’t written by me, it was written by the anonymous source of Tom Watson’s PMQ from October about a ‘powerful paedophile ring that goes all the way to No. 10’. But I agree it is very well put – the sad thing is that the likes of Paxman aren’t exactly queuing up to grill the politicians on this subject. Hopefully this will change, but maybe it will take ‘big arrests’ for this to happen.

      • rainbowsophie said:

        Sorry for my mistake – I will read more closely next time. With regard to interviewing politicians – we can only hope that this will break wide open soon, so that the cess pit may be uncovered and dealt with once and for all.

  3. John Ward said:

    Great piece which says what most decent people are thinking. The slience, as they say, is deafening.

    Slog

  4. Topsy said:

    Has the Home Office confirmed the loss of Dickens dossiers or keeping quiet? Have I missed a reply to Tom Watson’s letter to Teresa May or is any reply also out of the public domain?

  5. Even after everything that has been going on in regards to these matters nothing has changed, in 1990 the south wales police categorised my abuse as homosexual activity and went on to tell my then guardians and parent that i had not been abused and that they were not going to take any acton, but they did they charged and imprisoned him.
    I have documented evidence of this statement from notes of planning meetings held on my behalf whilst in “care”
    The police simply don’t give a shit, will not accept responsibility and instead try to blame a social worker who is named on the docs, saying he took it upon himself to make that statement even though it is very clear that it could of only come from the police, i was 13 at the time, now remind me, how can a 13 year old be having any type of homosexual activity with a 40 year old man when they are even charging and imprisoning him for abusing me!
    The big question is not how can this happen but why, why would they do such a thing and why would a room full of social workers who went to uni for four years can allow this to happen, this is not a mere mistake this is deliberate!
    I have a recording of when the police prof standards came to see me, i nearly punched the copper on his big bent nose, i wish i had now as i see it was the only opportunity of justice i will ever get.
    As whether it is a requirement or an advantage it seems yes it certainly is an advantage to be a pedo/hebo child liking perv!
    Andy

%d bloggers like this: