Follow up Open Letter to David Cameron with copies to Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband (to be read in conjunction with my original Open Letter of September 16th 2013)
Dear Mr. Cameron,
I write further following my original Open Letter to you of 16th September 2013, to which your office responded on 22nd October 2013 stating that the “Home Office was best placed to respond to the matters you raise”.
I and Dr.Liz Davies, an acknowledged expert on Child Protection, met with Mr. Norman Baker, Minister of State for Crime Prevention at the Home Office on 13th May 2014 to address the “matters” I raised with you, thus we were able to assess for ourselves whether the Home Office was indeed “best placed to respond”.
The meeting with Mr. Baker was an insult to both my and Dr. Davies’s integrity and intelligence but of far greater concern is that it was a true indicator of the Government’s attitude to the survivors of sexual abuse by people in powerful positions of authority such as Members of the Houses of Commons or Lords.
Since that meeting you were asked a PMQ by Duncan Hames MP, on 11th June 2014 which indicated that there is at last a recognition amongst a small but highly significant group of cross-party MPs that there is the need for an Independent Inquiry on a Hillsborough model in to the cover ups over MPs and other powerful individuals linked to government, and there is a growing body of evidence to show that the Home Office is the very last Government Department that you as Prime Minister should have delegated the “matters you raise” to.
In my letter of September 2013 to you, with copies to Mr. Clegg and Mr.Miliband, I wrote the following:-
“I appeal to you to forget your political roles and act as fathers of young children, decent citizens and show the moral courage to stop the cover ups and allow all abusers to face justice regardless of their privileged position in society”
” Until this Government and Parliament are seen by the public to be supporting a full and independent inquiry victims will remain silent and be too frightened to come forward.”
” It would be better if you led such an exercise before it is forced upon you by public demand.
THE LATTER WILL HAPPEN IN TIME “
Survivors and their supporters have gained great strength from the courage of the first 80 MPs from across the parties who have agreed to support the call for a fully independent inquiry in to organised and networked sexual abuse and its cover up over at least 4 decades where members of the Establishment and in particular MPs have been involved.
However in the last 48 hours it has become obvious that your party and possibly your Government is exercising some control over MPs wishes and a “Standard Response” has crept in to letters to constituents who have written to them asking them to support the demand for an Independent Inquiry, repeating word for word the sound bites that started in the Home Office’s first written response to me last November 2013 :-
“Child abuse is an abhorrent crime, no matter when, or where, it occurs. We are committed to tackling it, in whatever form it takes”
This patronising attitude towards survivors is now being repeated in the most recent responses from the likes of Andrew Lansley, Gareth Johnson, Mark Prisk etc.
The issue of the sexual abuse of very vulnerable children should have transcended party politics and three line whips and political self- interest and self- preservation a long time ago.
I note that your Response to Duncan Hames’s PMQ of 11th June indicated that you were fairly satisfied that the Home Secretary and the Home Office’s investigations were suficient in themselves and no other measures were necessary.
It seems that your Government is placing great faith in the Sexual Violence against Children and Vulnerable People National Group.
Do you really believe that the public in this country and, of far greater significance, the survivors of abuse by the most powerful of abusers, will trust the very Government Department ie the Home Office that must face up to the following allegations or facts:-
1. Two Cabinet Ministers who hold or have held positions in the Home Office are under current investigation by a live Police investigation. Another two, now dead, will be the subject of information and before too long evidence that can be presented to an Independent Inquiry with a great deal of confidence.
2. It employed within its Queen Anne’s Gate headquarters the Chairman of the Paedophile Information Exchange and allowed him to co-ordinate its meetings and printing of publicity on a Home Office telephone extension and on Home Office headed notepaper.
3. The Home Office funded the Paedophile Information Exchange for many years and it is alleged that the Government of the time authorised this funding in conjunction with the security services.
I personally tracked down the very senior Home Office employee at the time who has now given a formal statement to the Police.
4. The role played by the Home Office at the time in the concerted attempts to discredit and humiliate the Conservative MP, Geoffrey Dickens, because of what he was threatening to expose, and its current role in failing to identify the contents or whereabouts of the “Dickens Dossiers”.
Parliament itself in an Independent Inquiry will need to look at its behaviour in the way it jeered Geoffrey Dickens and cheered Granvile Janner on their respective re-entry in to the Commons after the allegations against Janner first surfaced.
5 . The long list of decisions taken either by an Attorney General or a Director of Public Prosecutions that it would not “be in the public interest” to continue any criminal proceedings against the likes of Sir Peter Morrison, Sir Cyril Smith and Sir Peter Hayman.
It wouldn’t take an Independent Inquiry too long to conclude that such decisions were taken solely in the interests of Government and Parliament and what was in the public interest was never going to be a consideration.
I note that one of the roles (under the heading of “statutory remit”) allocated to your National Group is:-
“Reducing the risks from abuse of authority and power”.
Under that heading could I ask the group to urgently address the following and give a written commitment that it will do so pending the setting up of an Independent Inquiry to examine the way it has gone about its work and to examine its findings.
A starting point would be the admission by the Government Whip, Tim Fortescue, on national television that MP’s and Governments keep allegations of paedophiliac behaviour by their own within house as trade offs – the Dirt Books practice.
The dictionary definition of “abhorrent” is disgusting, despicable, vile
You and the MPs now adopting the standard response bandy that word around as a soundbite but refuse to acknowledge or address how despicable, vile and disgusting it has been for fellow politicians not only to fail to report abuse by a colleague but to throw the net of protection around them so that they can carry on regardless.
This is a situation that applies to all parties and has nothing to do with political allegiances, party politics or as you seemed to imply in statements post-Savile exposures, a “gay witch-hunt”.
In my original letter I listed the issues surrounding Mrs. Thatcher’s relationship with Savile, his relationship with Prince Charles and many more which will need to be the subject of an Independent Inquiry as well as the scenario I first contacted Tom Watson MP, about in October 2012, ie the link between a powerful paedophile ring and No. 10 which very much remains a live and ever increasing Police investigation.
Will you now accept that it is time to honour your original promise of October 2012 that every institution MUST look at itself in the part it played in the protection of significant paedophiles or are you going to persist in the belief that ALL institutions exclude your own, and in effect tell us as the electorate that Parliament and politicians are above the law and you, as our political masters rather than as our public servants , will never be accountable for the “abhorrent” behaviour of a small but significant minority of your institutions.
An Independent Inquiry on a Hillsborough model is the only thing survivors will accept and then they can begin to trust that the worse scenarios, which have not yet come out, can be spoken about and they will be believed and that the wall of fear that they have hidden behind for decades will have been knocked down and no one is above justice and prosecution for the future.