The Old Boys’ Club II: Waterhouse and Whitewash

“There is no doubt about it now, from what we know, that she [Margaret Thatcher] turned a blind eye to people who were quite clearly paedophiles. That is absolutely clear.”

– Simon Danczuk MP for Rochdale, regarding the Westminster paedophile ring


Margaret Thatcher wasn’t the only one of course. She was simply a Prime Minister amongst many who toed the Establishment line in the same way that BBC executives chose to ignore the obvious to the point of complicity. As children were being abused right under her very nose she chose to place her trust in fear, money, prestige and power the very tools by which Official Culture stays on top. She acted as protector of evil and thus became its tool.

Let’s return to Richard Webster’s important book, briefly explored in the last post.

Trying to do the right thing in such a highly sensitive domain is fraught with insurmountable problems of a subjective and emotional nature, dealing as it does with the emotive question of child abuse. In one sense, Webster’s explorations are sorely needed, yet worryingly, for such a wide-ranging exploration of child care abuse – which he maintains is largely false – there were key elements and evidence that he did not include but were vital to the argument. It is clear that he knew of the information yet he chose to exclude it, suggesting clear bias on the part of the author.

Richard Scorer, of Partner, Pannone & Partners, a lawyers firm specialising in child abuse cases and who represented clients at the tribunal level, commented in a review: “I would put a stark health warning on the front of the book. This is a very unbalanced book, and in some instances Webster is economical with the facts.” He believes Webster’s bias in favour of those accused of child abuse may have: “… blunt[ed] his critical faculties and balanced assessment of the evidence.” He also maintained that the author “… excluded or downplayed information which contradicts his case” most particularly that the idea Peter Howarth was not a paedophile. According to Scorer, several of his witnesses had no interest in compensation and made no claims. They verified Howarth’s orientation as a paedophile by direct experience. Nor did they have contact with Alison Taylor the primary whistleblower.

Other witnesses provided similar statements but none of this evidence was mentioned in Webster’s research. Richard Scorer described his concerns thusly: “In the context of Webster’s argument this evidence is important, particularly because none of it has the features which Webster alleges contaminated the criminal prosecution of Howarth, i.e., the involvement of Alison Taylor and the so-called compensation motive. All three of these witnesses also defy Webster’s stereotype of the typical Bryn Estyn complainant as a drug-addled criminal (L is a successful businessman, C an advanced systems analyst and member of MENSA).”

Scorer raises the problem of severe bias in evaluating evidence which does not fit his line of inquiry and thus discarded:

“Webster is claiming to have demolished the case against Howarth, so you’d expect that he would have something to say about these allegations, particularly where, as in the case of my clients (and other Tribunal witnesses), the contaminating factors he claims to have identified elsewhere were absent. However Webster simply ignores this adverse evidence, and only mentions in passing at the very end of the book that there are, in fact, 30 other sets of allegations which he has neglected to consider. […] Who knows what other inconvenient details have been left out of the picture?” [1]

The portrayal of the whistleblower Alison Taylor as pathological appears to be disingenuous insofar as other players in the case are not given a similarly rigorous analysis; the individual members of the North Wales Police, for instance, being extremely deserving of further scrutiny. Taylor is deemed to be unstable and to have a financial axe to grind and no more.

The late Peter Howarth, jailed in 1994 for his part in the Bryn Estyn abuse scandal.

However, it was due to Taylor and her subsequent sacking that the abuse gradually came to light, though it was through Stephen Norris a self-confessed paedophile and home manager who once worked at Bryn Estyn, which finally got the investigative ball rolling. Quite apart from the fact that the Waterhouse inquiry, however toothless, proved the existence of a paedophile ring which targeted young boys, and concluded that whilst “the evidence does not establish that they were solely or mainly interested in persons in care … such youngsters were particularly vulnerable to their approaches”. [2] Yet in his 700 page book, Webster gave only a few lines to this salient fact.

Keeping in mind the central tenet of his claims, that Bryn Estyn was a witch hunt with no evidence of any cover-up or conspiracy, we would do well to remember that children at the home and other institutions were easily intimidated into silence. As with the many victims of Catholic Church’s paedophile priests and pederasts, it often took the passage of many years for the victims to have the courage of their convictions to admit it to themselves, let alone face a court trial. While the tragedy of some innocent men and women serving time for something they did not do seems beyond doubt, the sequence of events that led to this “witch hunt” does not necessarily mean that these were the only dynamics on display. And what of the overwhelming evidence of consistent child abuse at Bryn Estyn and beyond, which was ignored by the local Clwyd County Council because the council insurers advised against any action?

Webster, in his “forensic analysis” and blanket access to witness and police files, still neglected to include evidence provided by The Andy Sutton case. The full Public Interest Report by Andy Sutton can be found on the Freedom to Care internet website which detailed how key files were held back from the Waterhouse Enquiry by Flintshire County Council, who acted on behalf of North Wales Councils as a whole. Sutton was further warned not to pursue his inquiries by the then head of the North Wales Fraud Squad with the cryptic injunction to “beware of the Brotherhood.” [3] 

For all Webster’s excellent research, at no time does he seriously address the facts regarding freemasonic involvement in North Wales. Rather, he ironically falls into the very assumptions against which he rails and draws from the sensationalism of tabloid newspapers. A long list of names provided by the Crown Prosecution Service affirmed those who were not practicing freemasons were proof enough that no measure of control was operating. Yet surely, where high levels of masons do exist in both the law and the police force nationally, not forgetting the high membership in North Wales alone, is this not an area worthy of investigative digging? It does make one wonder if such denials of masonic influence, naturally bound by secrecy, can ever claim to be mere “observers.”

Impartiality of the law enforcement and judiciary will remain in these cases when so many freemasons are in positions to exert undue influence. Remember, Child molesters / psychopaths gravitate to places where they can be protected by those who are ostensibly serving the greater good.

The late investigative journalist Simon Regan in his now defunct Scallywag magazine made some investigations of his own that merit consideration.

Regan described how he had interviewed twelve young men, former inmates of Bryn Estyn who had all been involved in the Wrexham paedophile ring. The interviews were conducted in the informal setting of pub lunches with a view to obtaining sworn affidavits which were to be used as added clout for a series of paedophile articles Regan later published. Regan believed that two of the men who would have been 14 years old at the time were introduced on a few occasions to an abuser at a Pimlico address, the building of which they later identified:

“… turned out to be the private flat of a well-known, and since highly discredited lobbyist who later went into obscurity in some disgrace because of his involvement with Mohammed al-Fayed and the ‘cash for questions’ scandal. […] At the time we ran a story entitled ‘Boys for Questions’ and named several prominent members of the then Thatcher government. These allegations went to the very top of the Tory party, yet there was a curious and almost ominous lack of writs.

The lobbyist was a notorious ‘queen’ who specialised in gay parties with a ‘political mix’ in the Pimlico area – most convenient to the Commons – and which included selected flats in Dolphin Square. The two young men were able to give us very graphic descriptions of just what went on, including acts of buggery, and alleged that they were only two of many from children’s homes other than North Wales. There was, to my certain knowledge, at least one resignation from the Conservative office in Smith Square once we had published our evidence and named names. [4]

Regan also related how the deputy head of Research at Conservative party Central Office purchased the contents – including all files – of the Scallywag offices through a court order and the exploitation of a legal loophole in the renting conditions of the premises. During the court case however, Regan requested to see the purloined files and permission was granted in lieu of his defence. The paedophile documents were missing.  As Regan mentioned: “This is a very great shame, because Sir Ronald Waterhouse certainly should have been aware of them.” [5]


baghestani20121117111552253

Former Lib-Dem MP Cyril Smith (centre) in 1987 an alleged serial paedophile

“Fears of an establishment cover-up of sex abuse allegations have grown after claims that a special branch officer tried to prevent detectives from interviewing a man who alleged that a British MP abused children.”- Press TV.

(See: Politics of Entrapment I)


Like other cases where accusations of organised child abuse networks have occurred, the tribunal, under Sir Ronald Waterhouse QC, heard how more than a dozen people who had complained of abuse had met suspicious deaths. John Allen, a convicted paedophile, ran homes in London and North Wales that supplied children to wealthy outsiders. Two young brothers who were abused by Allen were trying to blackmail him. In April 1992 one of them died in a house fire in Brighton and the other was found dead soon afterwards in mysterious circumstances. This may be one reason Mr. Waterhouse imposed strict reporting restrictions which prevented any names entering the public domain, and quashed hopes that the press would be able to report proceedings using the laws of privilege. Such a process would have allowed them to name names in court proceedings without fear of defamation actions. Waterhouse decided that the press could not report the name of any of the accused unless they had previously been convicted of similar offences, which, on the face of it was a prudent measure keeping in mind Richard Webster’s analysis. Unfortunately, this would also allow already protected paedophiles to remain in a hermetically sealed state of immunity.

At least one high level member of another political party was also implicated. William Hague, then Welsh Secretary who had ordered the inquiry discussed it with ministers at the time and it was believed that the individual’s name would likely be revealed during the hearings. Prime Minister John Major was known to have loathed the politician in question and was not overly concerned at this possibility. Although names of politicians on both sides of the political spectrum were also named, one public figure was given immunity by Waterhouse in the final report and not found “culpable of any crimes, even though he ha[d] been identified by six victims.” [5]

One report by Tony Hyland of the International Worker had this to say about Conservative party, government paedophiles:

The most revealing evidence is that regarding one of the paedophiles, who it was hinted at was one of Mrs Thatcher’s most prominent supporters. When the police finally arrested 17 suspects during an inquiry in 1991 the victim claims, ‘For some unknown reason, he was not arrested like anybody else. He was allowed to walk round the North Wales Police headquarters and he was allowed to vindicate himself from anything, as if he was the boss… I tried to tell the police of many instances not just relating to him and I was told at the time, and I will never forget it as long as I live, that they were not interested in that.’ The tribunal was informed that the North Wales police had in fact recommended that the man be prosecuted, but this was blocked by the Crown Prosecution Service in London — which took over the case from its local branch. [6]

Keeping in mind the wily ways of political expediency, it might be said that an inquiry of this nature which was designed to allow full public scrutiny, would have had built-in protections for the politicians, policemen, clergy and freemasons who were rumoured to be part of the North Wales paedophile ring and who would have been liable for prosecution. Perhaps it would be foolish to have thought that such an inquiry on abuse, the first of its kind, would have been allowed to expose the rot in Establishment circles. No doubt many senior politicians and policemen breathed a sigh of relief when the case was closed in 1998 but over 650 abused young adults had meantime, been raped and battered, had turned to petty crime or ended up living on the streets. All those who had not committed suicide were dealing with psychological scars that would remain with them for life. Those individuals who were innocent of wrongdoing were sent to jail and those that perpetrated the crimes laid low and continued their otherwise normal lives.

What was also astonishing is that the Deputy Chief Inspector of Social Services at the Welsh Office, responsible for establishing the mandate for the Waterhouse inquiry was himself sentenced and jailed for 14 years in 1999 for serious sexual offences and for physical abuse of children. One need not take the greatest leap in logic to see that such an inquiry may have been compromised from the beginning. In the end, the same policy of apathy and incompetence from police and council officials dogged the inquiry, to the extent that papers went missing and statements were changed or witnesses become afraid for their lives. Once again, the trail led to some of the highest levels of the then Conservative government.

***

In the United Kingdom, the serious lack of social provision and the fragmentation of the family unit create fertile grounds for child victims. The crumbling social infrastructure coupled with inadequate support social service workers inevitably leads to malpractice and corruption and from within. As one writer notes following the University of Bristol’s  The Widening Gap report of 1999: “If Britain were divided into two nations, one containing the richer regions and the other the poorer ones, there would be nearly 80,000 more deaths every year in the poorer nation because of inequality. Epidemiologists would normally call this a plague.” The author further comments that “… researchers state[d] that the gap between rich and poor has widened more rapidly in Britain and levels of poverty are higher than in the vast majority of mainland Europe.” And poverty means a resource for child exploitation. Chronic underpayment of residential care staff, a demoralized work force, the highest working hours in Europe and a drop in social work applications by 50 percent from 1999 all increase the likelihood of family and institutional child abuse. [7]

Fifteen years later thanks to the legacies of Thatcher and Blair almost a third of all UK children live in poverty with 1.6 million of these children enduring severe poverty with a large spike in 2015 thanks to the bailout of the banking industry which meant austerity measures for rest of us, hitting the already poor and vulnerable the hardest.  According to Children’s charity Dr. Barnados: “63% of children living in poverty are in a family where someone works .”  What does that say about the success of an economic framework which consistently favours an iniquitous banking system maintained by these cyclic austerity measures? And since the Westminster paedophile ring was also drawn from one of the highest child poverty demographics it is little wonder that they drew from a wellspring of victims. Where there is poverty there is always a ready supply.

eh

a

_70546180_childpoverty_v2

When the Waterhouse report was published it provided a snapshot of the state of child care in the UK, not least the rapid dismantling of the welfare state with nothing but the American model of social exclusion to replace it. With over two decades of serious underfunding in child care and social service in general, this becomes a significant factor in the manifestation of abuse. The Inquiry found a serious lack of financial resources for children’s services, a lack of suitable staffing and generally inadequate provision at all levels. Like education, the return to authoritarian and antiquated ideals has led to retribution rather than rehabilitation and sees children facing Crown Court trials for murder, sexual assault and rape and their placement on the sex offenders register. This means that children as young as 10 are subject to punishment by the courts if their behaviour is deemed likely to cause harassment, alarm or “distress to others”. It means a child of 12 years old can now be imprisoned or sent to a “secure accommodation” – a euphemism for prison. With these kinds of draconian measures, we are encouraging a new generation of emotionally damaged children who are indeed, “lost in care” indicative of a justice system in Britain that is becoming a reflection of the more advanced stages of an American ponerogenesis. [8]

We are now living in what George Monbiot calls a: “Captive State” [9] where hundreds of children in young offenders’ institutions are being held in solitary confinement, often for weeks at a time, in what prison reform campaigners claim is a ‘medieval’ form of punishment. Rather than being subjected to a form of torture, the boys should be given the mental health support they so badly need yet are being purposely denied. [10] Indeed, Blair and subsequent politicians believe that we should now target children that are “a menace to society.”   The former Prime Minister turned global tycoon received a rightly cool reception to his statements with suggestions that he was advocating “genetic determinism.” One response derided him as exacting “empty threats to pregnant mothers” which would: “… do little to restore confidence in a government that has failed to tackle poverty, crime and social exclusion for the last nine years.” [11]

The abuse of boys and girls still remains in the bastions of a decaying Empire that has left only the residue of an out-of-date adherence to an old, class-based ethos of control. Or as George Monbiot once described it within the hallowed halls of preparatory schools for the rich: “new boys were routinely groped and occasionally sodomised by the prefects. Sexual assault was and possibly still is a feature of prep school life as innate as fried bread and British bulldogs.” [12]  It is this in-bred, all pervading, upper class prerogative of abuse that is in the very walls of our so called respected British institutions. These historical traditions allow the abuse to live on through the pathological clusters that promote the structural dominance of their kind and a steady supply of victims. The only difference is degree within such a blighted structure. Whether we focus on political parties of New Labour, Liberal Democrat or Conservative – the elite differences are irrelevant when it comes to the sodomy of a 10 year-old child or the frightened street urchin delivered to the bed of a priest or politician.

Paedophiles and child rapists have no dividing line or loyalties when it comes to finding their cover whether that be within secret fraternity – political, occult or religious.

 


Notes

[1] Partner, Pannone & Partners, childabuselawyers.com/
[2] pp.58-59 ‘Lost in Care’ The Waterhouse Report 2000 Stationery Office.
[3] The Sutton Report at freedomtocare.co.uk/
[4] ‘Child Abuse – The Waterhouse Report’ By Simon Regan, 20 February 2000, http://www.scallywag.org.[now defunct]
[5] Ibid.
[6] ‘State Cover-Up of High-Level Paedophile Ring’ By Tony Hyland, International Worker No 241, November 8, 1997.
[7] ‘Growing social divide in Britain’ Blair seeks to refute new study on the widening gap between rich and poor, Simon Wheelan, 11 December 1999, World Socialist Website.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Captive StateThe Corporate Takeover of Britain by George Monbiot Published by Pan Books, 2000. |ISBN 0-330-36943-1.
[10] ‘Children caged alone for weeks’ by Jamie Doward, The Observer, February 12, 2006.
[11] ‘We can clamp down on antisocial children before birth, says Blair, Intervention ‘could prevent later problems’ Package of proposals courts controversy by Lee Glendinning,  The Guardian, September 1, 2006.
[12] ‘Acceptable Cruelty’ by George Monbiot, The Guardian, March 26th, 1998.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s