Westminster paedophiles: the elite say every adult is now a suspect
Sky News: “Family Demands Names Of New Child Abuse Files”
The Cabinet Office’s refusal to give details of four new child abuse files has angered many, not least the family of Martin Allen.
Tom Parmenter reports:
The Government’s refusal to reveal the titles of four files related to child abuse has been branded “disgusting” by the family of a boy missing since 1979.
Why keep secrets? Are those in power waiting for more names to die?
It is now over a month since the Cabinet Office confirmed it had found four more files relevant to the ongoing child abuse inquiries centred on VIPs in Westminster. Officials have promised the files will be handed over to the police and various inquiries but they are still refusing to allow the titles of the files to be made public, let alone the contents.
The police. You trust them? Tell the media. Tell those named. Get it out in the open.
The missing remain powerless. ‘Lessons have been learned ‘is the mantra. But when a child goes missing, it’s closure their family need.
It has angered many survivors and campaigners, not least the family of Martin Allen who was 15 years old when he vanished in London nearly 35 years ago. The teenager was last seen on the London Underground with an unidentified man at Gloucester Road station on 5 November 1979. His brother Kevin Allen told Sky News he was “pretty definite” there is a link between the establishment abuse networks in Westminster and his brother’s disappearance.
But it’s a guess, an assumption based on hope and feeling. The evidence is not there. But he makes a sound point:
“It makes me very angry, because these people have got a hold over us. It is our information, these people are our employees taking our money which is more than ‘Mr Average’ earns probably in the course of a month. It is disgusting.
It is information entrusted to institutions of law and order. Mr Allen hints at what lies at the heart of this matter: a lack of faith in the State. The default position for the country’s political leaders is to make pronouncements on the horrors of the past. And you don’t need evidence. You only need fear of implication and desire to look morally sound.
Home Secretary Teresa May is on the conspiracy trail. When an investigtion by NSPCC boss Peter Wanless and Richard Whittam QC found no proof of a 1980s Establishment paedophile ring, May opined: “It doesn’t prove or disprove the Home Office acted appropriately in the 1980s. There might have been a cover-up.”
Wanless and Whittam found no proof the Home Office had destroyed files and documents relating to child abuse by politicians and other leading social figures. But May was unable to stick to the facts.
May was in tune with other populist voices, like Channel 4, which talked of “the secret’s of a country’s dark past”. So secretive are these secrets that we’ve seen no evidence of the darkness.
If the position in the past was to ignore victims and perpetrators, the current position is to accept every claim as a truth-in-waiting. Fear of exposure has been replaced by fear of facts. May and Channel 4 are tuned into the trend that it is a bigger mistake to show something that isn’t there than to miss something that was there.
To understand the sickness, we need to understand the methodology that goes into indentifying it. And it helps to look at the world of medicine. The Patient Safety Network’s words ring true for an individual’s illness as they do for the country’s paedophile malaise:
An act of commission (doing something wrong) or omission (failing to do the right thing) that leads to an undesirable outcome or significant potential for such an outcome. For instance, ordering a medication for a patient with a documented allergy to that medication would be an act of commission. Failing to prescribe a proven medication with major benefits for an eligible patient would represent an error of omission.
Errors of omission are more difficult to recognize than errors of commission but likely represent a larger problem. In other words, there are likely many more instances in which the provision of additional diagnostic, therapeutic, or preventive modalities would have improved care than there are instances in which the care provided quite literally should not have been provided. In many ways, this point echoes the generally agreed-upon view in the health care quality literature that underuse far exceeds overuse, even though the latter historically received greater attention.
The bad old days were rife with errors of omission. The current mood is to create errors of comission. If it is justice we want, we need evidence that when tested in court is able to hurdle barriers to guilt.
But all we see are the elite feeling good and morally right about themselves, burying all darkness in the past along with the guilty dead. They have replaced one failing approach for another.
And be in no doubt that child abuse is the issue that now binds the country. And, as ever, it comes from the top down:
Teachers, social workers who work with children and councillors could face up to five years in prison if they turn a blind eye to child abuse under proposals to be set out on Tuesday by David Cameron…
Child sexual abuse is to be upgraded to the status of “a national threat”, so that it is placed on a par with serious organised crime by police chiefs and elected police commissioners in their strategic planning.
From ignoring child absue we’re now told that the country is founded on the child’s rights.
Others want all adults to be viewed as child abuse suspects:
Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, said the Cameron plan did not go far enough. “Stronger laws are needed to protect children. The government should bring forward a legal duty to report child abuse, a new specific offence of child exploitation, and new child abduction warning notices. However, ministers voted against these last week.
“Most important of all, we desperately need proper, compulsory sex and relationship education in schools to teach young people about consent and healthy relationships. However, the government is continuing to refuse to bring it in.”
Pity the teacher tasked with the job of parents and peers.
Now, about those dossiers. Sky adds:
Labour MP John Mann told Sky News the Cabinet Office’s actions amounted to a “national disgrace”.
He said: “We need this information coming out, there are people there who know things from the past that they are not revealing, including to the police investigation teams, and that is wholly unacceptable. It is time the Prime Minister forced them to do so.”
What do we know?
It follows a Sky News investigation which unearthed another classified file in January that the Cabinet Office had kept closed on grounds of national security. After MPs raised the issue in the House of Commons, government officials were forced to release it to the National Archives. The documents revealed former British diplomat, the late Sir Peter Hayman, was the subject of the secret file. The papers documented his “unnatural” sexual behaviour and his activities within the Paedophile Information Exchange group.
Neither the Hayman file nor the four new files were found during an earlier Home Office-commissioned search for documents relevant to ongoing abuse inquiries.
So. No news. But lots of questions over trust…