Thursday, 28 March 2013

Mrs Justice Macur yesterday Suspiciously appointed to Court of Appeal

Is it fishy that  Mrs Justice Macur  chosen to head the Review  called the Macur Review into the failed  Waterhouse Inquiry  has  suddenly been promoted to the Court of Appeal.?

The Waterhouse  Inquiry  headed by  retired  High Court Judge Waterhouse  looked  into the sexual and physical and psychological  abuse  of children in North Wales Care Homes.  The Inquiry prevented the names of VIP paedophiles  from being published. Prevented victims from naming VIP paedophiles and restricted  itself to abuse inside the actual care homes. Ignoring  the  evidence that children were taken from the homes and used in the child sex trade  by procurers like Jimmy Savile.

We all know that the VIP  Paedophiles have remained in power because they  have a network  within the judiciary and the Police  and Government  and can buy anyone by offering them high positions and protection from prosecution.  

This appointment of Mrs Justice Macur  comes at a very worrying time.  Other Inquiries the Government have set-up  are already being called whitewashes.  This appointment casts doubt on the effectiveness of the Macur Review to root out the paedophiles who may have just given her an appointment to high office.


Thursday 28 March 2013
The Queen has been pleased to approve the appointment of the following as Lord and Lady Justices of Appeal
  • Mr Justice Briggs
  • Mr Justice Christopher Clarke
  • Mr Justice Floyd
  • Mr Justice Fulford
  • Mrs Justice Gloster
  • Mrs Justice Macur
  • Mr Justice Ryder
  • Mrs Justice Sharp
  • Mr Justice Underhill
  • Mr Justice Vos
These appointments will fill forthcoming vacancies in the Court of Appeal arising over 2013.
Note to Editors
These appointments are required in the light of the elevation of Sir Terence Etherton, Sir Roger Toulson and Sir Anthony Hughes, the retirements of Sir Alan Ward and Sir Malcolm Pill, and the forthcoming retirements of Lord Judge, Sir Bernard Rix, Sir Mathew Thorpe, Sir John Mummery and Sir Timothy Lloyd.
The appointment of Lord and Lady Justices of the Court of Appeal are made by Her Majesty The Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor following the recommendation of an independent selection panel chaired by Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge. The other panel members were:
  • the Master of the Rolls
  • Lord Dyson
  • Christopher Stephens, Chairman of the Judicial Appointments Commission
  • Dame Valerie Strachan (lay commissioner nominated by the Chairman of the JAC for the interviews only)
  • Mrs Stella Pantelides (lay Commissioner nominated by the Chairman of the JAC for the sift only)
In accordance with section 79 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 the panel determined the selection process to be followed. In accordance with s10(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, the selection exercise was open to applicants that satisfied the judicial eligibility condition on a 7 year basis or were Judges of the High Court.

Biographical Notes

Mr Justice Briggs

Called to the Bar at Lincoln’s Inn in 1978 and was Junior Counsel to Crown Chancery from 1990-94. He became a Queen’s Counsel in 1994. He was made a Bencher of Lincoln’s Inn in 2001, and was appointed Attorney General of the Duchy of Lancaster on 24 July 2001. He held this post until shortly after his appointment on 3 July 2006 as a Justice of the High Court, when he was assigned to the Chancery Division. He is currently Vice-Chancellor of the County Palatine of Lancaster, a Chancery judge appointed by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in consultation with the Lord Chancellor, to supervise Chancery business and hear cases on the North and North Eastern Circuits.

Mr Justice Christopher Clarke

Called to the Bar, Middle Temple, in 1969, Bencher 1991; Attorney of Supreme Court of Turks and Caicos Islands, 1975. He was appointed Queen’s Counsel in 1984; a Recorder, 1990–2004; a Deputy High Court Judge, 1993–2004; a Judge of the Courts of Appeal of Jersey and Guernsey, 1998–2004. Counsel to the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, 1998–2004. Councillor, International Bar Association, 1988–90; Chairman, Commercial Bar Association, 1993–95; Member, Bar Council, 1993–99. FRSA 1995. He was appointed a Judge of the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, on 11 January 2005.

Mr Justice Floyd

Called to the Bar, Inner Temple, 1975, Bencher, 2001; called to the Bar of Republic of Ireland, 1988. He was appointed Queen’s Counsel in 1992; Assistant Recorder, 1994–2000; a Deputy High Court Judge (Patents Court), 1998–2007; a Recorder, 2000–07. He was appointed Deputy Chairman, Copyright Tribunal, 1995–2007; Chairman, Competition Appeal Tribunal, 2007–. Member: Bar Council Chairman’ Arbitration/Conciliation Panel, 1996–2007; Bar Council Professional Conduct and Complaints Committee, 1998–2002; Bar Council, 2000–04; Bar Council European Committee, 2003–04; Litigation Accreditation Board Appeal Panel, Chartered Institute Patent Attorneys, 2005–07; Enlarged Board of Appeal, European Patent Office, 2011–; Chairman, Intellectual Property Bar Association, 1999–2004. He was appointed a Judge of the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division on 8 November 2007. He has been the Senior Judge, Patents Court, since 2011.

Mr Justice Fulford

Housing Advisor, Shelter’s Housing Aid Centre, 1974–75; called to the Bar, Middle Temple, 1978, Bencher, 2002. He was appointed Queen’s Counsel in 1994; a Recorder, 2001–02. Editor, UK Human Rights Reports, 2000–2010 Hon. DLaws Southampton, 2011. He was appointed a Judge of the High Court, Queen’s Bench Division, on 22 November 2002. He was a Judge of the International Criminal Court, The Hague, from 2003-2012 (President, Trial Division, 2008–12; Presiding Judge, Trial Chamber I, 2007–12). He is currently the Lead Presiding Judge, South Eastern Circuit.

Mrs Justice Gloster

Graduated from Girton College, Cambridge. She was called to the Bar, Inner Temple, 1971, Bencher 1992. She was appointed Queen’s Counsel in 1989; a Judge of the Courts of Appeal of Jersey and Guernsey, 1993–2004; a Recorder, 1995–2004; Judge in Charge of Commercial Court, 2010–12. Mem., panel of Counsel who appear for DTI in company matters, 1982–89. Mem. Hon. Fellow, Harris Manchester College, Oxford, 2006. She was appointed a Judge of the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division (Commercial Court) on 21 April 2004. Hon. Fellow, Girton College, Cambridge, 2011.

Mrs Justice Macur

Called to the Bar, Lincoln’s Inn, 1979 (Bencher, 2005); Midland and Oxford Circuit. She was appointed Queen’s Counsel in 1998; a Recorder, 1999-2005. She was appointed a Judge of the High Court of Justice, Family Division, on 3 October 2005. She was Family Liaison Judge for the South Eastern Circuit from 2007 until she was appointed Presiding Judge on the Midland Circuit, 2008-11.

Mr Justice Ryder

Merchant banker, Grindley Brandt & Co., 1979; called to the Bar, Gray’s Inn, 1981; QC 1997; Asst Recorder, 1997–2000; a Recorder, 2000–04; a Dep. High Court Judge, 2001–04; Northern Circuit. Counsel, N Wales Tribunal of Inquiry, 1996–99. Asst Boundary Comr, 2000–04. Commnd Duke of Lancaster’s Own Yeomanry, 1981; Sqdn Leader, 1990; Sqdn Leader, Royal Mercian and Lancastrian Yeomanry, 1992. Awarded TD. 1994 DL Greater Manchester, 2009. FRSA 2010. He was appointed a Judge of the High Court of Justice, Family Division, on 4 May 2004. He was a Family Division Liaison Judge for the Northern Circuit until he became Presider Judge, Northern Circuit, in 2010. He has been Judge in Charge of Modernisation of Family Justice, since 2011

Mrs Justice Sharp

Called to the Bar, Inner Temple, 1979, Bencher 2009. She was appointed Queen’s Counsel in 2001 and a Recorder in 1998. She was appointed a Judge of the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division on 13 January 2009. She has been a Presiding Judge on the Western Circuit since 2012.

Mr Justice Underhill

Called to the Bar, Gray’s Inn, 1976 (Bencher 2000). He was appointed Queen’s Counsel in 1992 and was a Recorder 1994-2006; Attorney General to HRH the Prince of Wales 1998-2006; a Deputy High Court Judge 1998-2006; and a Judge of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, 2000-03. He was Chairman of the Bar Pro Bono Unit 2002-05. Appointed a Judge of the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, on 30 January 2006. He has been a Judge of the Employment Appeal Tribunal since 2006 and was its President 2009-11.

Mr Justice Vos

Called to the Bar, Inner Temple, 1977; Bencher, Lincoln’s Inn, 2000. He was appointed Queen’s Counsel in 1993; a Judge of Courts of Appeal of Jersey and Guernsey, 2005-09; Judge of the Court of Appeal of Cayman Islands, 2008-09. Chairman Chancery Bar Association, 1999-2001 (Honorary Secretary, 1994-97; Vice-Chairman, 1997-99). Chairman Bar Council, 2007 (Vice Chairman 2006, Chairman Professional Standards Committee 2004-05; Member, General Management Committee, 2004-07). Member, Panel on Fair Access to the Professions, 2009. Trustee: Social Mobility Foundation, 2007-11 (Chairman, 2008-11); Slynn Foundation, 2009 to date. He was appointed a Judge of the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division on 27 October 2009 and is currently a Nominated Judge of the Patents Court

Monday, 25 March 2013

Operation Ore was it a distraction used to protect VIP Paedophiles

Operation Ore  2002  allegedly exposed  thousands and thousands paedophiles  by tracing their credit card details  which were allegedly used  to access child porn websites.  But what was Operation Ore really.?   How many of those credit card details had been stolen? How many used  only to access adult porn?  

Ministers, MPs and judges  were  under investigation by Operation Ore.  But none of these VIP's were arrested or charged. 

 No VIP's were arrested in Operation Ore.  Sir Jimmy Savile continued his abuse and  procurement  of children  for the child sex trade Protected by the Police.   The underground distribution of child porn videos , including snuff videos  continued without investigation or prosecution.  Children still disappeared into the child sex  and snuff  video trade. 

Hundreds of innocent  men their wives and children were tortured for years by the Police  who  knew they were innocent.  Credit card  details used  to access child porn  turned out to have been stolen  and fraudulently used by paedophiles.

1,848 charged, 1,451 convictions, and 140 children removed from suspected dangerous situations and an estimated 33 suicides.   While Operation Ore did identify and prosecute a number of sex offenders, the validity of the police procedures was later questioned, as errors in the investigations were  claimed by some to have resulted in a large number of false arrests 

Duncan Campbell wrote the following well researched  story.  Operation Ore is the UK's biggest ever IT crime investigation, but expert witness Duncan Campbell reveals that many prosecutions were founded on falsehoods
They arrive without warning at six in the morning. Drowsily rising, Adam Smith finds two polite, suited men. 'Police. May we come in?'
The scene starts to shift. 'I am arresting you on suspicion of possessing and distributing child pornography. We have a search warrant.' Behind their backs, Smith sees a flurry of others moving in. They are firm but not aggressive - they know they are dealing with a middle-class, educated professional with no criminal history.
A female officer corners his wife and asks her if she knew her husband was a paedophile. Would she please make up an excuse for the kids not going to school today? A family social worker will be coming over to interview them - in case her husband has been abusing his own children.
Politeness is maintained at the police station. Booked in, interviewed. They ask him to confirm his credit card number and the email addresses he used in 1999. They show him a copy of a credit card bill they have already got from his bank. They point to a payment to Landslide Productions. 'You paid for child pornography; that's what that is.' He says 'no' and that he's never heard of that company.
The facts they put so confidently seem to fit, except that Smith has never had any interest in children other than being a good dad.

In one day, for no cause he can understand, Smith has become a pariah, one of the most hated, baited people in the country, a suspected child-molesting paedophile. In the months ahead, it will only get worse.
Even if his computer is eventually found to contain nothing more sexually unusual than the proportions of Samantha Fox, he faces months of fearing trial, stigma and possible jail, accused merely of 'inciting' the sale of child porn, based solely on computer data found years ago in a Texas office block.
Mass arrests
Operation Ore launched on British TV screens on 20 May 2002. The BBC led on 'mass arrests over online child porn'. Thirty-six people were arrested, with promises of thousands more to follow. It made for compelling television, and provoked a rash of tabloid activity, but it also led to increased pressure on the police to bring the remaining thousands to justice.
Unfortunately, not all the evidence presented was quite as clear cut as it seemed. Clearly visible on the bulletin was a computer screen displaying Exhibit One of Operation Ore. In the middle of the screen were the words 'Click Here CHILD PORN'.
According to witness statements sworn by the US detective Steven Nelson and US Postal Inspector Michael Mead, this was the front page of Landslide Productions Inc, a company at the centre of child porn allegations. To go further, they testified, those prosecuted must have clicked on 'Enter'. They would then be taken to a page that proclaimed itself as 'the most controversial site on the Web ... no legal content ... phedophilias [sic]... all sick, all sex maniacs'. Click on and they would be taken to 'Lolita World', and from there, said Nelson, to a host of child porn websites offered by Keyz, a separate service offered by Landslide.
The Metropolitan Police Paedophile Unit let the BBC cameras in on the planning process for Operation Ore raids for a series shown a year ago: 'Police Protecting Children'. At the start of the show was a PowerPoint briefing for the raiding teams. Slide 1 showed the 'Click here' banner, with the legend 'First they are into an adult site. And choose to go to a child site'.
To British police and prosecutors, this was killer evidence. It meant everyone who had been to Landslide had knowingly chosen to access child porn. It meant that everyone who had subscribed to the site must automatically be guilty.
However, this most critical computer evidence produced in Operation Ore, I have found, was flawed. On 2 October 2002 in Fort Worth, Texas, incorrect evidence was handed to a British police officer by Nelson. He swore it as true evidence and was backed up by Mead. The evidence was then distributed throughout Britain, shown on TV and paraded in courts up and down the land.
The objective of Operation Ore was the protection of vulnerable children from adult abuse and harm. But the mistakes meant huge quantities of police, technical and social work resources were misdirected to some futile and ill-founded investigations. The worse result was damage to innocent lives, and the welfare of families and children.
Widespread disgrace
In Britain to date, 4,283 people and their families have had experiences similar to 'Adam Smith', and another 3,000 computer users still on the Operation Ore target list could face similar treatment.
If any one of these people has not been broken by the experience, no-one I know is aware of them. Many have contemplated self harm under the toxic pressure of these investigations, and some have seen it through. On 8 January 2005, Royal Navy commodore David White, commander of British forces in Gibraltar, took a one-way trip into his swimming pool. He was the 33rd such victim of Operation Ore.
Britain's experience has not been alone. The same events have been repeated around the world. In Ireland, Canada, and Australia, similar tragedies and deaths have occurred.
Their common cause was a 1999 police operation in Fort Worth, Texas. Billed as the exposure of the world's largest 'paedophile ring', America's 'Operation Avalanche' had swelled by 2002 to a global crusade.
The entire investigation depended on computer evidence. What was on the Internet, who logged in to it, when and how? On this digital sword, many lives and careers would be tested and some would end.
Landslide goes down
Detective Constable Sharon Girling of the National Crime Squad, honoured with an OBE in the 2005 New Year's honours list, is a stalwart police footsoldier in the investigation of paedophile activity on the Internet. Her first big computer case, Operation Cathedral in 1998, involved an unquestionably savage group of men who exchanged images and videos of children being abused and violated. DC Girling was employed to track down some of the child victims. And it was this work that led to her being given a starring role in the 2000 Texas trial of Thomas and Janice Reedy, who founded Landslide in 1996.
Ironically, Landslide was set up in response to the US Communications Decency Act of 1996, which seeks to prevent minors from seeing sexually explicit adult material on the Net. The industry came up with a simple, effective answer: blocking access to adult sites except for people who could prove they were old enough to have a credit card. Subscribers paid a small annual fee to one of these merchants and were given a password and ID for a range of porn or sex chat sites. Generally called Adult Verification Services (AVS), they continue to flourish.
Late in 1998, Landslide branched out to new porn services with a service called Keyz. With AVS, people might buy six months' access to over 5,000 sites for about $50. With Keyz, they paid for access to only one site, perhaps for as little as a week. By the time Landslide was closed down, there were nearly 400 sites available through Keyz: some were adult, and some were clearly about children.
In the spring of 1999, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) complained to the US Postal Service (which polices the Internet in the US) that Landslide's Keyz service was providing access to child porn sites.

NCMEC's complaints were accurate and in May 1999 Dallas Detective Steven Nelson began a covert investigation. During the summer, he bought 12 subscriptions in a false name. After getting his passwords, he hooked his computer up to a simple spider program called Web Buddy. He filled his drive with the contents of each site, at least to the extent that the links worked. Then, with the assistance of Postal Inspector Michael Mead, Nelson prepared to raid Landslide. This was Operation Avalanche.
On 8 September 1999, the Feds hit Landslide's offices at Seaman Street, Fort Worth. They seized two Sun computers and everything digital in sight. Initially released on bail and bullish, the Reedys protested their innocence and carried on trading in adult porn. They hadn't been supplying child images themselves, they said, but had only provided a portal to other sites. The actual suppliers - the child porn webmasters - were beyond the reach of the USPIS, in south east Asia, Russia or its republics. When Landslide closed, they took their sick trade elsewhere. They were never apprehended, whereas the Reedys were convicted of 89 offences of possession and distribution of images of children. Eight months later, a Texas court sentenced Reedy to 1,335 years of imprisonment - 15 years consecutive imprisonment for each image and video that Nelson had grabbed with his Web Buddy software (although the sentence was later reduced to 180 years).
A matter of record
On examining the Landslide computers, the USPIS found that Landslide had kept a record of hundreds of thousands of transactions in its databases. There were also gateway links to 5,700 websites around the world. Of the 390,000 subscription transactions, 35,000 related to the US itself. The rest were spread around the world, including 26,462 transactions with 7,272 individuals in the UK. Landslide only operated one SQL database, so subscribers to the adult verification service were lumped in with those who had paid for or requested Keyz sites, of whatever kind.
With Reedy incarcerated, the US cops set about sharing the data they had found. The names of subscribers to every site were sorted by country and sent out through Interpol. Each package contained details about Landslide that suggested that all those identified were to be treated as suspect child abusers.
The US government approached its citizens differently from Britain. Instead of branding every name on the list as a paedophile, officials carefully profiled and investigated selected individuals against whom there was fresh evidence of making indecent images of children or of actual abuse. In respect of the 35,000 US records, only 144 houses were searched and 100 people charged with the trafficking of child pornography through the mail and via the Internet.
When the USPIS packets reached Britain, the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) launched Operation Ore, a large, costly, high-profile police operation and Britain's biggest ever computer crime case. Fraud, even murder cases, had sometimes to take second place to the tide of potential child porn filth to be checked.
Except, all too often, it wasn't. After days or weeks of imaging hard disks, enduring home videos, and scrolling through recovered images and fragments, there might be nothing. Or, after all that work, they might find images of a few girls in a porn trove of thousands of pictures, whom a court might think under rather than over 16. Perhaps some deleted thumbnails of actual children that had been delivered, unknown to the user, as pop-ups from a malicious page they chanced to visit.

Good evidence was found in many cases. Even if after three years there was no record of original transactions with Landslide on the seized computers, there might be subdirectories filled with clearly prepubescent images, and Internet search histories on Google or elsewhere into which the user had typed incriminating terms.
Computer forensics
Evidence from good computer forensics is frighteningly compelling. Encase, the most widely used software search tool, can plunder a hard disk for incredible amounts of buried and lost detail left behind by Windows. Original directories in a reformatted drive can be recreated, long lost Internet histories brought to life, and cache images once glimpsed years earlier served up. On any computer connected to the Net, especially without competent protection, illegal child images can just turn up. In two cases where I worked as a computer forensic expert, the police found a handful of child images. This was prima facie evidence. Both men were committed to Crown Court for trial.
But Encase can work for both sides. Pull down the timeline of the thousands of indexed fragments it finds and you may discover the HTML code that carried the offending pictures. Look back a few seconds and you could find previous HTML and within it the window open commands that can mark unwanted pop-ups. When this was pointed out, the Crown Prosecution Service withdrew its case.
But by this time, the innocent and acquitted were immensely harmed in their private and personal lives, perhaps having lost employment, income, friends and reputation. Many Ore defendants have not been fortunate enough to be well advised, legally or technically. Under pressure to get results and to get on, many police forces asked defendants to plead to minor charges or accept a caution. With no prison sentence, not even a fine, it may sound like an easy way out. But with every caution or conviction comes mandatory membership of the Sex Offenders' Register, and with that the certainty of stigma and the enduring fear of public exposure.
Operation flawed
The clues to the flaws in the evidence were there for those with the eyes to see. Look again at the image on p152, exhibit 'SAN/1'. It is a slightly blurred photograph (not a screen grab) of a Windows 98 machine running Internet Explorer. Look at the right-hand side. There is a slider bar, showing that what is being seen is less than one-third of the full page. The top and most of the contents are missing. The image has been cropped, concealing most of the page.
Look again, this time at the web address space below the toolbar. The front page address for Landslide was This is not it. Whatever is there in the blur, it is too long to be the Landslide front page address. When I saw this image a year ago, I knew something was very wrong with the evidence.
Unknown to the Texas detectives, there is another place where you can get at the Internet's historical truths. The Internet Archive, also known as the Wayback Machine (, is a not-for-profit foundation based in San Francisco. The Archive's computers have been crawling the Web since 1996, building a huge, searchable historical archive. The Archive, I found, had recorded what the Landslide website really looked like in 1999.
From the Archive, I retrieved a series of front pages from Landslide's beginnings in 1996 through to April 1999, just before the police investigation began. There were no 'child porn' buttons nor any place where one could be. I also found the real page that had, one occasion only, displayed the notorious banner. Located at, it was an internal page for Landslide's adult AVS service. At the very bottom of the page were two advertising spaces, controlled by a third-party banner swap service. Whatever banners appeared there were not - could not - have been part of Landslide or Keyz.

I wasn't the first person to spot this. In January 2003, as the Ore raids mounted into the thousands, the National Crime Squad in London received copies of all the computer files used for the 1999 US investigation. Among the computer files were copies of web pages recorded by Nelson. One file was a copy of the real Landslide front page, dominated by the company's logo.
On 5 February 2003, Detective Constable Girling circulated a short witness statement, setting the record straight and producing the real Landslide front page.
NCS passed the US computer files to a specialist computer forensic company called CELT, with instructions to rebuild the Landslide and Keyz web pages. At CELT, expert Dr Sam Type found more contradictions to the American evidence. Nelson and Mead had both sworn statements that Keyz websites could be reached from the Landslide homepage. 'Absolutely no way,' reported Dr Type. After rebuilding the Texas website, she dismissed the idea that Keyz was a service devoted to child porn.
In a further report in November last year, Dr Type confirmed that the 'Click here' child porn advertisement was never seen on the Landslide front page. It was 'actually the AVS front page', she wrote. The 'child porn' banner ad, she found, wasn't on any of Landslide's computers; it had come from elsewhere.
Key witness
This February, a British court required Mead's attendance for an Operation Ore case. He gave evidence by means of a satellite video link from Texas to the Crown Court in Derby. On oath, Mead stated that he and Nelson had only ever seen the 'Click Here Child Porn button' appear once, at the very start of their investigation. He accepted that the photograph only showed part of the page. 'The child porn link was at the bottom,' he said.
He was asked: 'In June 1999, it is likely that the 'Click here for child porn' was not on the Landslide's homepage?'
'Correct,' he replied.
The Derby jury found the defendant not guilty. Although his barrister forbore to say so, Mead's admissions took apart the impression Nelson had given two years before. Mead had previously backed up Nelson's story. In a sworn statement given to a British police officer in 2 October 2002, Mead had said: 'During the time we monitored the website, the banners did not alter in any way.' He had changed his story.
Trial of the mind
Establishing these errors does not mean that everyone suspected in Operation Ore was falsely and unfairly accused. Far from it. But the issues revealed above have been combined with carelessness, a media rabble and a tabloid-feeding frenzy to produce systematic injustice.
My work so far has led to three Ore defendants being acquitted and to all the American evidence being ditched in respect of a fourth. But even for those never charged, or acquitted before trial, the experiences are so scarring that no-one wants to talk.
The sole exception I have encountered is a man who runs his own computer-programming company. Like many men, from time to time he would signed up for adult images on the Net. In the summer of 1999, he saw that his credit card details had been used over and over again on the Landslide website. He complained quickly, got a full refund and thought no more of it. Until the knock on his door three years later.
'It is a trial of the mind,' he said. 'I lost mine at the time. If people are guilty, they can say to themselves, yes, been there, done that. But if you have not, then it is impossible to make sense of what is happening to your life.'
When he proved to the police that the information he would given for adult access had been stolen and then reused at Landslide to send money to child porn merchants, he was told that he was innocent. He would had to wait, but 'it was less than two months, investigated, cleared, no issue'.
Legal Aftermath
The records suggest that because of the media and police enthusiasm to hunt down supposed Internet paedophiles, important questions about the evidence were never asked, or asked in time. As recently as last December the police were still unwilling to admit to the House of Commons that thousands of names on the Landslide list were not paedophiles and were known to have paid only for adult material.

The Police love to demonstrate they really are interested in arresting Paedophiles and stopping  children  being abused in  the child sex trade but the truth is it is the Police who cover-up for  high profile Paedophiles

Wednesday, 20 March 2013

Grandfather Brian Pead a Child Abuse whistle-blower arrested again by a corrupt criminal justice system which protects paedophiles

Since we published  his heart rending  story Brian Pead   the brave whistle-blower who exposed child abuse in Lambeth   has been arrested yet again by the Police

 In a step by step guide to this shocking  injustice we find the full story   and  Upadate  on Brian Pead's persecution and harrasment    from Barnes Blogspot   read more

Unlawful arrest of Brian Pead
Friday, 15 March 2013.
Southend Police Station, Essex
Time: 20:35
Arresting Officer: APS Harper [71035]
Reason for Arrest: Failing to Provide Essex Police with Contact Details

On his dead brother’s 62nd birthday, Brian Pead was arrested [15th March]. He spent the night in the cells on his late father’s birthday [16th March], so his detention came at a critical period on Brian’s calendar and spanned the birthdays of two important people in his life.

At 8pm, Brian attended Southend Police Station with Michael Bird, co-author of from Hillsborough to Lambeth, a book exposing child abuse, racism and corruption at Lambeth Council.

They had gone to report trespass, harassment and assault by two officers from Essex Police on Brian’s 75yr-old female neighbour. The Police had called on her, but she told them to go away. Instead, they pushed past her and unlawfully trespassed on her property. She was reduced to tears.

This is not the first time Essex Police have done this, either.

So, the two men went to Southend Police Station to report these crimes against an innocent, law-abiding neighbour. They were prepared to make statements, jointly and severally.

After a 20-minute wait, they were ushered into a room off the main foyer. As they stepped inside the room, believing they were going to make a statement, the door was locked behind them.

A police officer said he was going to arrest Brian for failing to notify the Police of his address on 11 January 2013. Michael Bird said, “You can’t arrest him. He is innocent of the crime you allege. I am prepared to make a statement to that effect. You must let him go.”

As a registered sex offender (he isn’t but they love to claim he is as they play their game of Disinformation), he is obliged to inform his local police station of his whereabouts.

On two occasions in January both Michael and Brian went to Southend Police Station and Brian provided his details. As he always does, he got a time and date-stamped receipt for his visit.

On 10 January 2013, they sent a letter (and a copy of their book to Mr Jim Barker-McCardle, the Chief Constable of Essex. The letter had Brian’s address on it … so the Police DID have his address within the required date. And not just any old police, but the Chief Constable, no less!)

Acting Police Sergeant Harper insisted on arresting Brian (at 20:35). Mr Pead told APS Harper that he had no right to arrest him, that he had no genuine belief that Brian had committed a crime and that he must under no circumstances touch him. He also told him that he did not consent to being policed. In fairness to APS Harper, he did not lay a finger on Brian, nor even attempt such a manoeuvre.

Michael Bird repeated his statement that Brian could not be guilty because he had been with Brian on both occasions when he had provided his address and bank account details to the police.

This is what APS Harper said: “But the computer says you have committed a crime, so I must arrest you.”

It’s official – policing by computer!

Brian asked for the reasons for his arrest: “…To prevent any investigation being hindered by Essex Police not being able to locate you. Also to allow the prompt and efficient investigation to allow us to obtain evidence by questioning…”

If that were true, then all they had to do was speak to Michael Bird who was prepared to make a statement proving Brian’s innocence on the spot.

So, off they led Brian to the Custody Suite and Michael Bird went home to start calling supporters of Brian, of free speech and of justice.

Brian was duly processed. In the Custody Suite, which is monitored with CCTV and audio, Brian informed the officers that:

(i) he is not a sex offender and the legislation proves it (he referred them to Archbold)
(ii) that he is actually exposing such activity in the book co-authored with the very same Michael Bird who attended the police station with Brian
(iii) that his book has been banned
(iv) that he has videos on Youtube explaining his predicament
(v) that they might like to visit and make some genuine arrests of genuine sex offenders.

They appeared not to be listening, so, for the benefit of the tape recordings, he repeated his statements.

Duly processed, they removed him to Cell 17. He asked for his reading glasses, but wasn’t allowed them.

Under PACE regulations he asked for a paper and pencil, but he wasn’t allowed them.

He asked for a solicitor, but only knew of one in Southend (Jerman, Samuels and Pearson Solicitors, known locally as JSPS). Here is a link to the Directors of this company.

Whilst waiting for the solicitor, Brian then met with the Medical Officer. This was a new departure and had not occurred when he was processed on 1 February 2012 for a similar alleged offence.

The paramedic, name of Steve, was about Brian’s age. He was a decent enough chap. He asked Brian to sign a consent form for his medical records. Brian was not going to sign anything without reading it first and he had no glasses.

The glasses were obtained. Brian read the form and was not happy with it. He said he would only sign it if he added his own comments. He added: “I do not consent to this process or this form” and signed the form (so that they could not say he was not co-operating).

Then, Steve turned over the tri-fold document and revealed that on the front cover it read “The solicitor has told us that there are underlying mental health issues”.

Brian had not seen this front page when signing it.

You can probably see where they were hoping to go with that little trick, but Brian had already stated that he did not consent to the Form.

Brian does not have “underlying mental issues” – though the authorities will always try this with an ‘enemy’. It’s an easy option for them. Pay a couple of doctors to pronounce that a person needs to be Sectioned and before long they’re in a secure unit. There is much about this on the Internet, especially on YouTube.

But Steve had turned out to be a decent chap. He put himself at some risk by showing Brian the first page. He had worked out that Brian was far from having mental health issues. The two men – in a very short space of time – had “sussed one another out” and understood one another on an elementary level.

At around 11pm, a Jane Werry arrived from JSPS in a hoody and tracksuit bottoms. Without a business card (“I forgot them”). Hmmm. Not a good start and highly unprofessional.

Here is her profile on the JSPS website.

It might be worth noting her credentials. Or lack of them in order to deal effectively with Brian's situation.

Brian is a highly experienced therapist. His first encounter with any new person provides him with a great deal of information. He believed that this was not a woman to be trusted. (This is not in any way defamatory - it is merely his opinion. Readers are free to arrive at their own conclusions based on the information provided.)

Brian informed her that he is not a sex offender. She didn’t listen.

He told her that he couldn’t possibly be guilty of the crime for which he been arrested earlier that day because he had provided the police with his details in any event and he had an alibi – co-author Michael Bird was with him when he attended the police station to inform them of his details and he was also with him on this night and was willing to make a statement to police to this effect.

She did not want to listen to this, either. Which is pretty strange.

“I’m paying you, actually,” said Brian, “so I would like you to take my instructions.”

“You’re not paying me,” she retorted, smugly, “the Government is. You’re on Legal Aid.”

She had obviously not heard that Brian has paid his taxes for almost 40 years and his National Insurance for the same period.

“Well, I am deeply concerned about your comments,” added Brian.

Brian studied her face. It was the face of a naughty child who had been caught out, but wasn’t sure, and so had to ask.

“What comments?”

“Where you informed the Police that I have underlying mental health issues. I don’t have any.”

“I never said that.”

“In that case, go and get the Desk Sergeant and I’ll ask him whether you told him that or whether he made it up himself.”

“I’m withdrawing from representing you. You’ll have to get another solicitor.”

“From your firm?”

“No, I represent my firm.”

[In that case, if you were my employee I’d dismiss you for such conduct in a police station, thought Brian.]

She could not scurry away fast enough. She has probably not met the likes of Brian Pead before. [He will be following that incident up with an official complaint in several quarters.]

Brian was led back to his cell.

The civilian officer in charge of the cells was a decent enough fellow. He asked Brian who he should call next.

Tooks Chambers, Farringdon Street. The chambers of Michael Mansfield. He has been sent a copy of the book from Hillsborough to Lambeth.”

So off the nice chap went to call Tooks Chambers.

“They say they have never heard of you. They told me to tell you to try elsewhere.”

“OK, try Pamela Brain of 1 Inner Temple Lane.”

Pamela Brain was a barrister who originally represented Brian at Woolwich Crown Court on a charge of Exposure (he was innocent.)

She then witnessed the Trial at Woolwich collapse because the three females alleging Exposure failed to turn up at Court. The Judge was told that the Police had forgotten to inform them. (Read more about that farce in the forthcoming book For Whom the Bell Tolled.)

The nice chap returned.

“They can’t help either. The problem you’re having is you’re giving me the names of barristers’ chambers, not solicitors.”

Brian knew this, of course, but he wanted this process recorded: that Tooks failed to assist and that One Inner Temple failed to assist.

“What options am I left with, my friend?”

“Well, I’ll just have to go to the Call

“Fine,” said Brian, “let's do that.”

He knows that it is a lottery. The quality of Duty Solicitors varies widely.

The Desk Sergeant, Steve May, then arrived in Brian’s cell (uninvited) and said, “We have reviewed all of the paperwork and you’ll be out of here tonight. We have no intention of keeping you here tonight” which Brian took for “Police-speak” as “Hard luck son, you ain’t going nowhere tonight.”

The 6ft5½tall sergeant (Brian asked him) smiled, turned on his heels and went home, his shift over.

And so it turned out that Brian’s assessment of the situation had been correct.

Brian woke around 7am and asked for a shower and to clean his teeth.

About an hour later, his requests were granted. He was surprised at how fluffy the towels were!

Feeling alert and refreshed, he requested some reading materials, some paper and a pencil. His wishes were granted.
Two magazines about gadgets were given to him which is probably about the worst possible reading material to give him since Brian has no interest in gadgets, but nonetheless the Cells Officer had done his best.

Brian set about recording the events of the previous evening in great detail.

Then he ate two Cereal bars.

Then a Solicitor arrived, a young man from an Essex and Suffolk firm of solicitors called Taylor Haldane Barlex that Brian had not heard of before, or he would have remembered such unusual names (he has a thing for language).

The young man looked about 20 but was about 28-30. He was actually a decent chap and named Paul Markham, who looked nothing like he does in this photo.

After providing his full details, Brian informed him that he wished to make a “No Comment” interview because the police had been given sufficient information the previous night (by both Brian and Michael Bird) that proved Brian’s innocence.

Paul Markham suggested otherwise. Having heard all of the facts, Mr Markham suggested to Brian that he merely “…reiterate the facts to the officers in order to ‘advance your defence’. By all means refuse to answer any tangential questions. It seems there was no good reason for your arrest and detention…”

So an interview was arranged for Interview Room 1. This room has no table. The interviewing officers were PC Coombes (75378) and PC Wilson (74214).

Brian has been arrested every year since 2008. Sometimes twice on the same day!. He is used to all types of combinations of interviewing officers. The good cop-bad cop routine is old news to him.
But here he had good cop-good cop. This routine was new to him!

The interview commenced at 09:42. This was his late father’s birthday. Thus the entire arrest, incarceration and interview had spanned the birthdays of his late brother (Robert) and his late father (Frederick). This was, in a strange quirk of fate, rather appropriate, since it was his late brother's death on board a Lowestoft trawler in 1972 that led Brian to give up his day job at the time and find work as a trawlerman as a callow 19 year old in order to investigate (under cover) his brother's death.
And it was Brian's late father who repeatedly told Brian that “if you give 'em enough rope, they'll hang themselves.”

Both men played an important part in Brian's life for very different reasons, but they came to mind throughout his time in the police station.

The interview was textbook stuff.

The interview ended at 10:13.

The two officers had conducted themselves impeccably.

During the debrief, Paul Markham told his client: “It went well. There were no issues. I hope it goes nowhere. You gave a good account of yourself. Even if they did charge you, bail should not be an issue. Hopefully there will be No Further Action.”

And so back to the cells. To await the decision. The Police would consult with the CPS who would make a decision whether prosecuting Brian Pead would be in the public interest. (This is always the standard by which cases are judged … yet Brian had been on the wrong end of ridiculous decisions on too many occasions to take anything for granted.)

Then he was called for fingerprinting. He had informed the Desk Sergeant (Steve May – the gentle giant) the previous evening that he did give his consent to being finger-printed or to have his photograph taken or to have a DNA sample taken. (All of this is on the PNC in any event.)

It appears that the Police do not understand the phrase “I do not give my consent.” They appear to believe that this means you are refusing. It does not. It merely means that you do not consent to them taking your fingerprints etc. Since the option is being forced by 6 burly coppers to have your prints taken, Brian Pead chose instead to comply with their instructions, but still refused to give his consent.
The civilian taking his prints was a decent chap. He had joined the Police as a cadet, but so far had failed to be accepted as a police officer. But at least he had not given up. He was still chasing his
dream and Brian respected that.

Back to the cells after finger-printing.

Shortly afterwards, at around midday, Brian was released.

Desk Sergeant Price provided Brian Pead with a NOTIFICATION OF NO FURTHER ACTION sheet. The box which stated “There is insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction” was ticked.

It didn’t actually say that Brian was innocent. Michael Bird had not been required to make a statement.

Before he left the station, an officer spoke to Pead. “It’s clear from evidence that you are an innocent man and the victim of a miscarriage of justice, but you have to comply with the Court Order, even if it’s wrong.”

For reasons of confidentiality, Brian Pead will not reveal the name of that police officer, who did not have to say what he said. So he commanded Brian's respect – which is hard to earn in any event.
Officer Coombes asked Brian if he wanted to have a lift home. Although he lives a 5-minute walk from the police station, he asked for a lift.

Brian then had to go to the Front desk to provide his official details “on the correct form”. Brian had been arrested because he hadn’t provided Essex Police with his details on the correct form, even though the form is computer generated within the police station! So, short of going into the back office of the police station, it’s impossible to comply with such a request.

However, the form Brian Pead was given to sign contained several errors. It claimed that his offence was “Causing or Inciting a Girl Under 13 to Engadge in Sexual Activity” (their spelling mistake).
Brian has never done this. He has never been charged with this. He has never been on trial for this.

Then the form claimed he was convicted of this offence on 22 November 2011.

This date is incorrect in any event. He was never on Trial at that time.

The form stated that Brian was given a 3-month suspended sentence. This is also incorrect.


Brian informed the desk operative that details were wrong. He merely shrugged.

However, not a single officer asked Brian (or Michael Bird) to complete their original reason for going to the police station – trespass, harassment and assault of a frail 75 year old neighbour.

This form of harrament by the Police is designed to waer thier  tartget down and precipitate mental problems. Obviously the older  and more vulnerable their target the more damaging the torture,

A reader has told us the Brian Pead is due in the Royal Courts of Injustice, where judges are bought and sold for large sums,  on 27 March 2013.

The case is at the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand, London. (Nearest tube station, Temple). It is likely to be heard in Court 14 by Judge Tugendhat.  The case is for alleged Contempt of Court following his alleged refusal to comply with an unlawful Court Order banning his latest book.

It is warned for  around  10am , but just  increase the stress the Court does not given an exact time.

If   you can attend to support   Brian Paed  please do. 

Brian is fighting  for Justice  and freedom for eveyone. 

Sunday, 17 March 2013

McAlpine marries his third heiress how did he manage it?

Lord McAlpine's sexy little secret; She's 27 years his junior, and younger than two of his daughters. So how has the former Treasurer managed to marry his third heiress - and why did they have to hide their love from the world?


ON the steps of a Paris town hall, a besotted groom kisses his beautiful bride, effortlessly chic in vintage Chanel.
Apart from the obvious age gap, the couple look like any infatuated newlyweds.
But this is hardly your average marriage ceremony. The bridegroom is former Tory grandee Lord McAlpine and the 32-year-old bride Athena Malpas is his third wife.
Around them, scattering confetti over the steps, are McAlpine's three daughters from his first two marriages. Two of them are older than Athena, but mingle happily with her Greek parents and relatives.
It was, to say the least, an unconventional gathering for a man who, as the Conservative Party's most prolific fundraiser, was the protege of Margaret Thatcher and at the heart of the British Establishment.
And it marks the beginning of another extraordinary - and hitherto well-concealed - chapter in the colourful life of the 59-year-old heir to the McAlpine construction empire.
'There is only one word to describe the way I feel about Athena, and that's love,' says Lord McAlpine - Alistair to his friends. 'It's unconventional but very wonderful, and I strongly recommend it.'
Athena, born in Dublin to a powerful Greek shipping family, is an attractive, educated woman, and it is clear that Lord McAlpine is besotted by her, as, it seems, she is by him. Over lunch in a Paris restaurant, two days after their wedding, they nod affectionately and interrupt each other's stories.
They first met in 1996, when Athena was running the Under-35 wing of James Goldsmith's Referendum Party and McAlpine

So why is it that an ugly old paedophile like McAlpine  can wallow in  rich women?  Is it because he knows where the bodies are buried. Or could he be the grand Warlock of a coven of Satanists?  Or is  he just a charming old gentleman who has  been  wrongly accused and  had to make  over £300,000 in damages for his besmirched reputation. Rich already the £300,000  which would have changed the lives of billions  will probably just buy his young wife  more champagne.

Saturday, 16 March 2013

Margaret Hodge covered up child abuse in Islington Care Homes

Yes Minister, you were told about child abuse in the care homes, yet you refused to listen;

SPECIAL STANDARD INVESTIGATION: When Margaret Hodge led Islington council, she knew about sex abuse in care homes under her control. Yet she kept quiet and pilloried social workers who raised concerns. Now the original whistleblower wants the Minister for Children brought to account.
Evening Standard, 30th June 2003


By David Cohen
IMMEDIATELY after Tony Blair appointed Margaret Hodge as the new Minister for Children in his recent reshuffle, phones started ringing among former social workers who had once worked under her. “It’s like putting the fox in charge of the chickens,” one commented in disgust. “A sick joke,” remarked another.
These social workers couldn’t help recalling the inside story of an appalling child sex abuse scandal many of us have forgotten. In 1990, when Mrs Hodge – then Mr Blair’s neighbour in Richmond Crescent, Islington – was the leader of Islington council, these senior social workers had reported to her that a paedophile ring was operating in the borough and that children were being sexually abused in Islington care homes.
Mrs Hodge’s response was revealing: she chose not to back a thorough investigation. Instead, she dismissed their concerns and accused these social workers of being ” obsessional”.
When the story was exposed in the Evening Standard two-andahalf years later, in October 1992, her re-sponse was equally aggressive. She accused the newspaper of “a sensationalist piece of gutter journalism”. It would be a further two-and-a-half years and five independent reports later before she would half-heartedly admit that she was wrong. Yet she would have known as early as 1991 that paedophiles were preying on children in Islington’s care.
In 1991, Roy Caterer, a sports instructor at a boarding school used by Islington, was arrested and sent to prison for seven-anda-half years for abusing seven boys and two girls, some of them in Islington’s care. Caterer admitted to police that he had abused countless Islington children over many years.
In 1995, an independent report prepared by Ian White, Oxfordshire’s director of social services, utterly vin-dicated the Evening Standard. It lambasted the council and confirmed that the social workers and the Stand-ard, whose reporters went on to win prestigious press awards, were right. It said, in part: “The inquiry has charted an organisation in the late 1980s and early 1990s that was chaotic. Such a chaotic organisation breeds the conditions for dangerous and negligent professional practices in relation to child care.”
Mrs Hodge led Islington council from 1982 to 1992.
What the Standard uncovered – after taping hours of interviews with staff, parents, children and police over a three-month period – was a horrendous dereliction of duty by the council that routinely exposed the most vulnerable children in its care to paedophiles, pimps, prostitutes and pornographers.
What the Standard and the White report found inexcusable was the council’s refusal – led by Margaret Hodge – to listen and act when experienced staff and terrified children tried to articulate what was going on. Their testimonies lifted the lid on horrific events that were taking place in Islington: teenagers selling sex from their council homes, a girl knifed by a sexual abuser inside a children’s unit, a girl and a boy who shared a bed with a known paedophile, a 15-year-old boy fostered with a suspected paedophile – overriding the vociferous protests of social workers – who later sexually abused the boy as predicted. We could go on and on.
The tragedy was that from the moment these children came to live in the seemingly safe children’s homes under the care of Islington council, they became fair game.
Some of the very people who were supposed to protect them were involved in their sexual abuse. On top of all this, the social workers who tried to protect them were pilloried by Margaret Hodge and her social services directors. The damage done to such children is beyond comprehension.
But the story of the Islington child sex abuse scandal would never have seen the light of day had it not been for the brave actions of a single secret whistleblower. Until today, the identity of this whistleblower has remained a secret. Nobody outside a tiny coterie of key players knew who he – or she – was. And so it would have remained. But in the wake of Mrs Hodge’s appointment as Minister for Children, the whistleblower has decided to blow her cover. She doesn’t come to this decision lightly.
But so indignant is she at this ” cynical appointment” that she has decided to tell – for the first time – the full story of what really happened.
She wants us to know the truth about our new Minister for Children. For Mrs Hodge and her management team were never made properly accountable for what happened to the children whom they failed. Instead, the whistleblower and her supporters were marginalised, whereas Mrs Hodge is now a rising star in government.
The whistleblower’s identity, we can reveal, is Liz Davies, 55. She is now a successful senior lecturer in so-cial work at London Metropolitan University.
But back in 1990, Liz Davies was the senior social worker heading up a team of six in the Irene Watson Neighbourhood Office, one of 24 similarly decentralised council offices in Islington. In speaking out, she is joined by another insider who has also hitherto remained silent – her former ally and manager, David Cofie, 63. Other social workers from that time in Islington are prepared to support the position taken by Mrs Davies and Mr Cofie.
“Margaret Hodge definitely knew everything right from the start, and by ‘start’ I mean more than two years before it was exposed in your newspaper,” begins Mrs Davies, talking to the Standard in north London. “She knew as early as April 1990 that we had uncovered serious evidence of sexual abuse among children in our care and yet she chose not to pursue our investigation.”
Her story starts at the beginning of the Nineties. “I noticed that there was a sudden unexpected increase in vulnerable teenagers coming to our office to see social workers,” recalls Mrs Davies. “They’d be crying and depressed and they didn’t want to talk. I didn’t understand it. We spent a lot of time engaging with these children and began to closely investigate their lives.”
Soon Mrs Davies and Mr Cofie began to realise that sexual abuse was part of the picture.
“The children were displaying classic symptoms of sexual abuse and we started to hear disturbing stories of a paedophile ring. At this point, we had no idea as to the scale of the network, or that the children’s homes – under our control – were involved. We began working closely with the Islington Child Protection officers and following local and national child protection procedures to the letter.”
Mr Cofie and Mrs Davies collated the information in a series of reports that were presented to the directors of social services. They responsibly asked for additional funds for two youth workers to be seconded to their team to help with investigations, which were snowballing and threatening to overwhelm them. But their request drew an icy rebuke from their council leader. In a memo to the head of Isington’s social services, John Rea Price (a copy of which is in the possession of the Standard), dated April 1990 – written on “Islington council leader’s office” stationery and from “Margaret Hodge, Leader” – Mrs Hodge wrote the following: “Sexual Abuse in Irene Watson Area: David Cofie raised the issue of sexual abuse among eight- to 16-year-old children at the Neighbourhood Forum. He is clearly concerned about the matter. However, simply requesting more resources is not, in my view, responsible for a manager given the well known concern of members at the state of the Social Services budget. I expect more appropriate responses from people in management positions in Social Services. The obvious option for your management to consider in relation to this emerging problem in the area is to reduce the fieldwork staffing to release resources for a detached youth worker in the area. I await your response.”
“We couldn’t believe it,” recalls Mrs Davies. “We were grappling with this enormous problem and all she was concerned about was balancing her budget. It boggles the mind. It was as if we were talking about park benches, not children.”
Because this critical memo was not made available to Standard reporters at the time of the investiga-tion-only coming to light years later, in May 1995, Mrs Hodge was never made to explain how it was she knew about the allegations of abuse for over two years without fully pursuing them.
David Cofie, in a separate interview, says that the standard procedure would have been for the matter to be referred to the child protection committee for a full investigation, but that this did not happen. Mr Cofie says that Mrs Hodge resisted his requests that the matter be properly investigated on three separate occasions. “The first occasion was when I decided the only responsible thing was to alert the community to the fact that paedophiles were operating in the area,” he recalls. “I wrote a short, subtly-worded report that was to be dis-tributed to the Neighbourhood Forum, which is open to members of the public. Well, Margaret Hodge went apeshit. She started screaming and shouting at me and refused to discuss it. I later heard that she had rub-bished me to colleagues behind my back, saying that I was exaggerating the sexual abuse claims and trying to make a name for myself.
But my colleagues told her, ‘David would never do that. If anything, he’s one of the most overcautious managers we have.’ ” In May 1990, Mr Cofie and Mrs Davies were summoned to a meeting convened by Islington’s assistant director of social services, Lyn Cusack. “By now,” says Mrs Davies, “we knew that the picture was far worse than initially imagined. I had learned that children in our care were being taken to homes in the country on weekends. It was highly suspicious, and I would later discover that they were being used to make child pornography and that people who ran our homes were getting paid in hard cash. But we were criticised as ‘hysterical’ and told in no uncertain terms to stop interviewing children and to cease child protection conferences forthwith.”
Mrs Davies and Mr Cofie continued to investigate regardless. They wrote and submitted 15 detailed reports but maintain their superiors still did not believe them. When the paedophile Roy Caterer, whose name Mrs Davies passed to the police, went to prison, Mr Cofie said to Mrs Davies: “Now they’ve got to believe us.” But Mrs Hodge and Lyn Cusack and their acolytes – inexplicably – still weren’t interested. The crunch for Mrs Davies came when she was ordered to place a “looked-after” seven-year-old boy in a home that was run by someone she had raised concerns about and considered unsafe. Her position had become untenable.
At the same time, she had started having a recurring nightmare. In the dream, Mrs Davies would be drinking a lovely glass of cold white wine that would suddenly turn into jagged pieces of glass that cut her throat to bloody ribbons. A friend told her: “It’s obvious, Liz, it’s all too much for you to swallow.”
In February 1992, Mrs Davies resigned in despair and took her information to Mike Hames, then head of Scotland Yard’s Obscene Publications Unit. He commenced an investigation, subsequently exposed in the Standard by Eileen Fairweather and Stewart Payne. More than 50 reports were published in the paper – which Mrs Hodge scornfully condemned – leading eventually to five independent inquiries.
It was another two-and-a-half years before the damning White report would be published – singling out and naming 22 people who worked for Islington and whose names were never published. Mrs Hodge went on the record to say that she was led astray, that her only fault was in believing her senior officers like Lyn Cu-sack. Those on the inside – like Mrs Davies – have always believed this was a fudge.
The critical April 1990 memo, which we reprint above, shows that Mrs Hodge’s claim is, at the very least, an oversimplification. It shows that when Mrs Hodge was directly presented with details of the sexual abuse allegations uncovered by Mr Cofie and Mrs Davies, she was apparently more concerned with allocating re-sources than addressing the substance of the allegations.
By the time the White report was published, Mrs Hodge had moved on. She would take up a top job in the City, then become MP for Barking, and later Minister for Higher Education. And now she is Minister for Chil-dren. David Cofie, on the other hand, stayed on at Islington until he retired in 1998.
So did Mrs Hodge ever thank Mr Cofie for the role he played in bringing to light this appalling scandal?
” Hodge never thanked me,” Mr Cofie says. “Nor did she apologise. Even though she had wrecked my ca-reer, frozen me out, made me persona non grata.
She was never a big enough person to say to me, ‘I am sorry for how I treated you. I was wrong. Thank you for what you did to save those children.’ ” Mrs Davies is even more scathing.
“It beggars belief to think that Tony Blair has awarded Hodge the highest job in the land for protecting the welfare of our most vulnerable citizens.
Blair was her neighbour at the time. He must remember her appalling record.
What in heaven’s name was he thinking?”
How scandal unfolded
1982: Margaret Hodge becomes leader of Islington council
February 1990: Liz Davies and David Cofie, senior Islington social workers, uncover evidence of sexual abuse of children, and report it to a Neighbourhood Forum which council leader Margaret Hodge attends as ward councillor.
April 1990: Hodge memos Cofie’s boss, John Rea Price, the director of social services: “David Cofie raised the issue of sexual abuse among eight-to 16-year-old children. He is clearly concerned. However, simply requesting more resources is not responsible for a manager given the concern of members at the state of the social services budget. I expect more appropriate responses from people in management positions in social services”.
May 1990: At a key meeting chaired by Lyn Cusack, assistant director of social services, Cofie and Davies are told to cease interviewing children and to stop convening child protection conferences
1991: Roy Caterer, who worked at a school used by Islington council for its children in care, is arrested for sexually abusing seven boys and two girls, and is jailed for seven-and-a-half years. Cofie and Davies ask social services for resources to help the victims, but receive no reply
February 1992: Davies resigns and takes her information to Scotland Yard
6 October 1992: A Standard investigation reveals that a 15-year-old girl worked as a prostitute from a coun-cil home; a 16-year-old was made pregnant at a teenage unit by a man suspected of involvement in a child sex ring; a girl was knifed by a pimp at an Islington home; and a boy was abused for years by a volunteer instructor
14 October 1992: Hodge says of the Standard’s investigation: “The way they chose to report this was gutter journalism … The story misled the public on the quality of childcare services in the borough”
23 October 1992: Hodge steps down as council leader to take up a post as a senior consultant with ac-countancy firm Price Waterhouse
3 March 1993: The Press Complaints Commission rejects all Islington’s complaints against the Standard
11 February 1994: Hodge admits to the Standard: “You were right that there was abuse in the children’s homes,” and blames her initial response on “misleading” information from senior officers and colleagues
23 May 1995: Report by Ian White, Oxfordshire director of social services, backs the Standard and says care-home workers were able to corrupt children in part because Islington’s ideological policies prevented complaints being investigated. Hodge responds: “I have had no involvement with Islington council for three years. It would be inappropriate for me to comment”
26 May 1995: Hodge tells Radio 4: “Of course I accept responsibility. I was leader of the council at the time”
13 June 2003: Hodge becomes Minister for Children
27 June 2003: Hodge tells Women’s Hour on BBC Radio 4: “I don’t think that any of us recognised the danger of child abuse in children’s homes to the extent that we’re aware of it now. I’ve learned from my fail-ure to understand at that time”

Brian Pead Persecuted because he exposed child abuse

On March 13th 2013  Brian Pead came across a letter dated and postmarked 12 March 2013 from international law firm Pinsent Masons (who claim he is harassing their entire global workforce, not bad for a lone individual) in which the law firm with an “international reputation” stated that Mr Pead has to appear in Court tomorrow (14 March 2013) on a charge of Contempt of Court.
Read the letter here.  No other details were provided.

Read his story:-   and more on the Lambeth child abuse cover-up  

In August 2005, having lost more than a £¼m in a failed business venture, Liverpool FC author and teacher Brian Pead, who was present at the Hillsborough Disaster, is asked to run a Unit for vulnerable pupils called the Old Library Centre Virtual School, initially based in West Norwood.

Pead, who at the age of 20 investigated the untimely death of his brother aboard a Lowestoft trawler in 1972, employs radical methods and group therapy to meet the emotional, behavioural and educational needs of the pupils, who gain considerable self-insight.

Gaining the attention of eminent mental health professionals, the Unit is described by researchers at King’s College as the most successful in London.

Into this safe haven walks Maryn Murray, an unqualified supply teacher, who is later accused of racism and grooming girls. Following a thorough investigation, Pead dismisses her but his line manager, Barry Gilhooly, fails to contact the police.

Phyllis Dunipace, Executive Director of Children’s Services, is responsible for a report which makes it appear as though Pead is the culprit.

Lambeth – who fail to undertake Criminal Records checks on supply teachers – then re-employ Murray in an all-girls’ school, whilst Pead is unlawfully suspended. Council staff remove and destroy all of the files in his office.

IT consultant and father of four, Paul Waters, dresses as a woman and calls himself Ermina as he travels around Lambeth schools, working alongside Murray and Anya Hiley, an unmarried Connexions Adviser.
Allegations are created to remove Pead in a one-sided investigation carried out by Assistant Director, Cathy Twist. Five charges grow to fifteen as she fails to interview any pupils or parents.
Dunipace ratifies a decision to dismiss Pead, who then takes Lambeth to a Tribunal where Judge Anne Martin perversely dismisses his claim in a 1-day Hearing.

Pead is then unlawfully held in prison but, upon his release in November 2011, a friend, John Callow, calls him to say that another Head teacher, James Walker, has won his case against Lambeth in an 18-day Hearing.

Twist and Gilhooly are castigated by Lambeth MPs Simon Hughes and Kate Hoey for a flawed investigation in which Walker’s office is also ransacked.

Gilhooly retires and Dunipace resigns. She later receives an OBE, despite presiding over corrupt investigations, unlawful dismissals and the cover-up of improper child protection practices. Like Martin, Dunipace becomes a school Governor and maintains access to children.

Driven by a desire for his estranged grand-children to learn the truth – like the Hillsborough families – Pead embarks upon an emotional journey in which he meets Jonathan West, who is investigating St. Augustine’s in Ealing, where Murray had previously taught. Run by Debrett’s-listed Frances Gumley-Mason, it has been reported by the Independent Schools Inspectorate (ISI) for inadequate child protection measures. Trying to prevent parents from learning about her failure to report inappropriate staff, she seeks an injunction against the ISI.

Gumley-Mason has previously been an advisor to St. Benedict’s School in Ealing, the scene of decades of child abuse where Lord Patten, a former pupil, is currently a school advisor.

Patten, Chairman of the BBC Trust, then finds himself embroiled in the Jimmy Savile affair, calling it a “cesspit of abuse” in echoes of what occurred at St. Benedict’s.

Brian has suffered a catalogue of persecution by the police in one instance  on the  23 September 2011, Brian Pead was arrested and sent to jail on a charge of “witness intimidation”.  The police claimed that when he saw his grand-daughter, Emily, at the bus stop and said “Hello” to her, he had interfered with a witness.  However, the reality is that Emily has never been a witness in any criminal trial (or civil case for that matter).

This is the true story of one man’s remarkable fight to expose corruption against all the odds and to ensure that his beloved grand-children would one day learn the truth in the same way as the Hillsborough families.

Then on  the (13 March 2013) Brian Pead came across the  letter dated and postmarked 12 March 2013 from international law firm Pinsent Masons (who claim he is harassing their entire global workforce, not bad for a lone individual) in which the law firm with an “international reputation” stated that Mr Pead has to appear in Court tomorrow (14 March 2013) on a charge of Contempt of Court.Read the letter here. No other details were provided

Perhaps the most interesting detail left out of this letter from a law firm with a global reach was that they didn’t even mention which court he was due to appear in.

This might be a simple oversight or, more likely, it is all part of their jolly japes in which they give a Defendant no time in which to prepare, no time to alert witnesses to fill the public gallery and no time to access the assistance of a barrister. And, of course, their jolly japes includes the fact that, by not turning up at Court, this will give the judiciary yet another reason to “justify” its harassment of an innocent man who merely brought corruption at Lambeth Council to the attention of Phyllis Dunipace and give them a reason to unlawfully arrest Brian Pead again when he wasn’t even made aware of which court to attend!
More smoke and mirrors. More legal games.

Could this case have been brought about because of the following:
Two videos are presently on YouTube which draw attention to the unlawful activity which was occurring within Lambeth Council.

Brian Pead's   book from Hillsborough to Lambeth by Brian Pead and Michael Bird, Invenire Press, 2012. currently has two gagging orders against it, so it must be good!

Read more on Brian Pead is Innocent!research/c5zt

Once again it is the Police, the CPS and the  Courts  who  are shown to be totally corrupt.
Brian Pead like so many   whistle-blowers  and  good decent people   is  being persecuted by the State for exposing child abuse.   The corrpution wthin the Police the CPS and the Courts/judiciary has grown to such proportion that the system itself functions to deny justice.

Wednesday, 13 March 2013

Stop the Courts and the Police using the Law to promote corruption and silence victims

Sabine McNiell and so many people are fighting to get justice back to the UK and for the removal of paedophiles and corruption from the Police, Judiciary and Parliament.


SAMPLE LETTER to MPs about Child Abduction from Belgium Rubber stamped by UK Judiciary 

Human Rights Defence
Human Rights Defence (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
This remarkable comment was written in response to this blog post on Punishment without Crime.
It appears that once they find they get shielded by closing ranks and keeping secrets and are able to use our taxpayers money to threaten and pressurise people into silence  they continue to get away with it. Each of us must keep repeating this concern. Stop them stealing our legal controls. The law is there and it is ours, our children have rights and we as parents have rights under the law. We must rescue our legal rights and use them against those who abuse human rights.
If we each wrote to our MP [] in the standard form, either email or letter I am sending:
Dear Rt Hon Fiona Mactaggart
I have seen a video on the internet which has caused alarm and I must bring this to your attention. I am convinced and I am certain that anyone seeing this recording is also convinced that Nigel Cooper and his daughter’s human rights have been abused by our British Authorities. Furthermore he claims to have a legal document that is recognized by International law that orders his child to be returned to him.
This video has gone international, on the internet: BANNED from the UK: NATO Security Consultant because the “UK has been caught red handed stealing children”.
He has made serious allegations against our judiciary who under our separation of powers system are only answerable to themselves and nothing is being done. The English Court have not appealed the Order or appealed for a stay. They are simply treating the order with contempt.
This harms our Nation’s reputation as a law abiding country, and makes me as a British citizen feel ashamed to be British. Furthermore, Nigel Cooper’s personal credentials are substantial and he has obtained the order through due process.
This brings our Judiciary and their honesty and integrity into question, and must be resolved before our nation is abused even further. Following so soon after the Jimmy Saville scandal, which has exposed the long standing conspiracy of silence at the highest levels, this tares us with the same brush.
Yours sincerely”

Another Paedophile file goes Missing this time on Jersey

Another Paedophile file goes Missing

Jersey child abuse investigation must be re-opened

In her 2008 article for the Daily Mail ‘I have known about Jersey paedophiles for 15 years‘, journalist Eileen Fairweather refers to a list she wrote using information provided by Detective Constable Peter Cook.


He had uncovered a vicious child sex ring, with victims in both Britain and the Channel Islands, and he wanted me to get his information to police abuse specialists in London. He claimed that his superiors had barred him from alerting them.
He feared a cover-up: many ring members were powerful and wealthy. But I did not think him paranoid: I specialised in exposing child abuse scandals and knew, from separate sources, of men apparently linked to this ring. They included an aristocrat, clerics and a social services chief. Their friends included senior police officers.
Eileen Fairweather met with the National Criminal Intelligence Squad (NCIS), who had the job of disseminating intelligence on paedophiles across the country.
My diary records that I met NCIS on January 4, 1996, at 10.30am, and I also channelled the intelligence to Scotland Yard.
The information provided links the Islington paedophile network with known paedophiles in Jersey and Guernsey. The list should be used alongside the information obtained from Peter Righton’s diaries, which is already being investigated by Operation Fernbridge.
The NCIS and Scotland Yard have this list, yet it never led to a police investigation.

Time after time we find it is the Police who prevent investigation into Paedophiles.  Eileen Fairweather an award winning journalist presented the police with well researched evidence exposing  a massive paedophile ring.  What happened   the police buried it!   Just  like they have tried to bury anyone who might expose  the Ring.