Monday, 14 April 2014

Police Spys, corrupt CPS Barristers and the people they set-up

Imagine a police officer sees a street fight. Ten minutes after it's over a van load of cops turn up. Yet at the subsequent trial, the prosecution don't even mention the one officer who had actually seen the event. There'd be the pervasive odour of rat.

So it was in late 2010 that 20 people were convicted of a protest without the court seeing the evidence supplied by activist Mark Stone, aka undercover cop Mark Kennedy. A further six protesters were later prosecuted and asked to see whatever reports Kennedy had made. Rather than release this, the Crown Prosecution Service headed by their Barrister Felicity Gerry (CPS) dropped the case.

At the time Felicity Gerry  said they'd found

Previously unavailable information that significantly undermined the prosecution’s case

but they specifically said it was

not the existence of an undercover officer

Honest, guv. It was just coincidence that they only found this mysterious evidence, 21 months after the incident, within 48 hours of the defence's request for the Kennedy documents. When your job is to secure convictions, it must be tempting to withold evidence that exonerates.

The 20 previous convictions were quashed and it appears to be a formality that the Drax 29, who also had Kennedy take part, will get their convictions overturned too.

In just two protests the one officer secured 49 wrongful convictions. With 150 officers serving in the counter-democratic squads since their formation in 1968, taking Kennedy as an average there will have been over 7,000 miscarriages of justice. Even one per officer per year would give us 600.

So even being conservative, it's clear that poking its head above the water is one of the largest abuses of the judicial system ever revealed. How deep does it go?  Let's ask the only people who know, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. Except they won't tell us.

After Ratcliffe, Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer said the CPS were actively reviewing files to find more. That was more than 18 months ago and they have so far found zero. It took them a year after the Ratcliffe ruling tosay anything about the Drax convictions, even though Kennedy was involved in both.


In that intervening year we got the Rose report. Sir Christopher Rose was commissioned to investigate why police and prosecutors hadn't noticed that Kennedy and his evidence existed. Rose had been a Surveillance Commissioner since 2006. They have the ultimate sign-off on deployment of undercover police. Like all the inquiries that aren't actual police, it was a police satellite body with a conflict of interest and it amounted to yet another self-investigation.

The result was predictably intelligence-insulting blah - mistakes were made, nothing underhand, lessons learned now, nobody in charge did anything wrong, one scapegoated underling hung out to dry, move along, nothing to see.

Ratcliffe defence lawyer Mike Schwarz appearedChannel 4 News, talking of the report's drive to

hide behind the most benevolent interpretation of a completely myopic examination of one tiny issue. It's a failure of the authorities to address the wider picture, an almost pathological refusal to accept that there are systemic failures here.

Jon Snow then asked the Director of Public Prosecutions, Kier Starmer,

you see no requirement to mount a wider inquiry to check that there haven't been other miscarriages of justice?

To which Starmer replied

Whenever people raise concerns with me I will always look at those cases.... I think it would be a better use of our time and resources to look when an issue is raised rather than look back at everything when Sir Christopher Rose has said there's no systemic problem.

If I get burgled and find a fingerprint I don't expect the authorities to refuse to investigate until I give them a name to go with the fingerprint. It's they who have the files that match the two. In the same way, it's they who know who the undercover officers were, it's they who know which campaigns have been infiltrated. How can I ask for my conviction to be reviewed when I don't know that one of my friends was a cop who filed evidence that exonerates me?

On Newsnight, Jeremy Paxman started by asking Starmer

Are you absolutely certain there are no other cases in which people have been convicted on the basis of the evidence of undisclosed undercover police officers?

Paxman has to repeat the question three times in the folling minute and a half of shifty flanneling and he still doesn't get an answer. (It's interesting to note Starmer saying there are about half a dozen of these big cases involving undercovers annually.)

Starmer told Channel 4 the Ratcliffe debacle

has to be seen as a watershed in the way cases involving undercover officers are dealt with.

Well he certainly tried to make it seem that way, by making it hard for him or Rose's whitewash report to be challenged. Once a report is written, it takes a while to sort out the layout and printing. Yet the media were only told about the release of the Rose report the night before. They turned up at 9am and were given half an hour to read the 44 pages of unnecessarily tangled legalese and unexplained acronyms before Kier Starmer appeared for a few minutes to take questions and sod off.

Far be it from me to suggest that the CPS worked with the police to create another stitch-up to maintain their authority against the interests of justice, but if I wanted to discourage the press from being able to digest a report and ask probing questions, I would organise a report's release like that. If Starmer wasn't a willing part of such an ambush then he is, to put it most generously, too dim or powerless to do anything about the fact that it was set up like one.

The Rose report was a whitewash in both how it was compiled and in the conclusions it drew from its own limited evidence.

Starmer told Channel 4 that the police should have shared what the undercover officer was doing with the CPS and if that had been the case that

the individual failings both by us and by the police I don't think would have happened.

One problem there, Kier. The police did share it with the CPS. In fact, the CPS knew about the activists' plan before many of the participants themselves.


The Rose report essentially says nobody in the CPS realised that the police files included Kennedy's stuff or how important it was. It scapegoats one low ranking official, Ian Cunningham. One bad apple, you know, like they told us Mark Kennedy himself was. What crap. Felicity Gerry was let of the hook.

The thing is that Cunningham's superior, Nick Paul, was more in the know than anyone. There are emails between the two men talking of the 'sensitive disclosure issues' around the 'participating informant'. Paul overrides the wishes of police to protect Kennedy. Nick Paul was at the time - and until January 2010 - the Domestic Extremism Co-ordinator in the CPS Special Crime Unit.

So the nebulous idea of 'domestic extremism' isn't just used by the secret police - the CPS concur with it enough to use it in a job title. Even though nobody is sure what it means. How long has the CPS had such a role? What else have they dealt with?

If Keir Starmer was interested in justice and wanted a place to start reviewing cases that may well be dodgy, it would be those dealt with by the the Domestic Extremism Co-ordinator. If Sir Christopher Rose wanted to get to the truth of what happened at Ratcliffe, he should have made Nick Paul swear an affa davit. As it is, he didn't even talk to him at all. Odd behaviour for an inquirer, unless he was trying to create a whitewash. Kier Starmer told Newsnight that Mike Schwarz was wrong, that Rose had looked at 'the entirety of the materials, police and prosecutors,' which is simply not true.

Let's look at what the Rose report into police and CPS collusion at Ratcliffe actually tells us when cross-referenced with the Independent Police Complaints Commission's report into the same issue. Bear with me, it'll be a bit long and a tad forensic, but it shows that this was not one lowling's fault. This was a high-level police and CPS cover-up.


6 April 2009: Ian Cunningham says he "was contacted by DCI Severn and told that there was a police operation to counter a threat to close down a power station in the region. He understood that the police were acting on intelligence and was informed that Nick Paulalready had an overview of the case. He contacted Mr Paul and they confirmed that Mr Cunningham would be the allocated lawyer for Nottinghamshire Police to contact". (IPCC, para 77, my italics).

Note that Nick Paul already knew. When was he first told?

12 April 2009: 114 climate activists (including deep undercover police officer Mark Kennedy) arrested in the largest pre-emptive political arrest of its kind in English history.

16 April 2009: Police Gold Group meet, and their notes open with their mistrust of Cunningham: 'Ian Cunningham, danger environmentally friendly - local CPS reticent' (Rose, para 19). Rose found no evidence to support this. But here we have, right at the outset, a suspicion from the more judgemental officials. You can see a suggestion as to why, when a scapegoat was needed, Cunningham was sacrificed.

27 April 2009: Cunningham said he attended a Gold Group meeting with several senior police and was shown a single piece of paper about Kennedy's involvement and his authorisation. There was no detailed file. (IPCC, para 79). Nick Paul was present (Rose, para 21). Cunningham emails the Senior Investigating Officer the same day saying "we will always be vulnerable on disclosure, especially matters covert" (Rose, para 21). So the SIO knew about disclosure problems already - this isn't Cunningham keeping it to himself, then.

15 May 2009: Another Gold Group meeting takes place. Cunningham says they discussed the use of Kennedy and agree "to have a further meeting with Mr Paul and others who were sighted on the case to discuss what the implications were regarding the use of" Kennedy (IPCC, para 82, my italics). Following the meeting, the Senior Investigating Officer records in his Sensitive File “I believe that the major impact of the UC [undercover] de-brief is that the main organisers of the event are not amongst the scope of the investigation and a high level CPS/police strategy needs to be agreed to shape the future of the investigation” (Rose, para 21: my italics).

This Sensitive File note is more credible than much of the testimony to Rose as it is one of the few contemporaneous notes used, before everyone knew they had to cover their arses by blaming each other. Cunningham would not fit anyone's definition of 'high level CPS,' so this clearly means it was erroneous to mostly blame him. But who from the CPS or elsewhere - 'others sighted on the case' - did actually form the strategy? Nick Paul? Higher still?

28 May 2009: The CPS' Case Management Review Panel meets. Cunningham and at least two lawyers senior to him are present. Cunningham says if a prosecution goes ahead there are likely to be many disclosure issues. (Rose, para 39). Who were the more senior lawyers? They are responsible for any cover-up as well as Cunningham. Indeed, being senior makes them look more culpable.

Early July 2009: A Detective Chief Inspector (DCI) at the undercover police unit NPOIU wants Kennedy not to be charged. Nick Paul overrules it. (Rose, para 24). That's quite a stand to make; clearly Paul feels he has power to shape and control this.

16 June 2009: That planned police/CPS strategy meeting 'to shape the future of the investigation' takes place. (IPCC, para 82). Numerous senior police and Nick Paul are present (Rose, para 35).

17 June 2009: Nick Paul emails Cunningham saying, 'the participating informant may become important if the defence switch tack and choose to run a non political defence'. Cunningham replies that there are 'sensitive disclosure issues' and that he has a meeting the next week (23 June) to carry out the initial evidence sift. (IPCC, para 52).

23 July 2009: The DCI in Kennedy's unit emails Nick Paul to say once again that he doesn't want Kennedy charged, even though the CPS are pressing ahead with it. He also says that the secret police 'have not given the local CPS any details of the asset [Kennedy] but they are aware there is an asset involved'. (Rose, para 24). This not only shows Nick Paul knew what was going on and is pretty much calling the shots but that lower CPS, possibly including Cunningham, had information kept from them.

17 September 2009: The DCI running Kennedy's unit says that, following a meeting at Nottingham CPS between police, Cunningham and Paul on 15th (IPCC, para 54), Det Supt Pearson made an entry in his Sensitive Policy File. ‘Objective review of the evidence by CPS. In essence Stone UCO [undercover officer] was acting lawfully, within the scope of his authorised activity'. (IPCC, para 55)

30 November 2009: The CPS' Case Management Review Panel meets for the second time. Again, Cunningham and at least two lawyers senior to him are present. Cunningham asks what risks there were on the use of Kennedy's intelligence, pointing out that media had reported the police clearly acted on advance information. They discussed "risks regarding the 'right' questions being asked by the defence regarding covert practices". (Rose, para 39).

Again, who were the two senior lawyers? This looks very much like a conspiracy to keep the evidence from the defence and, again, the more senior CPS lawyers surely bear responsibility with Cunningham.

24 June 2010: The CPS' Case Management Review Panel meets for the third time. Again, Cunningham is there discussing the case with at least two more senior lawyers. Still the non-disclosure plan continues. (Rose, para 49).

13 October 2010: Prosecuting barrister in both Ratcliffe trials Felicity Gerry says she met with Cunningham and police at the CPS Complex Crime Unit offices in Nottingham where she was first informed of the existence of the undercover officer by Det Supt Pearson. (IPCC, para 65). So the person leading the prosecution knew, far ahead of formulating her arguments, and for every second she was in court, that evidence was being withheld from the defence.

21 October 2010: Mark Kennedy is exposed as an undercover police officer by activists. Cunningham informs Felicity Gerry the next day (IPCC, para 68).

22 November 2010: The first 20 of the Ratcliffe activists go on trial. Prosecutor Felicity Gerry - who self-defines as 'an entertaining public speaker and a prolific and popular tweeter' - baffled the jury and wider world by asking 'Was it more fun to plan this action or to vote for Zac Goldsmith? Did the defendants do all this because they didn’t have a Glastonbury ticket?' and suggesting it would have been more effective to get Cheryl Cole to speak out about climate change instead.

It seemed bizarre and clueless at the time, and was deservedly mocked. The Zac Goldsmith thing has a particularly hollow ring now we're three years into the betrayal of the 'greenest government ever'. But the serious part is that, knowing that she was aware of Kennedy, and by implication the withheld evidence and the miscarriage of justice she was enacting, from this distance her arguments take on a cynical and sinister tone.

14 December 2010: The 20 are found guilty.

10 January 2011: The trial of a further 6collapses as the CPS refuse to disclose Kennedy's evidence that exonerated them. The CPS immediately begin their cover-up, issuing a statement saying it is not to do with Kennedy.

19 July 2011: The convictions of the 20 arequashed.

3 July 2012: A year later but with the scandal still expanding, the CPS invites another group of activists infiltrated by Kennedy, the Drax 29, to appeal their convictions. They are universally expected to be quashed.


Paragraphs 7-12 of the Rose report list all the materials drawn on. Nick Paul isn't mentioned. The man in the middle of it all, the first person in the CPS to know about Kennedy, who had the power to overrule some very insistent senior police officers, who conspired with Cunningham over 'sensitive disclosure issues', who held the post of Domestic Extremism Co-ordinator, wasn't even interviewed. Why not?

Who were the two senior lawyers on the Case Management Review Panel? Rose concludes they failed 'to sensibly oversee the way in which Mr Cunningham was doing his job as prosecutor' (Rose, para 46). How much did they advise? A mere oversight by two experienced lawyers in the entirety of three meetings over a year? Or were they active in withholding the evidence? Rose does not seem interested in asking. They are one of the main reasons disclosure didn't happen (Rose, para 54) yet they are never named and are seemingly not sanctioned.

In the Rose report's conclusions, despite the damning evidence even from its own limited pool, Rose declared, 'the failures were individual, not systemic'. (Rose, para 53). Yet the report shows the police are desperate to keep the existence of their undercover officers from everyone.

The IPCC concluded that

the dissemination of the sensitive material from the NPOIU [National Public Order Intelligence Unit; the secret police of which Kennedy was a part] through to the police is best described as ad hoc...The transcript should have been fully explained to Nottinghamshire Police with regard to its evidential value... There is no evidence that this conversation took place. (IPCC, para 110)

The secret police are, by definition, mixed up in loads of illegal activity and yet they don't disclose properly to the rest of the police (hence the uniformed grunts nicking Kennedy in the first place) never mind the CPS. If that doesn't fit your definition of 'systemic problem' you need a new dictionary. Even from the scant information in these reports, when you put them together the clear image is one of collusion and cover-up.

And what  did they do to the Prosecuting Barrister Barrister Felicity Gerry  who with held evidence from the defence  and lied to the Court.  In March 2014  they rewarded her with a promotion to Queens Council.  There is no justice !  

Saturday, 12 April 2014

Who killed Peaches Geldof?

Mystery looms around the death of Peaches Geldof.  Did her ties with the Satanic MI5 linked cult  the OTO and the BBC Peadophile Ring cause her untimely death.

Police found "no evidence of hard drugs, no visible signs of injury and no suicide note" at Peaches Kent home. 

Peaches urged her social media followers to learn about the O.T.O, which caused an unprecedented interest in the secret society.

Last year Peaches Geldof elected to join a group of MI5 linked Black Magicians Known as the OTO.  Or Ordo Templi Orientis or Order of Eastern Templars a shadowy cult linked to the iluminati, dark sex magic and child sacrifice. 

The OTO has a history stretching back to the Bavarian illuminati and the dark cult operating inside the Knights Templers which eventually brought them down.   This dark lodge  also inhabits  the Freemasons of today

Like the Freemasons the OTO has many levels  and it is unfortunate for Peaches that she came to know a secret that proved  very dangerous  for her. The dark lodge and the secret group inside this  secret organisaton  used  Ritual Abuse  and child sacrifice as part of their satanic attempts to keep and  gain occult power. 

To be fair on the OTO and their secret power  these occult groups run the banks, the intelligence and security services, Parliament  and most importantly they run the Police and the Courts.

It is not for nothing that the High Court in London is called The Temple. It was the Templers and the Star Chamber who created the system of law  which now  keeps ordinary people in chains and allows the Elite to steal and rape our children, steal the money we earn through taxes  and usury. Throw us in jail for real or imagined transgressions against their every gowning number of oppressive laws.

The murderers of Peaches Geldof are experts at propaganda, as the BBC testifies daily.  They are consummate liars and decievers  and they have almost the entire justice and parliamentary system under their control. From the humblest Police constable to the highest judge in the land.  From the lowest social worker to top bankers  and politicians. Everything neat squared and 'Ordered'

Not that  there arn't innocents who have no idea  who they work for or what the  real agenda is. Provided they keep quiet they will be allowed to slave for the System which destroys their  neighbors .But if they become whistle-blowers  they will be ruthlessly eliminated by any means. Discredited, arrested and harassed, set-up, driven  insane and sectioned under the mental health act and if urgent  or well known murdered.

I learned about these people at my mothers knee because she  was an occultist, worked for SIS and knew Crowley. In 1972 I was sent to Leon Barchinsky  to join the OTO in London.  Unlike what is being lauded they do not take anyone in fact they are extremely  fussy accepting  only people with great proven psychic ability.  Getting an interview  is  only possible by recommendation.

There are of course periphery  groups who worship the great beast Crowley  and study Crowley's books. Such books as the 'Book of Law' a masterpeice in deception which tells the truth then  twists it. eg "Love is the law" and the twist "Love under will"  They worship the Whore Babylon and eagerly await her return. They are out and out Lucifarians  with a veneer of intellectualism. Clever manipulators the leaders draw in  unwary acolytes whom they  want only  to suck  their energy.  Crowley’s texts also contain several thinly veiled allusions to human ritual sacrifice  to attain magical potency.

Peaches  was never admitted to the OTO inner sanctum  but she was I hear  in a periphery group   This was a young woman who would not have  watched a baby or young boy  being sacrificed on an alter whilst the adults drunk the child's blood from a golden cup and then had sex. All  in the name of gaining ultimate power and keeping  every man woman, child and creature in perpetual slavery.

But Peaches found out enough to spell her death sentence. She was involved in exposing pedophiles. The police even threatened her for exposing the women who gave up their babies to evil paedophile  Ian Watkins from Lost Prophets  and started an investigation against her!. The Attorney General said a possible criminal offence had been committed. What! The power mad people at it again! 

Peaches was a  loose cannon she could not  and would not keep quiet about the sexual abuse and murder of babies and children. Expect  they  will come up with some twaddle  to explain he death.

Celebrities dabble with the occult and keep secret knowledge about the dark occult groups who control the world at their peril because celebrities are listened to.  They should tell no-one at all or tell everyone immediately.  

Better tell what you suspect and what you know Bob.

In memory of Peaches Geldof, Princess Diana, Jill Dando, Gareth WIlliams and all the whistle blowers dead and alive.

Crowley's Background as a Spy   from the book 'Agent 666'

As a young man Crowley belonged to a right-wing, semi-secret society called the Primrose League that spied on the perceived enemies of the Conservative Party. He also supported the Jacobite cause and was involved in plans for an abortive coup to restore the Bourbon royal dynasty in Spain. 
      Spence claims that Crowley was involved in spying missions to the court of the Russian Tsar and may have only joined the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn to investigate the shadowy political activities of its leader, Samuel ‘McGregor’ Mathers.
      In the 1900s Crowley had a homosexual affair with the poet Victor Neuberg. The couple decamped to North Africa to practise sex magic rituals using Dr. John Dee’s Enochian system to summon up demons. While they were staying in Algeria, Crowley and Neuberg were being closely watched by the local French colonial police. They believed the Great Beast was on a secret mission in North Africa to gather information for British Intelligence, using his magical operations as a cover.
      In 1910 Crowley met a German occultist called Karl Theodor Reuss, the head of an occult secret society called the (OTO). Reuss was a Freemason, an Illuminati and a Rosicrucian who had worked for the Prussian secret police in the 1880s. On their orders he had travelled to London and infiltrated the Socialist League, an extreme left-wing group led by the daughter of Karl Marx. 

 When Reuss was exposed, he returned to Germany and, posing as a journalist, visited the Balkans and the Middle East as a spy for German Intelligence. In 1912 Reuss initiated Crowley into the OTO and made him the head of the Order in Britain and later America.
      Around the same time as he joined the OTO, it is alleged that Crowley was using his connection with Reuss to spy on the German government. However, when World War I began in 1914 Crowley was living in the United States. There he posed as an Irish revolutionary to infiltrate pro-German groups and engage in black propaganda on behalf of Britain’s SIS (Secret Intelligence Service or MI6) or the NID (Naval Intelligence Department). 
      Crowley’s cover story was assisted by stories planted in British newspapers denouncing him as a pro-German traitor and the police raided his magical temple in London.
      In World War II Crowley allegedly offered his services again to the NID. In the 1930s he became friendly with Maxwell Knight, the assistant director of the Security Service (MI5), Ian Fleming, the assistant-director of Naval Intelligence who later penned the James Bond spy novels, and Dennis Wheatley, the occult thriller writer who served on Winston Churchill’s top-secret planning committee for total warfare. 
          When war broke out in 1939, Spence says that Crowley was interviewed by the NID and in his diary he recorded that the meeting went “as satisfactory as could be expected.” 
          When a combined NID/SIS sting operation managed to lure the top Nazi Rudolf Hess to Britain on his ill-fated ‘peace mission’ in 1941, Commander Ian Fleming of NID suggested to his superiors that he should be interviewed by Crowley. It is claimed in this book that Crowley did in fact interview Hess several times at a secret MI5 interrogation centre at Ham Common in south London. 
      Coincidentally this was not far from where Crowley was living at the time in Kew after leaving Central London to escape the Blitz.
      In writing this book Richard Spence found it difficult to get official confirmation of Crowley’s career as a secret agent and spy. He made enquiries to MI5 and MI6 and was met with denials. 
      At first MI5 said they had no files on Crowley until Spence found a reference to the Great Beast in a document from the 1930s in the Public Records Office. When he told MI5 of the discovery they apologised for misleading him and admitted they did once have a file, but it had been destroyed in the 1950s. 
      Subsequently Spence found evidence of a second MI5 file dating from 1943 and was told that too had been destroyed “some years ago.” Allegedly, there was also a Scotland Yard file on Crowley and three files exist in the Foreign Office relating to his activities from 1906 to 1919.
      Although the FBI denied having any information, several files mentioning Crowley were disclosed to Spence under the auspices of the US Freedom of Information Act. Also both US Military Intelligence and the Justice Department were aware of Crowley’s status as a British agent in World War I. 
      In fact Crowley was investigated and it was noted that his pro-German propaganda work was known to and had been approved by the British government. Crowley, in his role as a British intelligence officer, had also passed information on the activities of Theodor Reuss of the OTO to the deputy attorney general of the State of New York.
      Richard Spence’s book is a well-researched and fascinating account of the clandestine links between occultists and the secret intelligence services of Britain, Europe and the United States. 
      Crowley was not the only occult personality of his era to be recruited as a secret agent. However, his long and varied career serving Britain in that role and the extensive links he had with other occultists and the members of secret societies and magical groups makes him totally unique in this respect.
      Secret Agent 666 is highly recommended to anyone seriously interested in the tangled web of connections between the occult, parapolitics and the secret world of espionage. It exposes a shadowy underworld that is generally hidden from the public eye, where political conspiracies, intrigue and occultism are mixed together in an unholy alliance.

This article is inaccurate but highlights  the propaganda

Friday, 11 April 2014

Chief Constable Andy Marsh covered-up child abuse

Hampshire Chief constable Andy Marsh accused over investigation into Stanbridge Earls School
Daily Echo: Chief constable Andy MarshChief constable Andy Marsh
THE Daily Echo can today reveal the full explosive details of an investigation into Hampshire’s top police officer.
The chief constable of Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary, Andy Marsh, is facing a police probe from a separate force into claims he ordered a whitewash over the failure of police investigations into shocking sex abuse allegations at a Hampshire special school.
He is also accused of breaching confidentiality and contempt of court in connection with the same inquiry.
The complaints centre on Hampshire police’s investigation into allegations that a girl was raped and other pupils were sexually abused at the former Stanbridge Earls School nearRomsey, which closed last year.
The full extent of the inquiry into Mr Marsh can be revealed for the first time today after the details of Essex Police’s investigation – named Operation Oregon – were leaked to the Daily Echo.
Their investigation is being carried out on behalf of Hampshire’s Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) Simon Hayes – which is understood to be the first time a UK PCC has ordered a probe of its own chief constable.
The document shows how Mr Marsh is being probed over NINE complaints.

• A failure to undertake a thorough investigation into the sexual abuse of vulnerable pupils.These include:
• As a result, a failure to protect a vulnerable child from harm.
• Giving “instructions” to officers that were designed to “mislead” parents of alleged victims.
• Leaking details of alleged victims.
Some of these relate to Operation Flamborough – an inquiry set up by Hampshire police after claims Stanbridge Earls failed to properly protect a vulnerable child who claimed to have been raped by fellow pupils.
Mr Marsh is being investigated over claims he told his boss, Mr Hayes pictured right, that the operation was “established to protect Hampshire Constabulary’s reputation”.
He is also facing claims that he leaked details of a criminal investigation and details of alleged rape victims to Caroline Nokes, the MP for Romsey and Southampton North, as well as to Hampshire County Council.
There is no suggestion that the authority or Mrs Nokes are under investigation.
The probe also focuses on whether officers from Hampshire police were instructed to “mislead” parents of alleged victims into thinking Operation Flamborough was an investigation into the sexual abuse of children.
When the Daily Echo revealed last year that Mr Marsh was under investigation, spokesmen from Hampshire Constabulary and Mr Hayes’s office said they were aware of a complaint that had been made and that it would be inappropriate to comment further.
As previously reported by the Daily Echo, a Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal found last year that the £39,000-a-year school had discriminated against a girl and that staff members failed to tell the youngster’s parents that she had complained of pain in an intimate part of her body.
The tribunal found that a vulnerable youngster had suffered “appalling abuse” at the hands of another student, while the school was slammed by panel members for being “unsystematic, unprofessional, ad hoc and completely inadequate” when it came to protecting the youngster.
Part of Operation Flamborough was to involve an internal inquiry into whether police involved in previous investigations into sex abuse claims at the school should be disciplined.
Mr Marsh was appointed in January last year to take over as chief constable from Alex Marshall – the same time that details first came to light of allegations that a vulnerable teenager had been groomed and sexually abused at Stanbridge Earls.
Mr Marsh joined Hampshire Constabulary as deputy chief constable in July 2010. When approached by the Daily Echo, Mrs Nokes, pictured left, said she did not intend to comment on the issue and had referred our questions to Essex Police.
A Hampshire County Council spokesman said: “We can confirm that we are aware of Operation Oregon, but are not able to provide any further comments – which should be sought from Essex Constabulary who are undertaking the investigation.”
Daily Echo: Female staff at troubled school watch boys rock climb naked
Ongoing Controversey
THE revelations are the latest twist in the on-running controversy surrounding Stanbridge Earls.
Details came to light in January 2013 of allegations that a vulnerable teenager had been groomed and sexually abused by another student.
A Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal report said systems which should have protected the girl were “unsystematic, unprofessional, ad hoc and completely inadequate”.
Head teacher Peter Trythall was accused of “a failure of responsibility”.
The report described how the girl went to school staff and it became clear she had been involved in a sexual encounter. Her parents were not informed, and only found out when she told them at a later date.
In the months that followed, the Department of Education called the standard of care at the school “shockingly poor”, but Ofsted bosses had to take disciplinary action against some of their own staff after admitting mistakes were made while investigating the school.
Meanwhile, Hampshire police had set up Operation Flamborough to find out whether there had been “further criminal offences” at the school.
Later, an Independent Police Complaints Commission investigation began into complaints made to Hampshire police concerning their conduct over the abuse allegations.
In August last year, the Daily Echo revealed that chief constable Andy Marsh was under investigation.
The school closed when too few pupils were signed up for the next school year.
Daily Echo: Caroline NokesCaroline Nokes
The Accusations
IN A letter entitled “Operation Oregon – an investigation into your complaints against Chief Constable Andy Marsh”, Essex Police chief constable Stephen Kavanagh sets out the details of the probe.
Names of people involved have been changed to B, C and D to protect the identities of those
The letter, which is dated October 17 and headed with the Essex Police logo, sets out how it is
alleged that the chief constable of Hampshire Constabulary:
• Himself disclosed, and/or authorised or instructed a police officer serving with Hampshire
Constabulary to disclose, details of a criminal investigation, specifically details of a victim of alleged rape and/or sexual abuse and other personal data to third parties including; Caroline Nokes, Member of Parliament for Romsey and Southampton North, and Hampshire County Council. It is alleged that in doing so the Chief Constable; (1) breached the complainants’ and, where
applicable, their child’s right to confidentiality, (2) breached the Data Protection Act 1998, and (3) is in contempt of court.
• Prevented a Section 47 of the Children Act 1998 investigation without evaluating the risk to children involved.
• Concealed information from B’s child’s placing authority without evaluating the risk to the child.
• Gave instructions to officers which were designed to mislead two of the complainants, B and C, into thinking that Operation Flamborough was an investigation into the sexual abuse of children, when in fact merely represented a “strategy discussion” to prevent “negative publicity”.
• Informed the PCC that Operation Flamborough was established to protect Hampshire Constabulary’s reputation.
• Ignored his primary duties regarding investigating crime to the detriment of vulnerable children.
• Did not ensure that Operation Flamborough was a thorough investigation into the sexual abuse of female pupils and as a consequence D’s vulnerable child came to harm.
• Failed to protect D’s child from sexual abuse as a direct consequence of his actions.
• Breached C’s role as a possible witness.

Monday, 7 April 2014

Links: Jill Dando, Madaline McCann, Operation Yewtree, Operation Fernbridge and spy in a bag murder

EX Detective Chief Superintendent Hamish Campbell from the disgraced Metropolitan Police, was  'a safe pair of hands' placed in charge of the disastrous investigation into the murder of Jill Dando.
These are the people who cynically cover-up murders and child abuse. The spend protected lives and make fortunes from the Tax Payers. With out these evil men who pervert the course of justice and set-up innocents to protect murderers Britain would be a safe place to live.  TIME THEY WERE ARRESTED THEMSELVES FOR PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE

Even the most bumbling of detectives would have realised that Jill had been killed in a contract-style hit.
She was pushed to the floor and shot in the head.
The gun used had been fitted with a silencer.
The hitman was well-dressed and was liaising, via mobile phones, with the driver of a metallic blue Range Rover.
The hitman had expert knowledge of ballistics and forensic evidence.
Jill Dando was allegedly investigating claims of a vile paedophile ring linked to Jimmy Savile, the BBC and beyond.
Her high-profile death may have been a warning to other journalists to keep quiet.
Hamish Campbell ignored all of these blindingly obvious clues and did something stupid.
He arrested a vulnerable loner called Barry George.
Barry George, the victim of a police and State contrived media witch-hunt  was eventually imprisoned for eight years.  The Police regularly briefed the media about how innocent Barry  was the man.
Eventually  after 8 long years in Prison and the destruction of his life and loss of all his property Barry George was released on appeal and cleared of the murder. Did Hamish Campbell apologize no he and the State  continued to pursue their victim  and deny him  compensation for 8 years  wrongful imprisonment. 
Was Hamish Campbell reprimanded for his stupidity in getting the wrong man ?
Not at all.
Hamish Campbell has risen through police ranks.
Hamish Campbell was placed in charge  of  the 'review' of the  Madaline Mc Cann disaster.
Despite his monumental cock-ups Hamish Campbell  was also placed in charge of Operation Yewtree  which is allegedly investigating child-abuse allegations relating to none other than Jimmy Savile, the BBC and beyond. He was also once in charge of Operation Fernbridge. 
This beggars belief.
Hamish Campbell  56  has now moved  to Jamaica  following his retirement of full police pension from the Met  to  head an inquiry into why at least one person a day is shot by police.  Police claim they are criminals. The people claim the police shoot anyone who might interfere with their own criminal enterprises. Well the Gvt of Jamaica chose the right man for the Job he is used to heading cover-up's
After 40 people were killed in October last year, Mr Campbell¿s watchdog held a press conference to express concerns about the wave of shootings, which only merited three paragraphs in a leading local newspaper
Is there something we should know about DSC Hamish Campbell? 
With thanks to the coleman experience  for the story

Sunday, 6 April 2014

Jimmy Savile sex abuse: 'Islington is still covering up'

Two decades on from her expose of sexual abuse in children's homes, Eileen Fairweather talks to the survivors too scared to go public

Michael Gove has asked Islington Council for details of child abuse in the Seventies and Eighties, a scandal after which it shredded every incriminating file, sacked whistleblowers and smeared victims as mentally ill
Michael Gove has asked Islington Council for details of child abuse in the Seventies and Eighties, a scandal after which it shredded every incriminating file, sacked whistleblowers and smeared victims as mentally ill Photo: Alamy
The man’s messages to the little girl sounded sweet. He reminded her that he was the friendly volunteer from the hospital, said he missed his poppet and hoped she’d write back. I found his messages online in a forum abroad for sick children. I don’t know if the child replied to him, and cannot now check, because the disease that hospitalised her has killed her. But I desperately hoped she never answered – this cheery guy is an alleged serial child rapist.
This has been claimed by three traumatised women who once lived in a now-notorious Islington children’s home. The man was allowed to take them for “outings” to the park and an Islington worker’s nearby flat. There he allegedly abused them while the others were forced to watch. The youngest was five. The man is also suspected of procuring little girls from the home for Jimmy Savile.
Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, announced in the Commons last month that the Metropolitan Police has identified 21 special schools and children’s homes in which Savile preyed on youngsters. Mr Gove named most, but said that the Islington home’s identity is unknown. I know its name, and suspect that Islington Council guesses it. Mr Gove trustingly asked the north-London council, exposed in the 1990s for employing paedophiles, pimps and child pornographers at all 12 of its children’s homes, to identify it. But how can Islington be trusted to uncover its own cover-up?
The supposed mystery stems from a much larger cover-up by the then-Labour authority to protect the liberty of the evil and the reputations of the ambitious. Children – including dying little girls – are still in danger because few of the scores of perverts who infiltrated Islington’s care system between the Seventies and the Nineties have been brought to justice.
Instead, Islington shredded every incriminating file, sacked whistleblowers and smeared victims as mentally ill.
I worked on the London Evening Standard investigation that first exposed the Islington scandal. Along with a colleague, Stewart Payne, I spent three months in 1992 secretly interviewing terrified whistleblowing staff, parents and children before the newspaper published a damning investigation. It was promptly attacked by then-council leader Margaret Hodge as a “sensationalist piece of gutter journalism”. We were falsely accused of bribing children to make up their heartbreaking stories. Mrs Hodge has since apologised and explained that her officials lied to her.
But the Standard’s then editor, the late Stewart Steven, proved indomitable. He funded us to keep digging – for three long years.
The Standard’s dossiers of evidence generated 13 independent inquiries and won two British Press awards. The final, damning Ian White Report in 1995 responded to the newspaper’s 112-page dossier of evidence. Parents, children and staff reiterated to White the paper’s allegations – including that violent pimps openly collected children from the home, and were even allowed by staff to stay overnight in children’s rooms.
White, then director of Oxfordshire social services, confirmed that Islington allowed at least 26 workers facing “extremely serious allegations” to leave its employ without investigation. Staff accused of everything from rape to child prostitution had been allowed to resign, often with good references. He described Islington as a “classic study” in how paedophiles target children, aided by the council’s naive interpretation of gay rights. “Equal opportunities… became a positive disincentive for challenge to bad practice… and a great danger”.
He called for the 26 staff to be barred from childcare and investigated further, naming them in a confidential annexe. But almost none were. As the scandal raged, Islington destroyed records. Ian White confirmed that “this happened at assistant-director level”. He “found no evidence of collusion”. But he was not allowed to question Islington’s assistant director Lyn Cusack, or her staff.
Mrs Cusack was married to a local senior police officer, Detective Superintendent Don McKay. She resigned in November 1993, citing personal reasons. Days earlier, the Standard had alerted the Social Services Inspectorate to Islington losing evidence requested by three different police forces investigating child sex rings, and the linked Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE).
Islington was deeply influenced by and had many connection to the Paedophile Information Exchange. In the fatally na├»ve 1970s to mid 80s, PIE openly campaigned for sex to be legalised with children from age four, and for incest and child pornography to be legalised. The National Council for Civil Liberties - now Liberty - allowed it to affiliate and its then legal officer Harriet Harman wrote a paper effectively backing some PIE demands. The assumption in those “progressive” days was that paedophiles simply loved children and wanted to “liberate” their sexuality.
Mrs Harman, whose role has been exposed in recent media stories, has described Margaret Hodge as her best friend in Parliament. Mrs Hodge’s late husband, Henry Hodge, also an Islington Labour councillor, earlier chaired the National Council for Civil Liberties. It is unknown if they ever discussed PIE.
In 1985, Mrs Hodge announced that Islington Council would positively discriminate in favour of gay staff. It exempted self-declared gay men from background checks, and paedophiles pretending to be decent gay men cynically exploited this. It emerged that Islington deputy superintendent Michael Taylor was in PIE after he received a four-year prison sentence in July 2000 for abusing two boys at Islington’s Gisburne House in the Seventies.
PIE founding member, Peter Righton, then Britain’s top “expert” on children’s homes, had even founded a training course for residential workers. Paedophilia, he declared in one essay, was “no more bizarre than a penchant for redheads”.
At least one Islington abuse victim was placed – by a key member of the Islington abuse ring, Nick Rabet – at a special boarding school outside London with which Righton was closely involved. The victim haltingly disclosed his abuse to his Islington social worker, who was deeply concerned. But in 1989, the social worker vanished, supposedly carrying the victim’s files under his arm. When the Standard asked questions about the school, Islington denied ever sending any child there. It also lied about this to police.
The White Report said that the social worker’s disappearance should be investigated by police. But it never was. This recommendation was redacted from the censored version of the report that Islington published last year. But I still have the original and live in hope of one day tracing that social worker. My understanding is that he was “heavied” and fled abroad.
Police and social services inquiries into PIE were also abruptly shut down. This led to the senior child protection manager bravely blowing the whistle in 2012 to Tom Watson, whose PMQ about an establishment paedophile ring leading to No 10 silenced the Commons. PIE supplied children from homes to wealthy establishment figures. It was the ultimate cross-party crime, which many wanted buried.
Sue Akers was a detective inspector and head of Islington police’s Child Protection Team at the scandal’s height. I begged her to study the paper’s evidence and place a believed child brothel under surveillance. But she refused to meet me. The failure of Islington police to act on intelligence provided by a terrified 13-year-old who admitted recruiting dozens of named children for three pimps was criticised by a secret 1993 inquiry into “Boy A”. But it was suppressed. Akers became a deputy assistant commander, responsible for all Metropolitan Police child-abuse investigations.
Hodge’s successor, Derek Sawyer, ran the council between 1992 and 1994, when the abuse inquiries were set up, and became head of police and probation bodies, and chairman of the London Courts Board. In 2010, Sawyer’s partner in an international education business, Derek Slade, was imprisoned for 21 years for brutally abusing 12 boys at St George’s boarding school in Suffolk. There is no suggestion that Mr Sawyer knew his friend was a paedophile.
As the Islington scandal dragged on, many of the alleged offenders simply moved abroad to prey on even poorer children. Like Jimmy Savile – and the Joker, as I have come to think of the hospital volunteer I mentioned earlier – some accessed children through charity work.
For legal reasons we are unable to name the Joker and have concealed identifying details. The allegations against him were never examined, and it is possible that they are false or result from the confused memories of young children. The Standard was similarly unable at first to name any of the alleged child abusers on Islington’s payroll. But that changed when key ringleaders were arrested abroad. Astonishingly, so-called Third World police managed what Britain’s finest could not.
Nicholas John Rabet, former deputy superintendent of Islington’s home at 114 Grosvenor Avenue, was charged in Thailand in 2006 with abusing 30 local boys – the youngest was six – and killed himself. I was finally able to describe his role in a nationwide child pornography ring serving wealthy British paedophiles; while ex-Cambridgeshire DC Peter Cook went on the record about how police inquiries here were mysteriously closed down.
The arrest and death of fellow ringleader Bernie Bain, former superintendent of Islington’s home at 1 Elwood Street, made it possible to name him. Bain abused numerous boys in his care, including Demetrious Panton, whom Margaret Hodge secretly branded “extremely disturbed” to BBC bosses in an attempt to halt a documentary on what she knew of the scandal. Mr Panton – now a lawyer – forced her to apologise for this cruel slur in the High Court.
Bain left Islington’s employ after Mr Panton, aged 11, revealed his abuse, which the council – influenced by PIE-type thinking – decided was “consensual”. The young victim spent the Eighties writing to Hodge’s councillors protesting otherwise. But Bain was left free to become a millionaire through a mysterious travel company. After the Standard started publishing, he fled to Morocco and was imprisoned there in 1996 for abusing children. He killed himself in 2000.
Detective Chief Superintendent John Sweeney, who took over Islington police’s child protection team after the scandal was exposed, traced long-ignored victims. He told me: “When I first learnt about the homes, I thought it couldn’t possibly be that bad. But it was worse.”
In the years since the White Report of 1995, more victims and abusers have come to light. However, Islington’s wholesale destruction of key files has enabled the council to avoid responsibility. I was asked in 2009 to help a solicitor representing one of Bain’s victims, who now suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder. Islington denied that this person was in their care as a child, and even that they ever employed Bain. The basis of their denial? They had no records for either.
Mr Panton revealed last week: “Just yesterday, I made a witness statement on behalf of someone who was also horribly abused by Bain. I knew him as a kid and his life and health have been destroyed by what happened to him. But Islington has denied any responsibility. So Islington is still covering up.”
I tracked down the Joker last autumn after I was given his details by someone who helped expose the scandal. I have known Shelley, as I shall call her, for many years and trust her forensic mind. She is concerned with protecting his three alleged victims as they remain traumatised. She knew nothing about the girls’ sufferings until Karen, the eldest, broke down and blurted out their story.
They were not yet ready, she said, to talk to the press or police. Many abuse survivors can only reveal what they suffered bit by bit – some suffer a self-protective partial amnesia. One was buggered at just five years old. I asked Shelley if it was possible she was being spun a fantasy. But she remembered the girl from care, and other details about what had occurred there.
Today Shelley has a good job, as does Karen. “Karen is very smart and sophisticated. But when she told me what happened, she fell apart. It was like she’d ripped off a scab. Afterwards she spent the day in bed, just crying.”
It is understood that, as adults in the early Noughties, two of the Joker’s alleged victims contacted the council, hoping for justice; that the council awarded them a smallish sum in compensation; and informed them the man had moved abroad and police could not find him.
Did Islington even alert police? It took me just two days to find him. I wept when I realised that he was accessing terminally ill children in an impoverished country. I discovered from his messages that the expat seemed lonely and kind. He wore funny hats to cheer up the children.
As a volunteer, he now visited them in hospital and at their homes. One unsuspecting mother said he was like a caring older relative in their time of need, and even invited him to stay. I found a photo of him at one hospital. I showed it to Shelley. She wasn’t taken in by his friendly grin: “That’s him. God, he’s ugly.”
When I learnt about the Joker, I spoke to Liz Davies, the former Islington senior social worker who blew the whistle on perverts targeting the council’s homes. Dr Davies is now Reader in Social Work at London Metropolitan University. I asked her how anyone could abuse a dying child. “Dead children can’t give evidence,” said Dr Davies. “There’s a training DVD about it. Some paedophiles target them.”
A reporter anonymously admitted last year that he had found Jimmy Savile on a mattress at the BBC with a little girl. She was bald, a cancer victim at Stoke Mandeville Hospital, where Savile “volunteered”. Savile hissed that if the reporter told anyone, his career was over. The reporter stayed silent.
Karen told Shelley: “None of us talked much as kids about what was being done to us… we felt ashamed. But the other girls mentioned being required to travel in Jimmy Savile’s taxis.”
Savile’s charity projects included ferrying disadvantaged children in taxis to places like Blackpool Pleasure Beach. At least one Islington survivor recalls being taken there by his abuser.
Child protection investigators have long been aware that corrupt taxi drivers are commissioned by paedophiles to transport children: “kids on wheels”, it has been called. One taxi driver was imprisoned in 1990 for prostituting boys. The same year, the Islington Gazette proudly recorded Jimmy Savile’s visit to open the council’s new housing complex for disabled people. The story focused on the likes of a three-year-old with cerebral palsy and a paralysed woman who had been at Stoke Mandeville.
Once this story is published, Shelley and I will give police the information we have. But she and the victims do not feel able to confide in police without the protection of media coverage.
What is certain is that neither these victims nor any others have much trust in Islington Council coming clean with the name of the home where abuse took place, as requested by Mr Gove. This is because the current Islington cabinet member with responsibility for children and family services is Joe Caluori – the son-in-law of Margaret Hodge.
Mr Panton said: “Do I think it is right that Margaret Hodge’s son-in-law now has this key position? Of course not. He may be a fine councillor, but I would think it is better that he is not in this position, given the association. While the politicians of the Eighties have moved on, their influence is still highly visible. It cannot be appropriate for any inquiry into this matter to be overseen by this MP’s relative.”
Mr Panton believes that “an independent police investigation into Islington is crucial. I know many abuse survivors who have not yet contacted Islington or the police. There is a real lack of trust – it is hard to tell your story when you risk being disbelieved or attacked.”
The whistleblower Dr Davies adds: “I think there could be more than one home with Savile connections. Children from Islington’s home at 114 Grosvenor Avenue were taken to Jersey by Rabet, and Savile visited Jersey’s Haut de la Garenne home. Survivors of abuse there have described being taken to an Islington children’s home.”