AN ELITE PAEDO RING AND THE ABUSE OF CHILDREN IN THE NORTH WALES ‘CARE’ SYSTEM.

Organised paedophilia is happening on a global scale that staggers the imagination. My research is concentrated in the North Wales region.

“The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists.” ~J. Edgar Hoover

On 9/11/2012 ‘Care’ home CSA victim Steve Messham famously said “After seeing a picture in the past hour of the individual concerned, this [is] not the person I identified by photograph presented to me by the police in the early 1990s, who told me the man in the photograph was Lord McAlpine.”

David Rose co-wrote a Daily Mail article on 13/11/12. It was a defamatory hatchet job on Steve Messham, and was in stark contrast to an article which was co-written by David Rose for the Observer back in September 1992 whereby Messham’s testimony did not come into question. Why the about turn?

In the Mail article it is stated: “Of all the allegations made by Messham and others, it was the heinous accusations against Lord McAlpine that were the most sensational. These claims were aired in detail at the Waterhouse inquiry, in which the name ‘McAlpine’ was raised.”

Indeed they were. The North Wales child abuse scandal was the subject of a three-year, £13 million investigation into the physical and sexual abuse of children in ‘care’ homes in North Wales, including the Bryn Estyn children's home at Wrexham. This child abuse investigation was considered to be the biggest ever held in Britain. The report into the scandal, headed by retired High Court judge Sir Ronald Waterhouse QC was published in 2000. Sir Ron had been unable to ascertain who had told Steve that one of his abusers was Lord Alistair McAlpine. That person was a police officer who would, years later, be the cause of the ‘mistaken identity’ furore. Sir Ron’s ‘Lost in Care’ report consists of 893 pages, yet there is no mention at all of the police officer who had shown Steve a photo back in the early 90s of a man that the officer had told him was Lord McAlpine. Why?

The following are some of the questions I ask of Waterhouse:

Why didn’t Waterhouse establish who had interviewed Messham and shown him the photo back in the early 1990s?

Why didn’t Waterhouse establish why that police officer had incorrectly told Messham that the man in the photo was Lord McAlpine?

Why didn’t Waterhouse establish who the man in the photo was?

Why didn’t Waterhouse find out if that photo is still in existence?

Why didn’t Waterhouse state exactly when this police officer had shown Messham the photo which we are told was ‘back in the early 1990s’?

Why didn’t Waterhouse outline what action was taken as a result of Messham’s interview by the police at that time?

Why didn’t Waterhouse establish who the senior police officer was who had received the ‘5 or 6 dozen’ explicit photos of Steve and other boys being sodomized by their abusers that Steve Messham had handed to police when he was 16 years old? Why didn’t Waterhouse state the exact date of this occurrence? Why didn’t he name the senior interviewing officers who would have interviewed him at that time? Why isn’t a summary of that interview and the outcome of it outlined in the Waterhouse report? Why didn’t Waterhouse establish whether or not said photos were still in existence, and if they weren’t, who had given the order for them to be shredded?

All of this and more is addressed in great detail further on.

But first, Richard Webster. According to him, “‘Darren Laverty,’ he said, ‘was a key, high-profile witness at the Waterhouse inquiry. He was never sexually abused but his evidence could corroborate that of those who fell victim to the paedophiles working at and visiting the homes’ [italics added].” http://www.richardwebster.net/print/xfileon4.htm For more on Darren Laverty, see http://sharonkilby.co.uk/site/DARREN_LAVERTY.php

Now, take a look at this website https://secretofbrynestyn.wordpress.com/ which purports to be “Setting The Story Straight” about Bryn Estyn and a V.I.P paedophile ring. Straightaway I noticed there is nothing on there about the author – not even a name. Then I noticed that if you take a look at the Home [introduction] page, you find that everything written under the August 18, 2013 TRUESTORIES Abuse, BrynEstyn, FalseAllegations, Waterhouse,Wrexham titles doesn’t correspond with the individual titles and is just a repeat of the contents of the Home page. Now take a look at the titles under ‘POSTS’, again these are all just copy/pasted articles from the Home Page. These are signs of a shill site.

It looks like the author of this site is Richard Webster. One clue is that the article on Angus Stickler https://secretofbrynestyn.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/angus-stickler/ is an exact copy of the article on Webster’s site http://www.richardwebster.net/print/xfileon4.htm Other articles are also copy/pasted from the same site or from Webster’s book which is advertised in the reviews section:

The Secret of Bryn Estyn The Making of a Modern Witch Hunt by RICHARD WEBSTER SHORTLISTED FOR THE ORWELL PRIZE The Orwell Press Hardcover 2005

The reviews page has a collection of fawning admiration and gushing accolades from the well-heeled British gentry. These comments and some of the “Readers Write” comments have been taken from the richardwebster.net blog. [Others commenting are Laverty and Zoompad.]

Why isn’t it made clear on the ‘Secret of Bryn Estyn – Setting The Story Straight’ blog who the author is? Since Webster died in June 2011 someone else has obviously been managing the blog. There could be various contributors; and if that’s the case, I would hazard a guess that one of them is Darren Laverty.

Here http://www.spiked- online.com/review_of_books/article/6161#.VJlZWsgo it is stated: “The bare bones of the Bryn Estyn story, also supplied on the Orwell Press website...” Presumably that reference is to the ‘Setting The Story Straight’ site, as it is stated on the above link: “See the Orwell Press website. The Orwell Press is Richard Webster’s own imprint.” Now, notice Webster got shortlisted for the Orwell Prize. Jeesh, it doesn’t get any more in your face than that!

Richard Webster gets his book published; it gets heavily promoted and is praised to the hilt by high society ... it’s so good it’s in line for the Orwell Prize ... and it earns Webster a lot of money. Folks, Richard Webster is just another fully paid up establishment rat bastard. Real opposition do NOT get recognised for their good works. We get persecuted to hell instead. More on Webster throughout this PDF.

The following [from the above link] is taken from ‘Spiked’, entitled ‘The making of a modern-day witch hunt’ dated January 2009, and written by Jennie Bristow. It was not endorsed by Angus James who was the editor of Spiked but who had died – in suspicious circumstances - in September 1996. [Angus James was the co-founder of Scallywag Magazine http://scallywagarchive.info/ together with his half brother Simon Regan, now also deceased]. My comments, as always, are in red. I quote: “This triggered the largest child abuse investigation in Britain, which used a novel method of police investigation: trawling former residents of care homes for retrospective allegations. This method means that, instead of acting upon allegations of abuse made spontaneously by individuals, the police contacted those who were resident at the care home at the time of the alleged abuse.

The story became a national scandal. A senior police officer Former North Wales Police superintendent Gordon Anglsea, publicly accused of raping adolescent boys at Bryn Estyn, sued two national newspapers, a magazine and a television company for libel and won. This is dealt with in detail further on. However, rumours of a cover-up persisted; and in 1996 the then Tory government set up the largest Tribunal of Inquiry in British history, under Sir Ronald Waterhouse. In February 2000, the Tribunal made damning findings of extensive abuse in North Wales – although it did not find evidence of a police cover-up. Scallywag says: “The fact that the Waterhouse report went as far as it did is highly commendable, and obviously long overdue. But the trouble with any investigation which tries to break through a ‘cult of silence’ is the lingering doubts that it will ever get down to the whole full truth of the matter. Waterhouse is probably merely the tip of the iceberg.” [See my PDF ‘Digging into Jimmy’s socks’ http://sharonkilby.co.uk/site/DIGGING_INTO_JIMMYS_SOCKS.php By then the police trawling operation which had begun there had spread to the whole of Britain. Police forces collected allegations against 5,000 former care workers and teachers, and hundreds were arrested. This is another brilliant psy-op from the Masonic PTB. I don’t actually believe that any such ‘trawling’ happened. I think we’re being subjected to spin by the Masonic propaganda machine. But if it did occur, then since any police operation is authorised by high level Masonic powers in the police, we have to ask who authorised ‘trawling’? If it did happen the person[s] behind that devious and deceitful and criminally abhorrent waste of taxpayer’s money should be named and shamed and locked up for a very long time.

This is what the Waterhouse report states re Bryn Estyn [p84]: “In the course of our inquiry we ascertained that about 140 former residents of Bryn Estyn between 1974 and 1984 were known to have made allegations that physical and/or sexual abuse upon them had occurred whilst they had been resident there. About one half of this number complained of sexual abuse and ultimately we received in evidence the testimony of 48 of them, 25 of whom gave oral evidence before us and were subjected to cross-examination. Of the 21 other potential witnesses, many were untraceable and several were unwilling to give evidence before the Tribunal for a variety of reasons. We are aware, however, of the identities of the persons against whom their complaints were directed and we are satisfied that the evidence we received from 48 witnesses was fairly representative of the whole spectrum of alleged sexual abuse at Bryn Estyn during the relevant ten years.” So nothing at all to support ‘trawling’ there.

On p20 of the Waterhouse report: “It is appropriate to emphasize here the scale of the preparatory work involved. It included consideration of about 9,500 social services files made available to us, perusal of some 3,500 statements to the police made in the course of their own investigations together with many associated documents and the tracing and interviewing of potential witnesses, including those who responded to our public advertisements addressed to everyone who might be able to give relevant evidence.” So where is the evidence of this ‘trawling’ exercise whereby people were contacted [and encouraged to make false allegations of abuse with the reward of easy to claim compensation] just because they were ex residents; as is the suggestion?

What really happened? One purpose of Webster’s book is to conduct his own investigation into the Bryn Estyn affair, providing a powerful counter-narrative to the officially endorsed story of widespread institutional abuse. Webster did not conduct his own investigation. He didn’t investigate anything. He was a puppet for the Masonic controlled Establishment and was paid handsomely for his services. Notice the use of the word story. It isn’t a story. Widespread institutional abuse was proven. The Masonic powers are cleverly trying to kid you that this is just a case of a handful of paedophiles who worked in the ‘care’ system, who have been dealt with appropriately and that there was no cover up. The truth is there was and is a Masonic cover up on every level; paedophilia is institutionalised and organised and it permeates the whole of society, especially the upper echelons. Webster argues that, while there were cases of abuse at Bryn Estyn, and two former members of staff pleaded guilty to physical and sexual abuse respectively, many of the allegations of abuse, and particularly those related to supposed police cover-ups and paedophile rings, simply could not be true. Using an impressive volume of documentation and a tight chronology of events, the book details inconsistencies and implausibilities in many of the allegations, and points out the flaws in official procedures that prevented these from being identified. He concludes that the ‘secret of Bryn Estyn’ is that ‘it was an ordinary community home where the majority of the staff did their best to look after the difficult adolescents in their care’.”

He might have seen an impressive volume of documentation. He didn’t publish any of it though. Why should we take his word for it? He doesn’t show us any official documentation and he throws out quotes willy nilly, without providing the source. He could’ve made the whole thing up.

Also from Spiked: “This investigation is compelling, and at times fascinating. But it is not the most significant aspect of the book. While Webster’s writing skill makes the tome readable, for the masses of ‘ordinary’ people what Webster terms ‘the story of the story’ is ultimately bewildering ...The more persuasive Webster’s version seems, the harder it is to believe that official procedures came to such different conclusions. By page 581, when the appendices start, you are left not really knowing what to believe. Webster’s version may seem persuasive to those who want it to be so. It doesn’t make it the truth. As for the Waterhouse report, the appendices don’t start on p581, they start on p822! As for not knowing what to believe, the report makes it very clear that there was widespread physical and sexual abuse, including buggery, and that almost 200 people were criticised for either abusing children directly or for turning a blind eye and allowing it to continue. I comment on this report throughout this PDF.

But that, in many ways, is the point. For in exposing the difficulties in attempting to prosecute for alleged cases of child abuse that happened in the past, The Secret of Bryn Estyn offers some undeniable truths. The ‘Secret of Bryn Estyn’ does not offer undeniable truths. It offers more propaganda – no different to the mainstream ‘news’papers. Allegations of child abuse, solicited from damaged young men by police officers and social workers actively seeking such allegations, ‘Ordinary’ police officers and social workers would not have been ‘actively seeking allegations’. The Masonic suits are trying to sell this BS to the public should not simply be accepted as matters of fact. Changes in the law, which have sought to make prosecutions for child abuse more efficient and effective, make people highly vulnerable to being convicted as a consequence of false allegations. There’s no evidence of that. What changes is he on about? Our laws are fine; the problem we have is that freemasonry controls the police and judicial system. And these changes have taken place in a climate of insecurity and mistrust, which provides fertile ground for witch hunts of the most dark and dangerous kind. In these circumstances, not knowing what to believe is far preferable to accepting allegation as fact. Note the emotive language – witch hunt. Who coined that phrase? The Masonic supremos. Webster prints what his puppet masters dictate. The men in power want people confused and ‘not knowing’ ... and their population programming and propagandizing is working. Notice the spin at the end of the sentence ... no-one is accepting allegation as fact; the facts have been proven. However the psy op specialists smugly declare that since the police and courts are corrupt, nothing is proven ... More on this ‘miscarriage of justice’ mantra by the paedo protectors coming up.

Major press coverage under the control of the same Masonic PTB who seek to keep a lid on the truth about widespread paedophilia in places of power and authority, with lurid stories of unimaginable horrors allegedly suffered by former care home residents, appeared at the time of the North Wales investigation. The offers of financial compensation to those who had been abused during their time in care could, one would think, easily sway young men with little money at their disposal towards making allegations when they might not otherwise – and how much more so when law firms realise the potential rewards of seeking compensation on behalf of those who could be victims.

All of this creates a situation ripe for false allegations of abuse – which, it should be stressed often does not mean stories that are consciously or systematically made up. False allegations are fundamentally untrue. However, in a climate where individuals are continually confronted with the possibility they may have been abused and the awareness that their peers were allegedly abused, and when they are offered rewards for saying they were abused, they become highly suggestible, to the point where it is possible for them to believe that they were abused by a particular person in a particular way, even if it never happened in reality.

This is especially the case when dealing with such a vulnerable group as the former care home residents in North Wales. For the most part, these were young men with troubled backgrounds, who often ended up in care because of their brushes with the law and gained criminal records when leaving care. The significance of finding oneself suddenly on the other side, treated with respect by the police officers who would normally be arresting you, and hailed as a victim/hero, should not be underestimated. Any lawyer involved in any of this will have been ‘in the Masonic know’ and will have happily accepted dirty money - and as much of it as s/he could solicit. Is there such a thing as an upright solicitor? As for the ex residents, who knows whether or not any of them did make allegations of abuse that were untrue or embellished. And if they did, who knows how many did. We have not seen the evidence for it. Some people might have been persuaded to, for all the reasons highlighted in the above 3 paragraphs. That persuasion will have come from the Masonic suits. More on this below.

This is a clever piece of prose to convince Joe Public that there were isolated cases of abuse which have now been dealt with, as the perps were convicted and jailed. We are led to believe there is no need to look any deeper as people were making allegations left right and centre; just to get easy money. Webster sickeningly tries to show himself in a good light by showing fake sympathy towards these false claimants [if they actually exist], stressing that it is understandable why anyone who grew up in a care home would be tempted to stretch the truth. His facade is transparent. What this evil ‘man’ Webster is actually doing is trivializing the horrific suffering of genuine CSA victims with his slant and his suggestion that someone could imagine that they were abused.

If Webster was a genuine independent researcher he would have found out how many, if any, of the ex residents did receive compensation for making untrue allegations; and if they did, he would have shown us the evidence for it.

But Webster was not genuine, he was a highly paid and massively rewarded institutionalised child abuse denier.

Of course if society was fair and just i.e. if we had no such thing as secret societies, there would probably not be a need for these ‘care’ homes.

What this reveals, Webster argues, is ‘one of the most terrible instances of collective ingratitude’ towards people prepared to help the minority of troubled, abandoned young people our society produces. Webster’s propagandizing has hit new lows. Our society produces troubled and abandoned youngsters [in increasingly greater numbers] because it is unjust and insane. And that is firmly due to the maligning influence of freemasonry. People do not feel ingratitude to any decent person who is doing his/her job. People have an issue with those who commit crimes [and that includes those who cover up crimes] and are not brought to justice. And we have to ask what the general suspicion of care workers does to the young people in their charge. Look how scumbag Webster wants us to focus on ‘ordinary’ care workers. The vast majority of people in these jobs are hardworking, low-paid honest folk who do a good job looking after the people in their care. They do not have intentions of molesting vulnerable children or of abusing anyone. How does it affect young adults, having left care to gain jobs and families of their own, to be the subject of trawling operations that tacitly encourage them to think about their childhood in terms of abuse. Five minutes of fame and some small financial reward cannot compensate for the emotional pressure this must bring to bear; indeed, in the five years following the North Wales police investigation, three former residents committed suicide. Webster has not shown us one case whereby someone claimed compensation for not being abused ... just for being an ex-resident. This is all propaganda – to get the public off the scent and discourage anyone looking any deeper. Why would anyone think about their childhood in terms of abuse? Either they were abused or they weren’t. Abused kids do not need to think about it, they can’t forget about it; it torments them for life, and the mental suffering can only be eased when the victim gets true justice. Look how all the complainants are being portrayed as money grabbing attention seeking liars. The filthy paedophile infested Masonic propaganda machine have managed to take the onus completely off corrupt social services chiefs, corrupt politicians, crooked cops and cover up in general. The slime-ball Webster is trying to convince you that corruption and injustice is not the reason for these suicides; the dirty rat has somehow managed to turn all the blame back onto the victims, implying that those who killed themselves may not have been genuine victims but merely ex residents who couldn’t live with the shame of collecting easy money and putting an ‘innocent’ man in jail and of contributing to the cloud of suspicion that [allegedly] now hangs over care workers. That’s quite an achievement! Only elite Masonic paedophiles are capable of that level of manipulation.

The result of this victim smearing dirty trick is that the real victims have been further victimised as they no longer have public sympathy and their voices are now neutralised. No wonder some of them committed suicide [or tried to].

Moreover, the more false allegations of abuse that are solicited by police trawling tactics, the more this leads to what Webster describes as an ‘inflationary spiral of disbelief’, which sheds doubt upon any allegation of abuse. Job jobbed by the Masonic men in power; and all as a result of clever propagandizing. All they did was declare that some ex residents [not named of course] had been discredited [whether they were or not is immaterial] and then everyone i.e. the real victims, came under suspicion of lying. To finish off any ‘nuisance’ victim, all the Masonic plotters had to do was instruct the likes of Webster and the Masonic editors of the ‘news’papers to undertake a convincing and thorough character assassination – job’s a good un. Hell, even those convicted monsters who have been sent down for a good few years are even being portrayed as innocent and of suffering a gross miscarriage of justice. You really couldn’t make this shit up. As Webster argues: ‘[O]ne of the greatest failings of the modern child protection movement what does this prick mean by a modern child protection movement? Just like our so-called ‘truth movement’, which is actually an ‘untruth’ movement, we have the opposite of child protection is that, in its zeal to believe all allegations, it has betrayed the very children it seeks to protect and ushered in the return of the climate of disbelief that it sought to banish forever.’ Job jobbed.

Where can this lead, except to a situation where we do not trust anybody to care for children without abusing them? Is this the kind of society that we want to create? Look how this scumbag Webster has managed to manoeuvre the focus off the mega criminals - filthy evil ‘Hooray Henry’ paedophiles and the cover-up brigade, and shift the blame on to ‘society’!!! You really could not make this shite up. Webster, the filthy rat, must’ve been a high level mason to have the front to print this. He and his Masonic brethren have created the society we have.

Occasionally, our society does worry that it is in the grip of a ‘paedophile panic’, and points to illiterate mobs on housing estates allegedly running intimidation campaigns against the local paediatrician. Allegedly. There is no evidence that ‘illiterate mobs on housing estates’ do this. And just because people may be living in poverty [through no fault of their own] and uneducated [due to the deliberate dumbing down of children forced to attend State schools] does not mean that they confuse paediatricians with paedophiles. This is more filthy Masonic propaganda.

The Secret of Bryn Estyn reminds us that the real danger comes, not from the passionate mob, but from the higher echelons of the British state. However the North Wales children’s home scandal started, in the end the protagonists were politicians, the police, and the law courts.” Protagonists??? How it started??? It started when abused children cried out for help. When those children gained support from people who genuinely tried to help and could not be ignored, the Masonic heavyweights upped their game using sophisticated neutralising techniques which would silence the victims forever.

Taken from Wikipedia [another Masonic run propaganda tool]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Wales_child_abuse_scandal “In 2005, the cultural historian contemptuous and abhorrent lying little man Richard Webster published a book, The Secret of Bryn Estyn: The Making of a Modern Witch Hunt, which investigated the scandal. It was highly critical of the Waterhouse Inquiry, argued that abuse scandals could be phenomena created by public hysteria that’s right blame innocent Joe Public and reported a number of cases note the vagueness of apparently innocent care workers imprisoned as a consequence of false and unsubstantiated accusations elicited by police trawling operations. Note the use of the word ‘apparently’. That’s because no-one who was imprisoned was innocent. If that’s not the case, where’s the evidence? Webster also questioned whether some of those claiming abuse had been motivated by the prospect of financial reward.[23] Wrexham Council refused permission for a conference, arranged by Falsely Accused Carers and Teachers (F.A.C.T.), a support group, to be held at Bryn Estyn – now renamed the Erlas Centre – in 2005; Webster was to have been the main speaker.”

This is more of the same Masonic fakery, to create an illusion of a support group. There is no need for such a group and one doesn’t exist; well not a genuine one anyway.

Page 89 of the Waterhouse report states: “Despite the weight of evidence that has now emerged against Howarth and the transparent sincerity of many of the witnesses a small number of former members of Bryn Estyn staff still refuse to believe that Howarth was guilty of any sexual misconduct. Some of them gave evidence on his behalf at his trial and they remain wedded to the idea that there has been a giant conspiracy against him and indeed against all or the vast majority of persons against whom other allegations before this Tribunal have been directed. Bad enough that they could claim that a small number had suffered injustice [since there was an overwhelming amount of evidence against these paedophiles] but to declare that all or the vast majority of them are innocent is just mind-blowingly criminal. Surely these paedo defenders should be charged with aiding and abetting paedophiles? Woops, I forgot, we don’t live in a just society. We live in one whereby men in their dirty secret societies pay people to protect [by any means necessary] their paedophilic fiefdom.

This view of the evidence has been represented to the Tribunal by, in particular, the loosely formed association calling itself the Bryn Estyn Staff support Group, which apparently came into existence as the result of the arrests of various members of the staff in the course of the major police investigation. Many of the former residents of Bryn Estyn spoke very favourably in their evidence about the Chairperson of the group, Gwen Hurst, and its Secretary John Rayfield, formerly a staff union official. Nevertheless Hurst told us that she is quite certain that the majority of the allegations now being made by former pupils are fabricated. Rayfield, in similar vein, voiced the opinion that they may well have been “carefully trained”, ignoring the detailed chronology of the police investigation and the impracticability of such training. He believes that the complainants’ motive generally is to secure compensation. Whilst loyalty by former colleagues is readily understandable, we are unable to sympathise with the persistent ostrich- like response of these two witnesses [and some others] to the very substantial body of evidence placed before the Tribunal, much of which was heard by both of them for the first time.

... the staff collectively must, in our view, share a degree of the blame for failure to stop his activities. There were clear grounds for grave suspicion and we believe that actual suspicion was felt by many more members of the staff than have admitted it.”

Take a look at this Masonic penned article, published by the Masonic controlled BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/4552643.stm The Masons pretended that Masonic run Wrexham Council had refused permission for a conference at a centre which was once the Bryn Estyn community home ... to make this pretend support group look authentic. Excerpts are: “The conference False Allegations - Truthful Answers fetch me the sick bucket had been organised by the group FACT North Wales, a support group for carers and teachers was to have taken place at the Erlas Centre on 3 June.

Author Richard Webster was to have talked about his book The Secret of Bryn Estyn: The Making of a Modern Witch Hunt. It claims that there was no widescale abuse of children and that innocent people were jailed.

Mr Webster the great pretender said he was "flabbergasted" by the council's action and said that Mr King "entirely missed the point". He claimed that the evidence "clearly shows" there never was a paedophile ring based at Bryn Estyn and that dozens of staff had been wrongly accused.” The odious lying little man Webster has not shown one case where anyone jailed was innocent.

This link http://www.factuk.org/resources/briefing-paper/case-studies- in-false-allegations/ informs us of F.A.C.T’s supposed case studies. Six fabricated ‘cases’ are listed. Here is ‘case’ number 6:

“This accuser voluntarily made contact with F.A.C.T. after he discovered that the person whom he had accused was serving a lengthy prison sentence. When initially approached by the police he made 3 statements over a period of a year. On the initial meeting the police identified the person whom they were investigating. The police officers made it clear that they did not expect an immediate response to the explicit question as to whether he had been abused. The accuser is serving a long prison sentence and has been in prison for many years. On the second contact he was again reminded who the defendant was and it was explained that several complaints of abuse had been made against the defendant. Civil action against the Local Authority was discussed by the police and the accuser was reminded that a compensation claim would be best served by a conviction. The accuser states that the police officers hints about the defendant’s guilt swayed him into making a false complaint, along with the compensation and the opportunity to claim an abusive adolescence at his forthcoming parole hearing and optimise the chance of its success. Whilst making the allegations the Police never questioned his truthfulness and were wholly receptive to his abuse claim, despite the fact that he had previously denied any abuse.” “Despite the fact that he had previously denied any abuse”. So who had previously asked him if he’d been abused? Jeesh, I’ve seen some bullshit, but this takes the biscuit. The desperado masons must think we’re all frikkin morons. This is completely fabricated. The ‘accuser’ is not named and neither is the ‘accused’. The phantom police officer who ‘approached’ ‘him’ is not named and no date is given as to when it happened. The 3 statements do not exist. This is all pure fiction; pure Masonic horse manure.

This is followed by:

“Above are just 6 examples of former care home residents who told lies. The people telling lies are the sickos behind all this – high level filthy freemasons, who are trying to sell it to the public. F.A.C.T .have collated many more. F.A.C.T doesn’t exist. It is pure fantasy. There isn’t even one case, let alone more. The complainant’s motives for making the false allegation have not been established. There is no complainant. In all the cases the police failed to identify the allegations as being false, and in most cases they proceeded to Court. Utter tosh. None of this happened. It must be asked that, if the police are incapable of detecting false allegations that can be easily proven, how do the police distinguish between truth and falsehood, and genuine victims and liars?” Genuine police officers can and do. Masonic ones [the highly paid paedo protecting bastards at the higher levels of the police pyramid] only know and spew lies and falsehoods.

I would love to shine the spotlight on the faceless, nameless, seedy, sick Masonic prick[s] who wrote this shite. Folks, just shake your head in utter disbelief at what is really going on behind the scenes. And these evil freemason lying bastards are doing it with YOUR money. Wonder what level in the lodge the creep[s] who wrote this is.

Take a look at this link http://www.factuk.org/about-us/fact-the-first- decade/ Notice the gushing accolades for a number of legal types, politicians and MSN ‘reporters’. For example: “The third Conference on 16 September welcomed David Wood’s much valued legal advice. November was a busy month: an AAFAA Conference, when journalist Simon Caldwell spoke and where we met the redoubtable Bill Thompson for the first time; our own Conference; a hard-hitting Panorama Special “In the Name of the Children” by David Rose and featuring Roy Shuttleworth.” And: “In October 2001, the first FACTion was published, with Phil Fiddler appropriate name as the first editor. It was to play a vastly important part in the campaign. In the same month the inaugral meeting of the All Party Group for Abuse Investigations (APGAI) took place in Portcullis House and we were introduced to another sympathetic and courageous politican, Earl Howe.” And: “There was also another Conference at St. Anthony’s, when we heard from Satish Sekar, Janet Boakes and Bob Woffinden. F.A.C.T. was gradually becoming more and more knowledgeable and consequently able to give better support to its members.” And: “On 21 May, F.A.C.T. 3 FACT members appeared before the Home Affairs Select Committee chaired by Chris Mullin MP. Between 14 May and 11 July many F.A.C.T. supporters gave evidence to the Committee; and certainly some who were not, especially Mr. Garsden (a solicitor specialising in compensation cases for victims of alleged abuse) who said: “As a result of effective campaigning by F.A.C.T. and AAFAA, more and more cases are being thrown out – and more and more defendants are being acquitted because of the fear of the abuse lobby”. On 22 May, FACT gave evidence to the All Party Group.” And: “We were cheered up, however, by the March launching at

Portcullis House of Richard Webster’s beautifully researched and immensely compelling “The Secret of Bryn Estyn”.”

Genuine victims and campaigners for truth and justice know that complaining to Crooks in the House of Crooks is a mug’s game; that ALL politicians, mainstream reporters, solicitors etc are Masonic controlled and working for the Establishment. Anyone who works in any of these professions or who associates with or is connected in any way with these types of professionals is NOT on the side of truth, justice and liberty. F.A.C.T are clearly a gang of piss taking paedo protecting State parasites.

As for the Daily Mail ‘reporters’ mentioned - David Rose and Bob the wolf Woffinden, they are the ‘men’ who did a hatchet job on CSA victim Steven Messham. See below.

From the same link it is stated: “A week later, some F.A.C.T. members attended the Ray Wyre Conference, distributed a great deal of literature and had the opportunity to question Sir Ronald Waterhouse.” So why isn’t any of this published?

Also on the same page: “By then, barrister Mark Barlow and solicitor Chris Saltrese were on board; and Gwen Hurst of the Bryn Estyn Staff Support Team (BESST), which she had started with John Rayfield in 1992, and Gail Saunders, of the Friends of Derek Brushett (FODB), had been in touch.” And: “Meanwhile, Margaret Jervis and George Willamson had been hard at work producing background research for the lobbying campaign, part of which eventually became “Operation Release – The Right of the Innocent to be Heard” These members are a handful of F.A.C.T’s lying toads who are exposed in full further down this PDF.

On this page http://www.factuk.org/about-us/our-origins/ I quote: “As more individuals were accused and the injustices became more apparent other local groups and individual campaigns merged to form a powerful and respected national network, and an organisation to be reckoned with” These are just plain and simple jaw dropping LIES. Disinformation supremo Richard Webster is dead now. I hope he is rotting in hell for the part he played in protecting upper society paedophiles.

The fact that Webster did such a hit job on Angus Stickler and Alison Taylor and also Sir Waterhouse himself suggests that these people are telling the truth; albeit in the case of Waterhouse, he only went as far as his Masonic overlords would allow. That translates to him being allowed to reveal just a tiny tip of the iceberg. More on this below.

Take a look at http://pbepring.blogspot.co.uk/p/evil-that-must-be-made- to-speak-its_05.html:

The evil that must be made to speak its name

Article on the leader page of a UK Sunday newspaper

22 February 1998:

THE EVIL THAT MUST BE MADE TO SPEAK ITS NAME

What's in a name? Let's try two.

The first is Barry, a young man with dark eyes as intense as Welsh coal. You will not have heard of Barry, although his story is public and his tale most appalling.

Barry is one of some 400 witnesses who for almost a year have been giving evidence to a tribunal taking place under the direction of silver- haired former High Court judge Sir Ronald Waterhouse. The pace of business is slow, sometimes painstaking. Usually no more than three of four members of the public attend.

"No one ever paid any attention", Barry explains. "That's why it happened. No one gives a damn".

There is a greater chance that you will have heard of John Allen, another witness who gave evidence in Caernarvon Crown Court last week. On that occasion the public galleries were more crowded, observers straining to catch a glimpse of a man whose name once meant something in North Wales.

For John Allen was a pillar of the community. Public carer. Founder of the Bryn Alyn network of children's homes that local authorities supported to the astonishing tune of £28 million. And a man who was sentenced to six years for crimes of the most unimaginable foulness.

But even as I write the next words, many readers will go no further. For I have led you into one of the great taboos of our time, the shame that dare not whisper its name.

The Waterhouse enquiry is considering accusations that for more than 20 years the children's homes of North Wales were turned into an evil empire dedicated not to caring for children, but to their wholesale physical and sexual abuse.

Hundreds of children, mostly boys, were systematically tortured and terrorised. Their assailants were their so-called carers within the local social services. People like John Allen. And - allegedly - policemen, peers, even priests. These children claim they were brutalised into acts of oral and anal sex, sometimes committed simultaneously, and sodomized with crowbars, bottles and chair legs.

(You'll find more comfortable reading on almost any other page of this newspaper. You can turn the pages, pass by on the other side as so many have done all these years. But don't. These children need you).

They were subjected to a daily, almost casual regime of cruelty and ritual humiliation. Beaten so fiercely that they ended up in casualty wards. Forced to clean toilets with their toothbrushes. One had his pet gerbil chopped to pieces in front of him. With a shovel.

Of course, many of the allegations are just that - allegations. But in the words of Gerard Ellis QC, the leading counsel to the tribunal, there is no doubt that physical and sexual abuse was inflicted "on an almost unimaginable scale".

Elected councillors visited these homes regularly, even claimed expenses for doing so, but heard, saw, and said, nothing. After all, children have no votes.

Clwyd County Council commissioned a report into the allegations. And when it was delivered they shredded every copy. Because their insurance company, Municipal Mutual, threatened to withdraw cover if the conclusions were made public and opened the door to claims. Money was put before justice. The truth was buried.

All too often officials who fell under a cloud were allowed to retire on pensions or move to other jobs. It was so much easier, less messy that way. Or the facts were simply ignored.

Roger Saint was a foster parent who became a member of the adoption panel in Clwyd. The local authority was told by police that he had a previous conviction as a child abuser. What did it do? Absolutely nothing.

The cowardice ended only last May when Saint was jailed for a string of further sex offences against children.

Wilful ignorance was the habit in the local social services departments of North Wales. It couldn't be happening, not here. After all, the accusers were only children. But not everyone turned a blind eye. One local social services officer demanded that something be done. Her bosses' response was to sack her. They decided she wasn't enough of a team player in the great game of cover-up and sweep-aside.

But perhaps the greatest cowardice is the one that goes on deep within us all when we are confronted with the disturbing images of child abuse. It's simply too offensive. Turns the milk sour on our cornflakes. We don't want to know. We give it a name - paedophilia - that sounds like a medical complaint and makes it so much easier to block out the bloody realities of crowbars, bottles and chair legs.

Yet all of us are in part responsible for this national taboo. "I talk about child abuse like other people talk about football," Barry explains, "because that's what my childhood was about. I was the football. But people get embarrassed. Ask me to stop because they find it upsetting. They don't want to know."

This is the ferocious challenge for Sir Ronald Waterhouse and his tribunal. Controversially, he has offered anonymity to most witnesses during the hearings and, so far, has refused to allow those complaining of abuse or accused of abuse to be named. ("Barry" is not his real name and John Allen is an exception only because he has already been convicted). By offering anonymity, Sir Ronald hopes to get to the greater part of the truth. The real reason of course was to protect the perps. [My comment in red.]

But previous reports have been little more than worthy wodges of paper urging social services to pull up its socks. Sir Ronald's objective must be far more ambitious: nothing less than the destruction of the national cowardice that refuses to face up to child abuse.

And what's in a name? The names of officials who repeatedly failed in their duty. And the men who have been repeatedly named as abusers. He must name them all. Yes, this will cause a media feeding frenzy, it may undermine the rights of the accused. But children have rights, too, and in the delicate balance of justice, theirs is the greater right.

And, for once, the media piranha pool might just be a good thing, the teeth that will tear to pieces the conspiracy of silence. We need to be confronted with the full horrors of what has gone on in North Wales and shaken into indignation, not allowed yet again to look the other way for fear it may spoil our breakfasts.

Fourteen of the children connected with this empire of evil in North Wales have since killed themselves or died in mysterious circumstances - almost as many as died at Dunblane. Many, many more have had their emotional and mental sanity ripped to shreds. Through the Waterhouse tribunal we have a chance, at last, to put right a very great wrong.

So go to it, Sir Ronald. Make them famous. Name them. Every damned one.

But Sir Ronald didn’t name them. Instead he rejected claims of a large- scale paedophile ring and cleared police of failing to investigate properly.

Take a look at ALISON TAYLOR BLOWS THE WHISTLE http://www.bushywood.com/alison_taylor_whistleblower.htm

And Flintshire Employment Tribunal throws shadow over Waterhouse Report

“Andy’s wife, Helen, broke down in tears as she spoke of her shock at a Police warning to “beware of the brotherhood”, meaning the Freemasons.”

“Roberts said she had been “paralysed by the enormity” of what she had been told about this and that she now believed that there had been corruption by Flintshire that affected the outcome of the £13 million Inquiry. Given the administrator’s role in providing files to the Police and Waterhouse from the North Wales councils, questions are being asked if evidence was held back, potentially altering the Waterhouse conclusions- and that this maybe what was in the part of Robert’s statement that was held back by the Shrewsbury Tribunal. Loveridge will face questions on this when his cross-examination starts on Monday.” http://www.bushywood.com/andy_sutton_whistleblower.htm

I copy/paste below and highlight certain aspects of the Waterhouse report. My occasional comments are in red: https://drive.google.com/viewerng/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmY XVsdGRvbWFpbnxub3J0aHdhbGVzc2NhbmRhbHxneDozY2JkYzkwOD IzMDNhOWY4 P32: “The Independent severely criticised the police investigation.

Councillor Parry made reference to a police cover up to conceal the failure of senior police officers and social services executives to reveal the extent of abuse in children’s homes.”

Councillor Parry says: “No amount of money could make good the damage caused. Lives have been ruined by this. God help us how many young people with drugs and sexual problems have come from those kinds of establishments? It’s frightening because it’s a microcosm of what’s going on around the country.” [P 33]

Listen to Dennis Parry speaking here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk- wales-23223309 He talks of the obstruction from the council and other sources which he and the Jillings inquiry team faced, saying that the insurers, the legal people and the police were telling him “you can’t do this and you can’t publish that” ... He says John Jillings and his board wanted to put an advert in the paper inviting CSA victims to come along and discretely talk to the panel about what had happened to them, but, “they didn’t even want that”. He says “how on earth we ever got the Jillings report in the form it’s in now is a minor miracle”. So, does it sound to you like any police trawling was happening?

P475: “Following the presentation of the Jillings report to Clwyd CC, it was almost inevitable that there would be allegations of a cover up by Clwyd and criticism of the Welsh Office for failing to publish the report after March 1996. We do not accept that these allegations and criticisms were justified.”

P700 re Alison Taylor and the Welsh Office’s response. “It seems the Welsh Office first became aware of allegations of mistreatment of children in social services establishments in Gwynedd in September 1986 when an article appeared in the Daily Mail referring to a police investigation into such allegations, and an anonymous letter from “concerned parents and residents in Gwynedd” addressed to the Prime Minister and mentioning the newspaper article and forwarded to the Welsh Office for attention. The first communication from Alison Taylor however, which was also addressed to the Prime Minister and forwarded to the Welsh Office... Waterhouse wants us to believe that the masonic controlled Welsh Office didn’t get wind of these child abuse allegations until the masonic head honchos read about it in the masonic controlled Daily Mail whereby an article made reference to a masonic controlled police ‘investigation’. Jeesh, if you believe all that, you’ll believe anything. And the bit about the anonymous letter is BS too. Alison Taylor states: “By the autumn of 1985 masonic controlled Gwynedd County Council would not admit to the existence of a problem, the problem of mistreatment of children.” She also says: “I reported on an assault involving an alleged head injury. I made a written report ... and the response I received was an insurance claim for the boy and a telephone call from [a care worker] saying: “How could you have done such a thing, we thought you were our friend”.” Asked what happened after she made the complaint, Alison Taylor said: “Nothing as far as the assault was concerned, but I think shortly afterwards you will find that I was in hot water yet again over something. The pattern seemed to be that if I made a complaint then something would happen to me – it was like having a sniper behind the wall.” http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/local-news/north-wales-child-abuse- scandal-2016869 Another snippet from that report is: “The unpublished report denounced those who should have stopped the abuse, saying: “Our findings show that time and again, the response to indications that children may have been abused has been too little and too late. Furthermore, the needs and interests of young children have tended to be an incidental rather than a primary concern. Our criticisms in this regard apply not only to the county council, but also to the Welsh Office, North Wales Police and constituent agencies.” It particularly condemned Welsh Office social services inspectors for failing to visit a single children’s home in the 10 years during which most of the abuse took place.”

The Commissioner for local administration informed her that the matters she had raised fell outside his jurisdiction. No matter that it is an issue of public concern and an issue for anyone with any decency in them to blow the whistle on child abusers. The Welsh Office wrote to her on 14th January 1987 stating that it could not intervene in matters that were for local determination and suggesting that she might wish to consider whether further action was necessary after the Social Services department had “reported on her case”.

It is clear from Evans’ [the former Chief SWSO/SSIW] evidence that the Welsh Office was substantially influenced by what it had been told by the director of Social Services for Gwynedd Lucille Hughes. It had been told that Taylor was difficult to manage by the SS dept; that the outcome of the police investigation that she had initiated was that there was insufficient evidence to warrant criminal proceedings; that an internal inquiry by Gwynedd SS had also found nothing on which action could be taken; that the same department had taken the view that Taylor’s behaviour had influenced “the breakdown in professional relations”.

Contemporaneously at least 2 MPs raised issues about the allegations investigated by the police with the Welsh office and the Attorney- General. The police investigation ... no prosecution ensued.

Alison Taylor persisted in her complaints to central government ... and two more letters to the Welsh Office directly. The Minister of State, Lord Roberts of Conwy [also Taylor’s constituency MP] dealt with the matter ... it could not intervene in local matters of the kind she had raised.

In 1987 Taylor invoked the assistance of the Children’s legal centre. In 1988 she wrote to the Health Minister at the DHSS.

In the following years notwithstanding the successful outcome in August 1989 of her own proceedings against Gwynedd County Council for unfair dismissal, Alison Taylor continued to display remarkable tenacity in pressing for a fresh investigation.

Etc etc etc

It was not until 3 years later ... judicial inquiry was announced. The response of the Secretary of State in 1993 to the solicitor’s letter was that any complaint about the police investigation should be pursued with the Chief Constable and the Home Office and that complaints concerning Gwynedd CC had to be taken up as a formal complaint with that authority.” This is called Masonic piss taking.

P708: “Alison Taylor’s complaints to central government began at a time [December 1986] when it should have been becoming increasingly aware of the risk of abuse in children’s homes, following concerns about such homes as Leeways in 1985 and Kincora in 1986. It is a matter of concern therefore, that the response of the Welsh Office to Alison Taylor was so negative for at least 5 years until the major police investigation began.”

P803: “The investigations in Gwynedd between 1986 and 1988 of Alison Taylor’s complaints were defective in many respects and may fairly be described as “sluggish and shallow”. The role played by Detective Superintendent Gwynne Owen was inappropriate and the size of the investigating team inadequate. There was no liaison with the Social Services Department and relevant documents were not seized. The reports on the investigation were one-sided and regrettable in tone; and the oral report to the Director of Social Services was inadequate.

The investigation of sexual abuse at Cartrefle ... but the mode of access to social services files afforded to the police was unsatisfactory.”

P885 re The reports to the Director of Public Prosecutions. “However the comments made by Mr Owen in his report into the 1986 inquiry were thoroughly inappropriate and lacking in judgement ... Above all very serious imputations appear to have been made about the character and motives of Alison Taylor and certain complainants on the basis of little more than instinct.”

Simon Regan and Angus James of Scallywag fame http://pbepring.blogspot.co.uk/search?updated-min=1997-01- 01T00:00:00%2B06:00&updated-max=1998-01- 01T00:00:00%2B06:00&max-results=8 Archives here http://scallywagarchive.info/ did have the balls to name and shame, which - had there been no truth to the allegations - would have prompted a barrage of calls from a bunch of angry solicitors. It so happens that there was a curious and almost ominous lack of writs.

Let’s now look at Jillings, who said there was evidence of "bestial" treatment in the children's homes. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk- 20234776 and http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-23223309 and http://www.independent.co.uk/news/insurance-group-urged-police-to-hide- size-of-inquiry-1554091.html See also my PDF on Anna Raccoon http://sharonkilby.co.uk/site/ANNA_RACCOON.php

Clwyd County Council commissioned Mr Jillings in March 1994 to look into the issue. However, his report was never published because of legal concerns. That translates to - concerns for the protection of ‘V.I.P’ paedophiles.

When asked what names emerged from the victims, Mr Jillings told BBC4's World At One: "I'd rather not get involved in listing names because it's a long time behind me, they didn't include well-known people in public life." He means he’s not allowed to reveal those V.I.P names.

"The people the investigation focussed on, because these were the people that the children spoke to us about, were staff members.” The ‘children’ weren’t allowed to mention the V.I.P perverts.

Mr Jillings said he was led to believe the report was not published because the county council's insurers felt it could result in individual children suing for compensation in a way that could have been costly. "We were very frustrated, we were concerned on behalf of the children, we felt that we had wasted an enormous amount of time and effort and not to be able to publish the report was totally unacceptable," he said. Well the majority of those victims have now claimed compensation; which means they’re not entitled to sue for more, so what’s the excuse now for censorship?

Municipal Mutual Insurance said that based upon legal advice it considered the report prepared by Mr Jillings had not been suitable for publication. That means based on Masonic advice, the report cannot be published in order to prevent an unstoppable public backlash against the perverts in power. Mr Jillings said some of the victims may have deliberately not mentioned well- known people when being questioned because they were frightened of the repercussions.

Have a look at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-20214009 “The Waterhouse report identified 28 alleged perps but their names were not made public and there was criticism that its remit was too narrow.”

Messham says he didn’t want the Jillings enquiry as he knew his report would be suppressed. He wanted a public enquiry. He says the Waterhouse inquiry went further than Jillings, but not far enough. He was banned from mentioning abuse that took place outside the care system by the Tribunal’s terms of reference i.e that the North Wales ‘ring’ included two government ministers and a senior figure in the Conservative Party hierarchy. He says he always relies on his police statements, which are crystal clear.

Take a look at http://www.davidlane.org/children/chukfeb/waterhouse.htm “The Waterhouse Report is of such importance that a section of children.uk is being devoted entirely to it. The incidents it covers go back over the last two decades. The inquiry has been massive, costing £13.5 million. About 650 children were found to have been abused. Of these 12 are said to have committed suicide. 25 childcare workers have received prison sentences for their roles in abusing children physically and sexually. The sheer scale and appalling nature of their offences makes this Report one of the landmarks in the history of British welfare which will still be quoted in a hundred years time.”

Take a look at the following Jillings redacted document entitled Child Abuse – An independent investigation commissioned by Clwyd County Council. Period 1974-1995 https://drive.google.com/viewerng/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmY XVsdGRvbWFpbnxub3J0aHdhbGVzc2NhbmRhbHxneDo0Zjc4ZjVmM2F lZmY5NmQw This is what Alison Millar from law firm Leigh Day, a legal expert in abuse in residential care, says: “The refusal to publish this report in full is tragically short-sighted. We are in an Alice In Wonderland situation whereby an independent panel is commissioned to investigate what went wrong and why. The report remains unpublished for over 15 years and then, when it is finally published, the report is effectively gutted so that important sections dealing with the very issue of what the panel found did go wrong are specifically excluded.” http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales- news/jillings-report-wrexham-councillor-victim-4889130

Here’s a snippet of Jillings redacted:

P77: “Howarth’s ‘favourites’ were buggered by him and required to have oral sex ... They therefore clearly carried the risk to boys of 13 years and upwards of contracting sexually related diseases.

More than one boy described the sexual acts initiated by Howarth as his first sexual experience. Some said they cried during or after such experiences, and ran away. It appears, however, that boys were invariably returned, often after police intervention.

Paul Wilson was perceived as cruel and sadistic. He is said to have knocked boys to the ground, punching them to the head and body, to have hit a boy in the stomach with all his might, and to have punched another boy in the face with a torch ... and then leaving his victim lying on the floor.

Another boy describes being “kneed” in the testicles.

... a senior member of staff witnessed him being assaulted by two other members of staff and that when she saw what was happening she turned and walked away. On another occasion she treated him for a headache by taping an aspirin to his forehead and sending him away.

... told bigger boys to beat him up ... ordered a boy to strip off and told bigger boys to piss and shit on him.”

Etc Etc

P80: “We do not know how they were followed up by the Police and Social Services, whether jointly or separately or at all. There were references to boys having been shown pornographic films by staff.”

P169: “In a letter dated 23/9/94 the Director of Social Services indicated that in the Leicestershire Inquiry report [p296] 9 former residents of The Beeches home managed by Frank Beck died between 1983 and 1992 as a result of suicide and other self-harming behaviours. The letter goes on to state that the Report does not draw a link between the deaths of the young people and maltreatment in care.” Fucking outrageous.

These deaths and more are listed on the next page.

The following is Jillings redacted part 2 https://drive.google.com/viewerng/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmY XVsdGRvbWFpbnxub3J0aHdhbGVzc2NhbmRhbHxneDo1ZTM1OGQ5Y mY1N2FiODc5

P211: “It is our view, that almost certainly, had there been a will to investigate and deal with some of those allegations at the time they were first made, cases of gross professional misconduct could have been made against offending staff ... and vulnerable children in the care of Clwyd Social services protected. The resulting damage to the children ... and to the organisational integrity of Clwyd County Council could have been minimised.”

P250: “Our investigations have led us to conclude that the abuse of children in Clwyd residential units has been extensive, and has taken place over a substantial number of years.

What was described by the North Wales Police as the largest investigation into child abuse resulted in 3,755 witness statements being taken ... Five men charged with serious offences against children. Not less than 24 young people were recognised as the victims of these crimes. The offences included Buggery, Indecent Assault, Cruelty and Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm.

It is clear that in a significant number of cases, the lives of young people who have been through the care system in Clwyd have been severely disrupted and disturbed. At least twelve young people are dead.

It is unclear how many professionals, including police officers, were named as perpetrators of assaults. The Independent panel is concerned that there appears to be no mechanism to ensure that independent investigations are conducted of allegations against former and serving police officers and that the police authorities’ handling of police investigations can ... avoid public scrutiny.”

P252: “Our findings show that time and time again the response to indications that children may have been abused has been too little and too late. Furthermore the needs and interests of children have tended to be an incidental rather than a primary concern. Our criticisms apply not only to Clwyd County Council, the Welsh Office, the North Wales Police and constituent agencies.

A second overarching finding is that there has been a conflict of interest between safeguarding professional position versus the safety of children. The interests of children have almost invariably been sacrificed.

Our findings also question the outcomes and use made of previous investigations in Clwyd. There have been at least ten previous internal inquiries within Clwyd Social Services Department.

We believe that all those with responsibilities for child protection in Clwyd have an inescapable duty to read our report in full.

We consider that a public judicial inquiry should be initiated.”

The article in The Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/welsh-abuse-scandal-a- nightmare-without-end-8290187.html is worth a read. I cannot vouch for its complete accuracy, but based on the documentation that is available, and which I reference here and on my ‘Digging into Jimmy’s socks’ PDF, it is broadly true. I’ve copy/pasted some of it:

“It took nearly a year to complete its inquiry and much was expected. But, astonishingly, the council decided not to publish the 300-page report and it was regarded as so sensitive that copies were numbered and, at one point, recalled.

It emerged that there were other unpublished reports, one of which showed that warnings about the possibility of a paedophile ring operating around children's homes in North Wales and the North-west had been given four years previously. There were 12 internal reports on alleged abuse in all. Only six made it to the social services committee and just two were reported in any detail. As a result, it was almost impossible to have an overview of what was happening in children's homes.

Had anyone put the reports, convictions, suspensions, suspicions and resignations together at any time during the 1980s, they would have seen a worrying trend in abuse and allegations of abuse. They would have also have seen that there were links between some of the convicted abusers. Four – Peter Howarth, Stephen Norris, Frederick Rutter and David Gillison – worked at one time or another at the Bryn Estyn children home.

At this stage it seemed that more than 100, possibly more than 200 children might have been sexually abused in the homes. At least 12, perhaps 16, were dead, some by suicide. Prominent public figures were persistently rumoured to be among the abusers: members of a paedophile ring to whom the children were supplied as sexual playthings.

The Jillings report had been expected to provide an overview and answer some of these questions, but it had been suppressed. The Independent and The Independent on Sunday gained access to some of the recommendations, and eventually were given unrestricted access to one of the numbered copies.

Its contents were explosive. The report, which called for a judicial inquiry, contained information which suggested council insurers might have feared that its contents could provoke a flood of compensation claims. "Every inquiry is a dress rehearsal for claimants and a further incentive to the bandwagon syndrome," they said in a letter to the council. The outcry over non-publication of Jillings and continuing revelations about what was actually in it, eventually led to the North Wales Child Abuse Tribunal. This judicial inquiry, chaired by Sir Ronald Waterhouse, spent a year – and £20m – listening to more than 350 former residents, and other witnesses, trying to get at the truth. Trying to keep a lid on the truth.

Yet, despite two tribunals, 10 or so court cases, more than a dozen reports, and several internal inquires, there remain unanswered questions about exactly what happened in and around those children's home in North Wales over two decades.

Jillings, too, had encountered talk of the involvement of public figures. His report said he was unable to tackle some issues because of the lack of a mandate, adding: "This includes the suggestion that public figures may have been involved in the abuse of young people in Clwyd."”

Take a look at this article by Nick Davies for the Guardian, published in 1997 http://www.nickdavies.net/1997/10/01/secrecy-imposed-on- the-exposure-of-alleged-child-abuse-news-and-feature/ Again I cannot say it is completely accurate, but judging by Sian Griffiths’ testimony https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=579hj9PSf60#t=216 and from the documentation I’ve seen and referenced, it is broadly true. I copy/paste:

“Policemen, social workers and prominent public figures have been accused of belonging to a paedophile ring which indulged in a relentless campaign of physical and sexual abuse in children’s homes in North Wales.

The names of the alleged members of the ring have been given by witnesses in public sessions of the North Wales Child Abuse Tribunal, but they have been suppressed by the tribunal’s chairman, Sir Ronald Waterhouse QC, who has threatened the media with High Court proceedings if they print them. Sir Ronald has argued that his ruling will encourage paedophiles to come forward and to give honest evidence without fear of retribution. Anyone heard of an honest paedophile??? Critics say that this is unnecessary since he has the power to compel witnesses to attend and that those who have come forward have done so to deny the allegations against them and not to make a clean breast of their alleged offences.

The tribunal was ordered by the last Conservative Secretary of State for Wales, William Hague, after Clwyd County Council decided not to publish the report of an independent inquiry into allegations of abuse in its children’s homes. Independent my arse.

In July 1979, Lord A’s son, then aged 25, had an alarming experience. He woke up in a room in the Crest Hotel in Wrexham to discover that all of his clothes and possessions had been stolen – by a young boy with whom he had been having sex that night. This boy, who was then two years below the age of consent and was supposed to be in the care of the local authority, has now told the tribunal that Lord A’s son used him for sex “on numerous occasions”.

Lord A’s son had no doubt at all about how to handle this theft. He went to the police and not only named the treacherous boy but explained quite openly why it was that they were sharing a room. A contemporary note made by the boy’s social worker records that the police were aware of allegations of “homosexual activities” between the boy and Lord A’s son. The police investigated. The outcome was clear: the boy was convicted of theft and sent to a detention centre for three months; Lord A’s son was never charged with any offence at all. You couldn’t make this up. See p756 of the Waterhouse report.

As it is, Lord A’s son has not been named because the chairman of the North Wales Tribunal, Sir Ronald Waterhouse QC, has ruled that, unless they have been convicted in court, no living person who is or is likely to be accused of abusing children in care can be identified. It so happens that Lord A’s son is dead – and so is his father – but Sir Ronald has extended his ruling to prevent either man being named. In the case of North Wales, the allegations of conspiracy have embraced police officers, social workers, local authority executives, senior businessmen and politicians – in one case, a prominent supporter of the Conservative Pary – all of whom are accused of using their power corruptly to protect the paedophile ring to which they belonged. More than ten years after these allegations first surfaced, their truth remains a matter of bitter dispute.

On the fringe of the tribunal hearing, there are disturbing suggestions of a violent cover-up. The London Evening Standard has run a series of stories about two brothers, Adrian Johns and Lea Homburg, who were abused by a convicted paedophile named John Allen. Allen ran a complex of homes in North Wales and London and is said to have been supplying boys to wealthy outsiders. The Standard reported that the two brothers were trying to blackmail him when, in April 1992, Adrian was burned to death in a house fire in Brighton. Lea later died in mysterious circumstances.

A dozen others who complained of abuse by the alleged ring have also died. One is said to have slipped on ice on a railway bridge and fallen to his death. Another, who was found dead in his flat was said to have died of natural causes; he was aged 21. Several are said to have committed suicide although in the case of one of them, his mother said his supposed suicide note was written in someone else’s handwriting. Others died apparently through abusing heroin, alcohol and solvents.

Over the years, twenty seven police inquiries failed to disclose the scale of the alleged abuse. Thirteen reports by social services went unpublished. Several journalists reached out for the truth and ended up scorched by libel actions. When police finally launched a major inquiry, in 1991, they secured the conviction of only four care workers and concluded that there was no evidence of a paedophile ring. Clwyd County Council then commissioned its own independent!!! inquiry but decreed that its report could not be published. The tribunal was to be the tool which finally unlocked the truth, sitting in public, with the power to compel witnesses and to order the disclosure of documents. However, the decision by its chairman, Sir Ronald Waterhouse, to grant anonymity to all those who are alleged to have belonged to the ring has made it almost impossible for the public to make any judgement about the strength of the allegations.

When the inquiry opened in January, the lawyer who acts on behalf of the tribunal, Gerald Elias QC said: “This tribunal will leave no stone unturned in its search for the truth about any of the issues which it considers.” The difficulty now is that once again, these stones are being turned over in the dark.”

For more on John Allen see ‘Bryn Alyn HTV documentary’ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lyMV2zWe3Q#t=40

For a list of ‘Public inquiry reports into abuse in children’s homes 1967- 2000’ see pages 22 and 23 of https://drive.google.com/viewerng/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=Z GVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxub3J0aHdhbGVzc2NhbmRhbHxneDo2YzV lYjFhZDA4NDJhMjc

According to this BBC news article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/1915901.stm

“A charity worker from north Wales has been charged with theft, deception and false accounting.

Steve Messham, from Wrexham, was arrested and questioned after thousands of pounds allegedly went missing from a sex abuse victim support group.

Mr Messham, the group's chairman, was arrested and questioned over the alleged theft of the organisation's assets.

The 39-year-old now faces five charges - two of theft, two of deception and one of false accounting.

The theft charges involve £29,960, the deception charges £14,865, and the false accounting charge £18,997.

Mr Messham is due to appear before Wrexham magistrates on Wednesday. NORWAS was set up to provide help and guidance to abuse victims who were due to give evidence to the public inquiry conducted by Sir Ronald Waterhouse.

His report - Lost in Care - was published in February 2000.

It revealed "appalling mistreatment" of children in residential care at various homes in North Wales.”

Messham was acquitted of these charges. Read on.

Have a read of this 13th November 2012 propaganda hit piece from the Daily Mail’s spin doctor David Rose and his co-writer Bob Woffinden. My comments, as always, in red. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article- 2231212/Steven-Messham-Astonishing-story-BBC-DIDNT-tell- troubled-star-witness.html

This article follows Steve Messham’s forced and false testimony: “After seeing a picture in the past hour of the individual concerned, this [is] not the person I identified by photograph presented to me by the police in the early 1990s, who told me the man in the photograph was Lord McAlpine. I want to offer my sincere and humble apologies to him and his family." I examine the facts, point out the numerous contradictions, and prove beyond doubt that Steve’s statement and this Daily Mail article is a gross perversion of truth. Also that there is an unnamed and untouchable ‘powerful elite’ of paedophiles who possess such power that all the high and mighty of the land – social services executives, judges, police chiefs, prime ministers, media moguls ... cower before them.

See http://sharonkilby.co.uk/site/McAlpine_sues_- _but_not_any_shills.php

“The former care home resident who falsely claimed he was sexually abused by former Tory party chairman Lord McAlpine was exposed as an ‘unreliable’ witness whom no jury would believe almost 20 years ago, a Mail on Sunday investigation has revealed. Straightaway Rose exposes himself as a liar. Back in September 1992 David Rose co- wrote an article for the Observer. It is part published just below. You will see that Rose completely contradicts himself in a most astonishing gaffe. Far from Messham being exposed as an ‘unreliable’ witness, his testimony did not come into question then. Why the about turn Mr Rose?

Interestingly the Observer article was published on Chris Spivey’s site, in an article - http://chrisspivey.org/laverty-a-clarification/ that has since been deleted. Wonder why! See my Darren Lavatory pdf for the rest of that article.

Of course none of the great British ‘investigative’ journalists for the mainstream news – the Guardian, Telegraph, Independent, BBC, Channel 4 ... point out Rose’s jaw dropping blunder, or even reference his Observer article. Far from it. The scumbags are in cahoots. And what of the MPs? Well they stay timidly silent too. NO MP/MSM journo will raise the issues/ask the question that I do. Course even our CSA victims’ champions – cough - such as MPs Tom Watson and John Hemming remain schtum. No-one will question anything that is ‘outside of the box’ [the Masonic matrix.] They’re only concerned with protecting their own interests, which of course means continuing their loyal servitude to their powerful paedophile paymasters. Bugger the little children.

We can show that those responsible for the controversial Newsnight story based on Steven Messham’s claims misrepresented crucial facts, and either failed to check or wilfully ignored alarming information available in official records. The Mail on Sunday has established: Newsnight failed to say that Messham triggered a 1994 libel trial by falsely claiming to have been abused by a senior police officer. His story was shown to be riddled with contradictions, costing the publications which reported his claims a total of £375,000 in damages and £1 million costs. The M.O.S might have seen these official records. We haven’t. As for contradictions, ha ha, Rose’s story for the M.O.S is the one riddled with them! More on the libel trial below.

Messham physically attacked a lawyer at the Waterhouse public inquiry into sexual abuse in North Wales. He screamed obscenities at the barrister who was questioning him, leapt out of the witness box, and threw punches at him. Note the emotional language. Where is the source of this information? Where is the evidence that this happened?

Documents proved some of Messham’s evidence to the inquiry to be false. Where are these documents? Although Sir Ronald Waterhouse concluded that Messham had experienced abuse, he described him as ‘an unreliable witness’ who was unlikely to be trusted by any jury – a conclusion also reached by the Crown Prosecution Service. Waterhouse also says [p106]: “A major problem is that the damage is reflected in B’s personality in such a way as he presents himself as an unreliable witness by the standards that an ordinary member of a jury is likely to apply.” Also under ‘Conclusions’ [p761] he states: “Much of the later abuse was not inflicted by persons in a position of trust in relation to him and there can be no doubt that he was significantly corrupted and damaged by what occurred.” Scallywag describes it more appropriately: “It was all very well for us to take statements from former victims in the cosy atmosphere of a pub lunch, but put them up against an agile and eminent QC whose sole task is to discredit them, and they quickly crumble, even break down in tears. Many former victims now have criminal records of some kind, owing almost exclusively to the abuse itself, and the barrister will brutally exploit this as evidence that the witness is unreliable and tainted. Faced with the choice of a clearly neurotic young man who quickly falls down in the witness box, and a smooth, experienced, erudite and often highly respected culprit, juries tend to give the accused the benefit of the doubt.

I watched it in the now famous Court 13 at the High Court during the libel action between former Supt. Gordon Anglesey and Private Eye (and others) when, despite the fact that under cross examination, Anglesey had to admit that his evidence did not correspond with his own notebooks, the 'other side' subsequently tore the five main prosecution witnesses to pieces in a monumental act of judicial harassment. Like the whole story of child abuse in North Wales and elsewhere, it broke my heart.”

I wonder how David Rose or any of us would hold up in the witness box giving evidence about our abuse if we’d had to endure what Steve Messham and all the other victims of child sexual and physical abuse have.

So traumatised was he that when testifying against Anglesea he collapsed in the dock.

Even Messham’s lawyer concedes he may be ‘disturbed’ and that he may have made up some of his claims. Does his lawyer say this? Where is this sourced?

In 2004, Angus Stickler, the reporter behind this month’s Newsnight story, was publicly criticised for interviewing Messham on Radio 4 without mentioning he was facing charges of defrauding a charity he ran for alleged abuse victims. Messham was later acquitted.

In 2005, Messham was also cleared of a £33,000 benefits fraud. He admitted concealing savings of £40,000 – a result of compensation for the alleged abuse – when he made claims for income support and housing benefit, but insisted he had not intended to be dishonest. Where is Messham’s statement for the court, which shows that he admitted concealing savings? Where does Rose get this info from?

Newsnight’s key claim that Messham was prevented from naming Lord McAlpine and other supposed paedophiles at the Waterhouse inquiry was clearly untrue. Transcripts show Messham could say whatever he liked about anyone he chose – and that he did so with abandon over his two weeks of testimony, during which time he did allege that a man referred to only as ‘McAlpine’ had abused him. It’s all very well Rose the rat and his fellow Masonic co-writer Bob the wolf telling us that they have seen various documentation; that doesn’t prove a damn thing. They need to show us. Without having access to those transcripts we are in the dark about what Messham did say during the inquiry. In the Waterhouse report we see that he was questioned about McAlpine, who is referred to as X. Messham’s TV testimony is here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJJ2_HGodi4 He is very clear about who his abusers were. He is clear that one was the “prominent Tory member for one”. He also says he had over 60 names on his statement ... and was told to remove 30-32 names. Since the inquiry remit didn’t include ‘prominent’ names, we might ask why McAlpine’s name came up. And since Messham was questioned about the Lord why wasn’t he called to the inquiry too? Why was Messham robbed of the satisfaction of seeing Lord McNonce being cross examined? Why does this not concern the rat and the wolf? Stupid question that, wasn’t it; they’re part of the very sophisticated conspiratorial Masonic glue that protects Establishment paedophiles. All mainstream media, almost all ‘alternative’ media, all those who head ‘inquiries’ [Waterhouse included], all politicians [they’re all Masonic controlled], all bodies of authority, all State agencies and the whole of the ‘justice’ system are beholden to the Masonic beast and are involved in the cover up. In order to try and appease us, we serfs are being subjected to some extremely effective psychological operations. Remember the battle is for our minds.

Notice the mainstream news ‘reporting’. They all carry headlines, such as ‘BBC in chaos as abuse victim says Lord McAlpine was not my attacker’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9667947/BBC-in- chaos-as-abuse-victim-says-Lord-McAlpine-was-not-my-attacker.html and they all propagandize along the lines of: “The latest BBC furore raises questions about whether Newsnight rushed into running a highly sensitive child abuse story in an attempt to rebuild its credibility laugh out fukkin loud after the damaging controversy over the scrapped Savile investigation. And who was responsible for that? See my ‘FIONA OF THE FORGED LETTER’ PDF http://sharonkilby.co.uk/site/FIONA_OF_THE_FORGED_LETTER.php Several commentators pointed out the bitter irony of the programme’s failure to identify a genuine paedophile before it targeted an innocent man.” No-one pointed that out. Carry on the pretence Sam Marsden and Gordon Rayner. Both of you toady Telegraph propaganda tools will also get your just deserts when the populace realise the part you play in the incomprehensible mass deception.

The Guardian monkey trio – David Leigh, Steven Morris and Bibi van de Zee report “Lord McAlpine was exonerated by the 1997 Waterhouse inquiry of any involvement in the abuse of children in the north Wales homes but not named because of an order by the retired judge preventing the identification of either victims or alleged abusers. Really? Do please show me the evidence for that.

The Guardian has identified a number of inconsistencies between the Newsnight allegations and testimony heard by the Waterhouse inquiry. Point them out then. State exactly where Messham is inconsistent. And publish the part of the transcript of his Waterhouse testimony that you are referring to. We don’t just want your word for it. Why are you three stooges content with the fact that the vulnerable victim of abhorrent child sexual abuse Steve Messham was subjected to two weeks of intense and aggressive questioning [on top of all the other ‘investigations’ he’s been put through] at the judicial inquiry and yet his abuser Lord Alistair McAlpine wasn’t even asked to show his face at the tribunal; never mind be subject to any questioning??? How does that sit right with you people???

The mounting concerns over Messham's allegations will be awkward for David Cameron who has already been accused of over-reacting to claims that senior Conservatives were involved in child abuse by ordering two inquiries into an issue which had already been thoroughly investigated by a public inquiry.” Carry on pretending Cameron is one of the good guys with his ‘ordering’ of two more Masonic administered ‘inquiries’. Public inquiry, my arse. http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/nov/08/mistaken- identity-tory-abuse-claim

I expose more of the Guardian’s lies further on.

As for Savile, Keith Gregory, according to the Mail, “has revealed the horror inside [Bryn Estyn] where gang rape, strip searches and vicious canings were a way of life - and where Jimmy Savile was a regular visitor. He said he was beaten bloody and subjected to humiliating strip searches. He said he was raped repeatedly by the deputy head Peter Howarth - who was later jailed for abusing boys - and he and other boys there would also have their pyjama bottoms pulled down by Howarth so predatory paedophile Savile could ogle them.” http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2229140/Bryn-Estyn-Victims-tell- horror-inside-North-Wales-care-home--Jimmy-Savile-regular-visitor.html

Who knows how much of that is true. That doesn’t concern me. Keith Gregory does. He may not be all that he seems. Read on.

I cover the Newsnight/McAlpine connection in detail further down.

Back to the Daily Mail’s Rat and Wolf outrageous propaganda piece: Messham’s evidence about abuse at the Bryn Estyn care home in Wrexham has been unreliable from the start. As said that’s not what Rose was saying when he typed up his Observer piece back in 1992. He was even wrong about how long he spent at Bryn Estyn.

According to a police statement in March 1992, he said: ‘I stayed there between three and four years.’ In fact, records show, he was there for 20 months, from September 1977 until May 1979. According to the Waterhouse report [p98] “he was sure that he had been there two years and one month”. So where does ‘between three and four years’ come from? Where is the police statement?

After newspapers began to allege that Bryn Estyn was the scene of widespread abuse in 1991, prompting a massive police inquiry, Messham made the first in a series of statements about his time at Bryn Estyn, and alleged abuse that he suffered after he left. In his first police statement, on March 30, 1992, he said he was physically assaulted by three people, indecently assaulted by two male care workers, Peter Howarth and Stephen Norris, and that two female care workers had sex with him. Both Howarth and Norris subsequently stood trial and were convicted.

Two days after Messham gave his first police statement, his wife committed suicide, leaving him to care for their three-month-old daughter. It was at this period of great vulnerability that he became a major figure in the North Wales inquiry. This man Steve Messham has got some truly awe-inspiring inner strength. How many of us could battle the way he did/does against the all-powerful and utterly evil Masonic Establishment? He was put through sheer hell, as a child. Somehow he managed to survive that. He finds love and contentment with his wife and baby. His wife is tragically taken from him, and he is once again plunged into despair. But still he steadfastly battles on, with quiet decorum, in search of truth and justice. The men in power propelled him to fame; and then, at yet another most vulnerable time of his life, they viciously and relentlessly unleashed a full-blown character assassination on him. They thought they could crush him. They almost succeeded. God knows differently.

Hang in there Steve. You are a true inspiration.

Thirteen years after leaving Bryn Estyn, he made further statements in April, August, September and October 1992, in February 1993, and then again regularly until 1997.

His allegations changed from one statement to the next. The Mail on Sunday has examined them, and the number of episodes of abuse he claimed to have suffered rose with each successive statement. So, starting with the police statement dated 30/3/’92 there were 4 more statements during 1992, another one in February 1993 and more regular statements until 1997. Well the M.O.S might have examined them. We haven’t. We have not seen the proof that any of Messham’s statements changed/became exaggerated.

By the time he gave evidence to the Waterhouse inquiry, which ran from 1997 to 2000, he said he had been sexually abused by 49 men and women, and physically abused by a further 26. His claims should have been treated with diminishing credibility. Indeed, there are many allegations against people who were never charged because – as Waterhouse pointed out – his evidence was not considered plausible enough. This article should be treated with diminishing credibility. Waterhouse said [p106] that Messham [witness B] “alleges that he has been sexually abused by 32 persons and otherwise physically abused by 22”.

Wide-ranging: Inquiry chairman Mr Justice Waterhouse. The inquiry ran from 1997 to 2000

The Waterhouse report stated that, in March 1993, the Crown Prosecution Service concluded that ‘reliance ought not to be placed on [his] evidence for the purpose of prosecuting any alleged abuser.’ Rose doesn’t report this in its proper context. Waterhouse comments: “It is not unusual for a complainant of sexual abuse or a child complainant generally to deny at first that any abuse has occurred but in B’s case we have had before us a plethora of statements. These included eight main statements made to the police between 30 March 1992 and 8 February 1993 but B alleges that the police have failed to produce six other statements that he made to them. Rightly or wrongly, he complains also of insensitive behaviour and, in some cases, downright misconduct on the part of a small number of officers involved in interviewing him. In view of the potential difficulties, B was permitted exceptionally to draft his own statement to the Tribunal rather than be interviewed by a member of the Tribunal’s team. The statement runs to 48 pages, in the course of which B alleges that he has been sexually abused by 32 persons ... It is not surprising in the circumstances that B’s recollection, in a limited number of instances, was shown by contemporary documents to be incorrect.

In the light of these and similar difficulties it was decided in March 1993 by the CPS, in consultation with counsel, that reliance ought not to be placed on the evidence of witness B for the purpose of prosecuting any alleged abuser.”

Thanks in part to Messham’s allegations, Bryn Estyn has become a byword for abuse, with claims resurfacing in the wake of revelations about Jimmy Savile. Bryn Estyn has been officially recognised in the reports published that it was a hell ‘home’. As for ‘claims’, the Daily Mail are renowned for making wild unsubstantiated claims. See my comments on this under Tom’s video on Spivey’s second arrest https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JRFhbbKawI

But the police method of ‘trawling’ former residents, many of whom had long criminal records, and inviting them to make allegations – has long been recognised as risky. In 2002, the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee warned such a process was liable to create miscarriages of justice, and that some people had made false allegations in the hope of being paid large sums in compensation. If people did make false allegations they would have been encouraged/paid to do so by the Masonic suits – to fog the paedophilia issue/discredit all CSA victims. It is quite possible that some people may have received compensation as a result of false allegations [Anne Greig is one example of that], but there is no evidence of a miscarriage of justice as a result. If there had been, I’m sure Rose would have told us. I’ve dealt with ‘trawling’ further up the page. Also have a look at the following extract published here http://www.richardwebster.net/waterhouse.html for some more masonic propaganda wizardry: “Well Mr Saltrese as to the child abuse case in Bryn Estyn School, when the police from North Wales took a statement at my address, they told me, if I was abused, I would get money in compensation, I was just dumbfounded when he came out with it, I feel Mr Saltrese that most people thought they would get compensation just saying it, that’s why most people have come forward, trying to make a quick buck out of the system. I feel Mr Saltrese the police putting pressure on people to come forward saying you get compensation [Wonder where this sentence was going! Webster didn’t see fit to publish it!]

Some people [think] money’s the be end of everything. I am willing to bet my life on it that when I went there in 1975 to 1977 no person was abused by staff at Bryn Estyn school.

Mr Saltrese Bryn Estyn school was a good school when I was there and good staff members David Massey, Gwen Hurst, John Hilton, Nevin Dodd, Len Strich, David Cheeseborough, Graham Roberts, Mrs Nibbitt, Mr Green, Mr Hughie Roberts, Mrs Jones, Mr Jones, Mr Leighton how many of these good staff members blew the whistle and took the flak for it and how many turned a blind eye?

All good honest people, who would go out of their way to help you not hurt you. These people should of been praised for the work they done.”

That’s alright then, Bryn Estyn was a good school, there’s no truth to all these allegations of a powerful paedophile network, most of the people making such awful allegations just saw an easy way to make a quick buck. No need for any more enquiries. Get the kettle on ... what’s on the telly?

Gwen Hurst, a former Bryn Estyn teacher, said the accepted picture of life there was far from the truth. ‘If this abuse was going on, the boys would have had so many opportunities to tell so many people,’ she said. ‘There were council employees, social workers and tradespeople in and out of the school all the time.

‘All this is costing the country millions. And it has exacted a terrible toll on the school staff. Twenty years we’ve had of this.’ Again Rose doesn’t tell us his source for this quote. Gwen Hurst and the solicitor mentioned Chris Saltrese, who specialises in defending paedophiles and who viewed the Waterhouse Inquiry as “thorough”, are just more of the same totally utterly and irredeemably despicable ugly liars. James McCarthy reports for Wales Online http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales- news/north-wales-child-abuse-scandal-2016871 “Solicitor Chris Saltrese represented alleged abusers at the Waterhouse Inquiry. He said: “That’s why they gave a platform to Steve Messham without any investigation at all about his background and the tribunal in general. When someone like Messham goes on TV it gets translated to the internet and goes viral.

Then you have the Government making rash decisions and announcing two new inquiries into North Wales. To me it’s foolish.” Saltrese and Hurst are dealt with in detail below.

Of all the allegations made by Messham and others, it was the heinous accusations against Lord McAlpine that were the most sensational.

Despite Newsnight’s inaccurate assertions, these claims were aired in detail at the Waterhouse inquiry, in which the name ‘McAlpine’ was raised. Messham told the investigation: ‘I was also abused by him sexually’ – but he could not even remember his full name, or how he had come to know who this supposed abuser was. Where is this stated in the Waterhouse report? Notice David Rose doesn’t give us a page reference. Sian Griffiths says ‘big names’ were not called to the inquiry and no one has explained why. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=579hj9PSf60#t=216 In the Waterhouse report on p 746 Messham says he did know his abuser’s Christian name. Also it is stated that “B was unable to say who had told him X’s name”. Erm, wasn’t it the unnamed [phantom] police officer?! Obviously without seeing the transcript we don’t know what Messham said regarding McAlpine. But isn’t it a bit weird that during his Ch 4 interview here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJJ2_HGodi4 Messham is very clear about the identity of his abuser. When asked how he knew who his abuser was [around 10 mins] Messham states clearly: “He told me who he was for a start, and number two that he would have me killed if I spoke out.” As said there’s no mention at all of a photo shown to him by police! You’d think that if it was true that police had shown him a photo back in the early 1990s, telling him it was Lord Alistair McAlpine, Messham would have told Sir Ron about it! I wonder at what point that crock of shit was written into the script! Probably around the time the Masonic manipulators were setting him up for his Newsnight ‘interview’. It was certainly long after Waterhouse had published his report which was in 2000.

What is obvious here is the sly way in which Waterhouse [under Masonic guidance] paints a picture of Messham being confused as to the identity of his abuser. This slanted reporting enables the likes of Rose the rat and other ‘journalists’ to follow suit. That of course is the idea. I cover this nonsense of who had told him McAlpine’s name in detail further down; and I have a few of my own questions for Waterhouse [even tho he’s dead!]

After trying to attack the barrister at the inquiry, why bring this up again? Where is the evidence? I have only seen this spread by the shill repeaters. I have not read this in the Waterhouse report and no-one has referenced a page number or given any other source for this allegation Messham apologised, and when he got to the end of his marathon evidence, he thanked Sir Ronald, saying: ‘This tribunal has been more than worthwhile. There was no one more sceptical about this tribunal at the outset but as time has gone on I believe this tribunal will do the right thing.’ Again where does it say this? Messham says that he welcomed the report and the inquiry but that he criticised the inquiry fully as it was going on because of the remit; he said “everyone is still unsure what the remit was”. He says it doesn’t make sense. He says the inquiry didn’t leave stones unturned; that many stones still remain unturned. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraphtv/9659054/Steve-Messham-fairly- optimistic-his-child-abuse-claims-will-be-taken-seriously.html

He was also photographed holding the inquiry’s final report, Lost In Care, when it was published in 2000, saying he was delighted with it. That is not what he said.

Mr Messham received an undisclosed amount in compensation as part of a class settlement after the report was published, in addition to the £16,000 he received after first making his claims. Again Rose does not reference his source of information. The Waterhouse report states on p107 that his claims have been settled for “proper sums”. Why does Rose feel the need to quote an amount? Here is the suggestion again that this is all about easy money, not justice.

He changes his tune... However, when Messham went on Newsnight earlier this month, all his praise for the inquiry was forgotten. He told the BBC: ‘I don’t understand why on earth we had an inquiry.’

He claimed he had been stopped from naming at least a third of those who had abused him, so allowing Newsnight to claim there had been a cover-up. That broadcast has now been taken off air; this is what the BBC say http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20182106 and http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20277732

Messham didn’t change his tune. As stated he has always maintained criticism of the terms of reference and complained that many stones have still not been uncovered. It is stated in the above article: “During the 1970s and 1980s almost 40 children's homes in north Wales were the scene of horrific child abuse in which youngsters were raped and abused by the very people who were paid to look after them.”

Also: “The Waterhouse inquiry, which cost £12m to stage, promised to leave no stone unturned in its endeavour to uncover abuse. However, there have been complaints that the terms of reference were too narrow, restricting investigations to abuse taking place within the care system, not beyond it.

"I don't understand why on Earth we had an inquiry when we had to leave out 30% of the abusers," Mr Messham said in his latest interview.

"And basically I was told to do that. I was told I couldn't go into detail about these people, I couldn't name them and they wouldn't question me on them”.” But he was questioned about McAlpine! As said, that was for the purpose of discrediting Messham. He was the one who became the public spokesperson on behalf of CSA ‘care home’ victims. He was afforded maximum publicity, on all major news outlets – on primetime TV, on radio and in all newspapers; and was even filmed during his meeting with Welsh Secretary David Jones. That was no accident. He was set up to fail. As a result of this dirty trick, any allegations against other ‘V.I.P’ paedos could be treated with a healthy dose of scepticism. Mission accomplished.

The article also states: “Counsel for the inquiry mentioned the existence of a shadowy figure of high public standing, but said that there was no substantial evidence to support the allegations. Which was a lie. Read on.

He told Angus Stickler that at the time, in the early 1990s, he went to North Wales Police to report the abuse, showing them faxed photographs of the senior Tory politician.

However, he said that the two police officers he showed the photograph to dismissed his claims, saying that since the pictures were faxed they were not sufficiently reliable evidence and no further action was taken.”

Newsnight didn’t name McAlpine. There was no case for libel. In any case even if they had named him it wouldn’t have been libellous – his [admitted] ownership of his Ovendon ‘Art’ was enough to hang him. He didn’t fancy airing his dirty laundry in court against Scallywag. He was guilty as sin.

As for the photos, can anyone point out where Messham tells Angus Stickler that he showed faxed photos to the police? Messham clearly tells Channel 4 news that at aged 16 he stole the photos and took “five or six dozen” to the police. I hardly think he would have had the foresight to fax them. I wish he had, as then he would still have the original photos in his possession and all the red hot evidence he needs. Surely the BBC didn’t just make that up!!! Notice Rose’s ‘investigative skills’ doesn’t lead him to question whether or not the photos passed to the police were faxed. Rose doesn’t even mention those photos, let alone inquire as to what became of them. See page 756 of the Waterhouse report for more on this.

I will quote briefly from it on p 757, which shows more evidence of Sir Waterhouse blatantly lying and covering up for powerful paedophiles. “We have not been persuaded that any of these criticisms by B [Messham] can be upheld ... if there is any substance in the suggestion that he tried in 1978 to tell a police officer of abuse at Bryn Estyn” also “It must be added that there was nothing in the evidence then to lead on to an investigation of abuse within Bryn Estyn itself”. This is jaw-droppingly shocking. Waterhouse himself acknowledges there were explicit photos - of boys being sodomized. The question is what happened to those photos? According to Sian Griffiths: “An order was made for the destruction of those books and photographs.” [Around 5 mins.] https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=132&v=579hj9PSf60 But according to the Guardian [written on 6/11/’12 by another trio of disinformationists Steven Morris, Juliette Jowit and Patrick Butler]: “He alleged the senior Tory was featured in some of the photographs but the police said they couldn't identify the men from the Polaroids. North Wales police refused to comment on the allegations.” I bet they fukkin did. But hold on, couldn’t identify the men from the polaroids? Where the fuck did they get that info??? What is the name of the police officer who told them this? Or did they just make that up? Surely not! http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/nov/06/welsh-care-home- abuse-review

So are those photos still in existence? If so, where are they now? If not, who gave the order to shred them? Where are all the investigative journalists??? Come out wherever you are; your country needs you. Why are you not asking questions of the police and the Guardian??? Why aren’t all you ‘alternative media’ chatter boxes all over this like a rash???

Now, take a look at the timeline. According to the BBC Masonic collaborators in crime Messham told Angus Stickler that, at the time, in the early 1990s he went to NW police to report the abuse and showed them the photos. But hold on, Messham was 16 when he went to the police with the photos. Since he was born on Christmas day 1962, at aged 16 the year would have been 1978/79. WOOPS. The paedophilic Masonic cover-uppers really haven’t thought this through. Why didn’t Rose expose the timeline anomaly? 1978 is confirmed in the Waterhouse report as the year Messham first reported abuse to the police [Detective Sergeant Mon Williams], whereupon he was called a liar.

A genuine investigative reporter would have been inquiring who [according to the disgusting piece of masonic propaganda that is in the BBC ‘news’ article above] the two police officers were who dismissed Messham’s claims. A genuine investigative reporter would have also been inquiring as to the exact date of this occurrence.

If David Rose had a moral backbone in him he would not be working for the filthy Daily Mail Masonic paedophilic propagandists, he would be a freelance investigative journalist and would have made enquiries as to who the senior police officer was, who had received from a 16 year old child, explicit photos of boys being buggered. A genuine investigative reporter would be interested in the transcript of the police interview that would have occurred at that time [a senior police officer is not going to just take a wad of explicit paedophile pics from a child without so much as a raised eyebrow and a few questions.] And a genuine investigative reporter would be reporting the date of this occurrence.

Of course the whole story about mistaken identity over a photo shown ‘in the last hour’ by police to Messham surrounding the Newsnight story was one massive Masonic conspiracy, at the very highest levels, to feed us more of the same shiny bullshit. It was a very clever ruse to pave the way for McAlpine to be declared innocent and to leave a question mark over the reliability of victim testimonies. Thus the heat was taken off toff nonces, the whole paedophilia issue went off the agenda and the focus was shifted onto the BBC instead.

Steve Messham had obviously been ‘got at’ by the dark suits. He’d been backed into a corner and I believe he’d agreed to toe the line under the threat of some horrendous consequence if he didn’t agree to play their evil game. He was probably told that what happened to him would also happen to his daughter if he should step out of line. He would have been forced to do as he was told to protect her.

Whatever the grey suits said to force his hand resulted in him being set up in a sophisticated and brilliantly executed psy-op ... and Rose must be in the know.

This paved the way for the dirty disinfo-mongers in shilly street, such as Darren Laverty [see my PDF on him] and his disgusting troll team to be able to spout the following contemptible black propaganda:

“McAlpine is implicated by Messham. But willingly in return for a fat wallet.

He allows the story to circulate and allows Messham, who is on his team to spread the story. All the time they have an exit plan, By using his own principles he will be declared innocent by the very man who originally named him by stating a case of mistaken identity and making it impossible for anyone else to accuse him.

At the same time his wealth increases and no doubt Messham is looked after.

For years the story only circulates in little read Scallywag, Private Eye, Icke etc.Then the internet takes over. Elm GH scandal breaks after Savile dies, calls for a new inquiry into N Wales. Specifically N Wales. Bryn Estyn is the focus. A deliberate distraction perhaps to the wider Bryn Alyn Community. McAlpine wasn't there because Messham has now said so. He's safe. One man has come out on TV as saying specifically McAlpine is not a paedophile. Messham.

However,there is a problem. You and Darren and others in the background know that Messham is a liar. And also an abuser himself.” Messham is protected though, by powerful people and rewarded for sticking to their agenda.” http://darrenlaverty.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/troll-troll-trolling-along.html

If Rose was not a sewer rat he would be doing proper research and asking all sorts of questions, like: Why, when Messham was shown a photograph by a police officer back in the early 1990s, of a man that Messham had identified as his abuser, did that police officer tell him it was Lord McAlpine? What is the name and rank of the police officer who showed him that photo? What is the exact date of this occurrence? Messham would have been interviewed at that time [in depth and by at least two senior police officers], David Rose should have been asking: Who were the interviewing officers; where is the transcript of that interview; what action was taken as a result of Messham’s interview? He should also have asked, who was the man in the photo? In any case how would he remember what that man in that photo looked like 20+ years later? A photo of McAlpine in the early 1990s would look very different to a photo of him in 2012. And did Messham not see any photos or video/TV footage of McAlpine during those intervening years???

But it gets better. It turns out that Keith Gregory and Mark Humphreys were also shown a photo. Seriously, am I the only one with my jaw on the floor? Take a look at this video http://www.channel4.com/news/george-entwistle-resigns-as-bbc- director-general Krishnan Guru-Murthy and Ciaran Jenkins report. How the hell they managed it with a straight face, I’ll never know. We’re told that the ex-wife of Mark Humphreys – Wendy - has spoken out for the first time. Just after Messham’s heavily broadcasted [forced] ‘apology’!!! She claims that what happened to Messham also happened to fellow ex Bryn Estyn sexual abuse victim Mark. She asked not to appear on camera. No surprises there! She can’t risk her lying tongue tripping her up; and the Masonic controllers can’t afford to take any chances. She’s not a professional liar and could easily slip up during questioning. Wonder how much she was paid to go along with the sham. We won’t hear her name mentioned again. She claims that Mark was also shown a photo and given the name McAlpine by police. She says “Steve Messham says Lord McAlpine wasn’t the man who abused him and I accept that”. Notice the carefully chosen words that the Masonic fabricators claim that she says! That’s not something you or I would come out with. Notice she doesn’t/can’t tell us when Mark was apparently shown this photo by police. In any case, why would police have shown him that photo when, back in 1991 when visited by police, he said that he had no complaints about his time in care! Read on for more on that. She says that was the name Mark believed up until he died. Dead men can’t speak. Her sordid lie is safe. Notice no-one else is coming out with this pile of poo. That’s cos they are not traitors. They are genuine battlers for truth and justice. According to journalist Dean Nelson http://www.newstatesman.com/node/137160 “My next witness was Mark Humphries. He had not been in contact with Alison Taylor. His partner said that he had never discussed it openly, but that he had talked about it in his sleep.” Wendy adds: “It begs the question when police showed them the photograph years ago, why was Lord McAlpine’s name put to this photograph? Who was responsible for giving the boys that name?” They weren’t boys back in the early 90s; they were young men. Mark would have been in his late 20s and Gregory would have been 30 or thereabout. The dirty brigade tell that many lies they keep fukkin up. What I want to know is are Ciaran and Krishnan brain dead or are they knowingly spreading bullshit propaganda? I’m having a hard time accepting that they’re dense, so they must be, behind their sincere and sympathetic facade, truly evil bastards. We’re told Wendy is asking [30 years on] for anyone, with any info, to come forward and give information to the police. What, for them to pulp it? Fukking paedophilic piss-take brigade are havin’ a right larff.

The filthy ‘funny handshake’ brigade have come up with the idea of these two mirroring Messham’s ‘photo of the paedophile peer’ story to try and bolster the farcical, ill thought out charade. This was necessary under howls of laughter and derision from an increasingly sceptical and outraged public.

Now, the powerful perverted propagandists are putting it about that victims started making ‘untrue’ allegations due to pressure from Dean Nelson [I’ll cover this point in more detail in a bit]. For now, take a look at this piece from the cointelpro kingpin, sell out sewer rat Richard Webster https://secretofbrynestyn.wordpress.com/2013/08/05/mark- humphreys/ I quote: “Mark Humphreys came to the attention of social services in 1979 when he was fourteen after a cache of indecent photographs, including one of him, was discovered in the home of the 27-year-old sex offender, Gary Cooke. Did social services rescue him? Did they fukk. Instead he was arrested for theft and then sent to another hell home.

On June 3 1980, after being arrested for theft, Humphreys was placed in care at Bryn Estyn and remained there until the end of August 1981.

When initially visited by the police in 1991 he said that he had no complaints about his time in care. Who knows what he told police. This extract is from the truth twisting paedo protecting propaganda scumbag Richard Webster. Webster should have been concerned that Mark Humphreys had said that [allegedly]. How the hell could he have had no complaints about his time in ‘care’ [hell] when a photo of him clearly showed that he was being sexually abused??? He began to make allegations against Peter Howarth after being visited by Dean Nelson. He only made allegations against Gordon Anglesea after Nelson had shown him a photograph of the retired police officer and supplied his name. Wendy, of course, doesn’t mention that Mark had also been shown a photo – this time of Gordon Anglesea - by a journalist! It looks like the Masonic ‘make-it-up-on-the-hoof’ merchants got this idea from what actually happened in the case of another victim called Paul, which I’ll come to in a min.

He appeared as a witness for the newspapers in the Anglesea libel trial in 1994. After the trial, he and his wife Wendy split up.

In Febuary 1995, he committed suicide by hanging himself in the stairwell of the flats in Wrexham where he lived.” Shame on all you filthy paedophile animals and all your foul and evil protectors. May you suffer unimaginable torment in HELL ... FOREVER.

Back to the piss taking pair Krishnan and Ciaran. Keith Gregory [also an ex Bryn Estyn CSA victim - allegedly] also “recalls police showing him a photograph of a particular alleged abuser.” He says: “You weren’t given a choice of photographs. One photograph – Is this your abuser? Yes or no? In my case no, definitely not.” Well that’s conveniently vague. I have read a LOT of articles and watched all the videos featuring Keith Gregory and I can tell you NO-WHERE else is this mentioned. You’d think that vital bit of information would have come out long before it did ... if it was true. Come to think of it, apart from an undated article and a photo in the press of when he was much younger, I didn’t come across any publications about Gregory that was dated earlier than 2012 i.e. before Messham’s Newsnight fit up. Neither is there any evidence that he testified at the Waterhouse inquiry, as he says; nor is there any official documentation to substantiate anything he says. There’s nothing to substantiate his statement that he was “mentally, physically and sexually abused” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92D4YLx_X-g or anything to show that he even went to Bryn Estyn. I’m not saying he’s lying; just that there is no actual corroboration. If someone can show that I’ve made a mistake, please let me know, so that I can make the correction.

Keith Gregory is supposed to be another big voice on behalf of ‘care home’ CSA victims in the fight for truth and justice; the Lord McAlpine question is the most talked about subject in the whole of the North Wales child abuse scandal; how come he didn’t ask other victims whether or not they too were shown a photo by police in the early 1990s of a ‘particular alleged abuser’ and, if so, what information they had in connection? After all, he has been compiling a list of high profile names in conjunction with 60 other victims; a task which took 6 years [more on this coming up]. Why wasn’t he curious as to why there is no mention of this mystery photo in the Waterhouse report? He calls Waterhouse a cover up; what has he been doing to uncover some truth? Two and a half years have gone by since he announced that he too had been shown a photo by police; I think he should tell us the date that he was shown this photo, the name of the officer who showed him the photo and whether or not the officer had said the photo was of Lord McAlpine. He should also tell us what steps he has taken to find out who the man in the photo is and why Steve Messham and Mark Humphreys were misled when they were told that the photo was of his Lordship.

I do believe Keith Gregory is just another chain yanker. He’s now a councillor for Wrexham County Council – right in the belly of the beast you might say. Nuff said already really. http://moderngov.wrexham.gov.uk/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=60&LLL=unde fined

Channel 4 news http://www.channel4.com/news/top-tory-links-to-abuse-could- be-mistaken say: “Keith Gregory, the Wrexham councillor who acted as spokesperson for the victims of abuse since the allegations of abuse at the home in the 1970s and 1980s emerged again recently, said he believed a different member of the McAlpine family may be responsible instead. This person may have been mistaken for Lord McAlpine, he added.” Yet in his Radio 5 live interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92D4YLx_X-g entitled ‘Most of them were Freemasons Keith Gregory elite paedophile ring abuse victim’ [around 3 mins] he says two MPs, one whom he knew was a conservative, were abusers. When asked if that man was “the one who’s been in the news; who’s not been named; the one who’s the conservative”, Gregory says: “Yes; that’s it. Yes.” There was no doubt about it. No mention that it could have been a different McAlpine. When asked if he was abused by “this senior conservative politician” he replies: “No, I wasn’t. No.” [2 mins.]

In the Guardian gutter rag, in the article written by the Leigh, Morris and Bibi van der Zee sleazy three http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/nov/08/mistaken-identity-tory- abuse-claim Gregory says he “did not believe Lord (Alistair) McAlpine was involved in the scandal.” In Wales Online http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/local- news/wrexham-abuse-victim-councillor-keith-2017635 Gregory “believes some who were found guilty were innocent because of techniques used to get witnesses to come forward.” Who was innocent but found guilty? Where is his evidence of this? What techniques? Trawling? It sure looks like he’s been primed to say this by his Masonic overseer. Also, he says: “There were some who were not guilty of the crimes – but they were guilty of knowledge.” That is a nonsensical statement. Why is he talking in riddles?

The tricky trio at the Guardian again: “boys from Bryn Estyn would be taken in "working parties" to the homes of two McAlpine family members in the area – Gerwyn Hall and Marchwiel Hall, both a few miles south-east of Wrexham town centre. "We were like little slaves – we'd do gardening, cleaning the yards, all sorts of things," said Gregory. "We were taken in a van to do work." He said he was not aware of any abuse of children at either of the homes and there is no other credible evidence of such abuse. Gerwyn Hall, a grand Georgian house hidden by woodland from the public road, was occupied by Jimmie McAlpine, who died in 1991, six years before the Waterhouse inquiry began.” It is simply not believable that boys were taken to these McAlpine houses just to work. No- one else backs up this claim. No McAlpine would need boys to do their slave labour. They had enough money to pay an army of gardeners/ house- keepers . The boys were for buggering only.

Channel 4 news also say: “Mr Messham had said that Lord McAlpine turned up at the boy's home in expensive cars. But Mr Gregory told the Guardian that a man who children at the home believed to be a member of the McAlpine family would arrive at Bryn Estyn in an expensive car.”

Keith Gregory claims here http://www.channel4.com/news/i-can-still- hear-the-children-screaming-crying that he formed a self-help group in Wrexham and together with the help of other victims they compiled a list of names of abusers. It took 6 years and the testimony of 60 survivors. He says there are 54 names on the list and that half have never been investigated. You’d think therefore that he would be pretty clued up on these names. However in his Radio 5 Live interview [which sounded scripted] he says there were 2 MPs, senior judges, senior police officers, market traders, business people from Wrexham. When asked if those MPs had abused him, he stuttered and said he’s not sure if they were MPs and says: “I don’t know all of them”. [Around 3 mins.] He says he knows one MP was a conservative [i.e. Lord McAlpine], but he’s not sure about the other one.

He goes on to declare that he knows most of them are masons. So he knows that these abusers are members of a secret society and yet he isn’t sure who some of them are – even though he says he does know!

He also says it is disgusting that an insurance company can tell a county council how to act [re the Jillings report], and that if it was published or given to the police, those names would be revealed. Well it was published [albeit heavily redacted] after he’d done this interview. What I’d like to know is why Gregory thinks passing any information to the police is going to help CSA victims. [He even encourages people who may have been victims of abuse to come forward because “the police will believe you”. He’s avin a larff.] Notice he points out that most of the abusers are masons, but doesn’t add that masonry controls the police, insurance companies, all county councils [one of which he is now in the payroll of!] all those chairing inquiries, including Waterhouse himself ... !!!

He also states in this interview that he did complain whilst he was at Bryn Estyn. He says a case conference was called – a senior police man was there and the deputy head; everyone was laughing and shaking hands with each other. He was just ridiculed and he knew he couldn’t say anything. That is all very vague, it isn’t believable, and he hasn’t provided any evidence that it happened.

In this Leader article http://www.leaderlive.co.uk/news/117413/wrexham- abuse-victim-we-must-have-a-new-inquiry-.aspx he says: " I was taken away from my family in 1972. I was playing truant in school because I had dyslexia and problems hearing, and I was being bullied. I got into a little bit of crime – minor vandalism – more out of boredom than anything else.

I ended up in court and I was told they wanted to put me in care until I was 18. I just couldn’t believe it. My family couldn’t either – I remember my dad crying.” Well I’d love to see the official documentation to prove that. This sounds like the type of disinfo that you get from the shills who claim that nasty social services and corrupt judges want to steal your children, based on flimsy or fabricated reasons; or for the fear of future ‘emotional abuse’. Keith allegedly went into care at aged 12. He wants us to believe that the welfare agencies and judge[s] wanted to lock him up for the next 6 years without any progress reports being undertaken or any reviews. That’s just laughable. There is no evidence of that happening to anyone. Even the most unruly of kids get reviewed.

The first I knew of the Waterhouse Inquiry was when I got a knock on the door from an ex-police officer. Why would he get a call from an ex bobby? They opened a can of worms and just left it sitting there.

If I had a choice, I wouldn’t be doing this. But then the abusers would never be caught. Doing what? All you’re doing is assisting the abusers. Prove me wrong Keith. Show me some official documentation that backs up what you say – police statements, Waterhouse transcript, the court order that confined you to ‘care’, Bryn Estyn reports ... As it stands you’re all talk and no substance.

The more people who come forward, the more likely it will be that we can get help and find justice. You don’t need more victims; there are plenty. You need to challenge the gatekeepers.

"I fully support the opening of another inquiry but it needs to be independent and it needs to go further. There’s no such thing as an independent inquiry when we have the unseen, unaccountable Masonic hand operating in the shadows. We have pretend inquiries; which cost us hard working taxpayers a mint. But our forced labour and the looting we’re forced to endure i.e our slavery, is no pretence.

Mrs May said she will consider Labour calls for a wider, over-arching inquiry into child abuse – including the allegations involving the late DJ and BBC presenter Jimmy Savile – if the evidence was shown to justify it. Isn’t the fact that around 30 names of prominent people in a paedophile ring have never been investigated not enough evidence to justify it??? Of course all this is play acting. May does as she’s told. All politicians do. All of them are actors. So is Keith Gregory. Labour can call for whatever they want, knowing they have no clout and that everything is decided by much higher Masonic powers.

In her statement at the Commons she warned MPs not to use parliamentary privilege to try to name the alleged suspect as it could jeopardise the prospect of any future criminal trial. Laugh out loud; fukking great pretender. How long does she want to wait for this future criminal trial? Isn’t 30-40 years long enough for her? How about we put her on trial for aiding and abetting these criminal paedophiles? How the fuck can naming someone jeopardise any criminal trial? Let’s look at the trial of Michael Jackson. He faced 10 trumped up charges of lewd conduct with a minor. It was all instigated and engineered by very high level unnamed and untouchable masons. As intended by the masonic PTB MJ’s trial was a media circus, and he endured demonizing and unjust headlines. No one else has faced such public scrutiny. Did it jeopardise his trial? No, he was acquitted of all charges.

If Cllr Keith Gregory really is the official victims’ champion, God help them. He is obviously a ‘muddy-water’ merchant. He claims to be tackling the list of ‘famous names’, but because of his vagueness, inconsistencies, non too convincing testimony and failure to substantiate anything he says, what he’s actually doing is undermining the testimonies of genuine CSA victims, such as Steve Messham, whose only motive is truth and justice. Gregory is reinforcing the propaganda that the idea of a ‘prominent names’ paedo ring is wild speculation; that there is only enough evidence that abuse was committed by some of the care home staff.

Likewise so-called investigative reporter Ciaran Jenkins says that what happened in Wrexham is looking murkier by the day. Indeed it is, but he is adding to that murkiness by failing to tackle the real issues - asking the questions and raising the points I do in this PDF and in my ‘FIONA OF THE FORGED LETTER’ pdf. The same goes for Krishnan Guru- Murthy. They, like all mainstream ‘investigative’ reporters/journalists are well paid pretenders; highly paid professionals, playing at being investigators.

Keith Gregory directly contradicts himself on the very subject that lies at the heart of the North Wales V.I.P paedophile ring. First he says he is in no doubt Lord Alistair McAlpine was one of the abusers. Then he says that he believes it was a different member of the McAlpine family, and that he does NOT believe Lord McAlpine was involved in the scandal. Why doesn’t David Rose raise issue about that? Why don’t the ‘alternative media’ talking heads investigate Keith Gregory and point out the contradictions and absurdities in his statements?

Back to the Messham stitch up. Why doesn’t Rose question why the BBC didn’t think it necessary to do some basic background checks before hand? For example, why didn’t they show Messham a photo of his Lordship? Why didn’t they contact the peer to discuss the ‘rumour’ and ask him some questions before the Newsnight programme aired? Why didn’t they invite him on to the programme to give his right of reply? There is not a cat in hells chance that the BBC would genuinely cock up [no pun intended] so spectacularly – there are far too many checks and balances.

Let’s be clear Steven Messham has not been found to bear false witness about anything. He was cruelly manipulated by the paedophile protecting Masonic suits and eventually coerced into apologising for a Masonic engineered ‘screw up’.

Now take a look at the disgraceful slant in this Guardian article, dated 10/11/2012 http://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/nov/10/newsnight- mcalpine-scoop-rumour

David Leigh again: “But the profoundly embarrassing truth was that the story was false. Not only was it a fairly straightforward case of mistaken identity, but this fact had been known about by journalists for more than 15 years. Show us the evidence. Name the journalists who knew this and point out the articles they wrote over 15 years ago about other McAlpines that might have been raping children. Messham's claims, however well-intentioned, had been examined and rejected by the official Waterhouse inquiry in 1997. Simple checking would have revealed this. Provide the evidence. Show us the transcript of the Waterhouse inquiry that proves this.

McAlpine's cousin, Jimmie McAlpine, a prominent local businessman, was the one originally named by Wrexham inmates as the object of rumours. There was no evidence of actual sexual abuse in any event. These rather devastating facts are explicitly recorded in transcripts of the Waterhouse inquiry.” Who accused Jimmie McAlpine of being a paedophile and when? Where are these articles? Who decided there was no evidence of sexual abuse? Was this established in court? Was Jimmie McAlpine questioned by police?

Where are these “devastating facts” recorded? There is no point David Leigh telling us this, he has to publish these transcripts. Why didn’t Leigh reference the page of the report where he came by these ‘facts’?

In the Waterhouse report, which I ref just below, Lord McAlpine is referred to as X. There is no mention of a cousin McAlpine and Jimmie isn’t named either. Neither is ‘mistaken identity’ established.

Also according to the Guardian: “Nelson wrote where? that a number of boys had told him that Jimmie McAlpine, president of the Wrexham golf club, "was heavily involved with Howarth and was his frequent golfing partner". Nelson explained to the inquiry: "The name McAlpine was one that cropped up regularly … but it was never a name you could pin down. I mean, there were lots of McAlpines and It wasn't something that I took seriously”." According to Waterhouse Nelson didn’t state the name Jimmie McAlpine. Neither did he mention ‘cousin’. In fact Nelson said that he had never received any proper allegation about X and that he wasn’t looking into him. [See p 746 of the Waterhouse report.] So where do the Guardian get this information?

As for the quote “The name McAlpine was the one that cropped up ...” that is repeated word for word on shill sites and in ‘news’ reports but is not stated in the Waterhouse report.

And: “Years later another former inmate, Keith Gregory, gave some further context to the rumours. He explained that inmates would be taken over to Gethyn Hall, Jimmie's Wrexham home, to till its grounds in "work parties", and that McAlpine would visit the care home in his expensive car.” Note the emphasis on the [deceased] Jimmie McAlpine and also ‘lots of McAlpines’ to get the public off the scent and believing that this is nothing more than hyped up rumour.

Finally: “As the witch-hunt mounted, the ITV This Morning host Philip Schofield even thrust at David Cameron a list of names, culled from the internet, of what he alleged were Tory paedophiles. Phillip Schofield on primetime TV was primed to ‘ambush’ PM Cameron with a list of names and to emphasise that he got them “in 3 minutes on the internet”. This is all staged propaganda; pure theatre for the millions of brain dead soap opera fans.

Eventually the Guardian came to the rescue on Friday, by finding and publishing the evidence that exonerated Lord McAlpine. Within 24 hours his accuser, Messham, had retracted and apologised for a case of mistaken identity.” What bloody evidence? Where is this published?

Notice that all this utterly vile paedophile protecting propaganda is being propagated in the more believable ‘intellectual’ rags, such as the Guardian and Telegraph; and on the ‘serious’ news outlets such as Channel 4 and the Beeb. The thoroughly programmed public is thus more likely to swallow it, rather than scoff at it.

Back to the slick and slippery three - Leigh, Morris and Zee: “The Waterhouse inquiry, when it attempted to investigate the McAlpine allegations recorded X had several different cars. If there was an attempt to do that, all the McAlpines would have been hauled before Sir Ronald. Waterhouse reported his frustration that Messham would not at the time reveal the alleged forename of the McAlpine he believed had abused him, or who had suggested the name to him. Oooh I’m really spitting feathers now. The frustrated one was Messham; the one who had repeatedly told police the names of his abusers; the one who is very clear that “the prominent Tory” was one of his abusers; the one who is very clear that the famous Tory himself had told him who he was; the one who had listed over 60 names that he wanted Waterhouse to investigate. But what did Waterhouse do? He ordered Messham to REMOVE around 30 of those names https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJJ2_HGodi4 [around 11 mins]. The judge concluded that although Messham was testifying in good faith, and had indeed suffered extensive sexual abuse, his evidence was inconclusive about "any member of the X family". He left open the possibility that Messham might have been wrongly told by a third party that a McAlpine was involved, or have jumped to conclusions. If these Guardian reporters were not beholden to their Masonic bosses they would have questioned why the judge talks in terms of a “third party” and why he says Messham might have “jumped to conclusions”, when Messham had [so the script goes] been given this information by a police officer.

Course the truth is this Guardian piece is a perversion of the Waterhouse report which is itself a perversion of the truth. That translates to this being a Masonic psy-op.

But, crucially, Messham's 1997 evidence to Waterhouse should have ruled out speculation about Lord McAlpine, whose Italian home has been mobbed by reporters for the past week. Oh poor old pervert. That’s probably more propaganda shite anyway. And even if true, he wouldn’t’ve cared two hoots as he was able to hide inside his fortress whilst his staff dealt with any problems. Look how these three stooges are trying to stoke up sympathy for the ‘innocent’ peer. Diabolical.

Reporters covering the inquiry at the time concluded that Messham could not be referring to Lord McAlpine because Messham said his abuser was dead. These three reporters [wankers] really are clutching at straws. Show me a video or some official documentation where I can see for myself that Steve Messham has said that. Even Waterhouse does not state that Messham said that. In another apparent discrepancy, the Times reported this week show us that clip that their reporter put Lord McAlpine's name to Messham in 1996. "But he said that his abuser was called 'Tom' and had a flat in Wrexham". Show the evidence for this wild claim. Name the Times reporter. Tell us the exact date in 1996 that said reporter wrote said article. Show us the article that was apparently written in 1996. This is yet another line that is being spread far and wide, word for word, on the planet of the shills. But no-one has provided a link to the source of that blatant lie!

The only apparent corroborative evidence about Lord McAlpine has also been undermined. It came from another boy who was not a Bryn Estyn inmate. He described being abused in Wrexham five years later by a wealthy figure with a Harrods charge card. Traced by the Guardian, show the evidence you lying fuckwads this victim, who wants to remain anonymous, cos he’s a figment of Masonic fantasy confirms that his sole knowledge of Lord McAlpine comes from being shown a photograph of him subsequently by a journalist.” Anonymous journalist too! No details and no evidence = Breathtaking bullshit.

Our planet is groaning under the strain of unimaginable world-wide mass deception. Leigh, Morris and Zee, I would not want to be in your shoes when the public realise the considerable contribution you make to it. Hang your heads in shame.

Here’s what is reported by Waterhouse [p745]: “Similar difficulties arise about allegations made by witness B in a statement to the police, which he confirmed in part only when he gave oral evidence. Who knows if that is true since we’re not privy to the transcript of Messham’s testimony. If it is it would not be surprising. When you are under scrutiny and under threat by the grey suits, you are going to be very wary. The police, social services and courts had completely failed him; why should he trust Waterhouse? Messham did well to achieve what he did and to bear up for as long as he did. The alleged abuser referred to by B, whom we will call X, has the surname of a well known and large non-Welsh family and he is said to be dead now. ‘Said to be dead’ is vague. Waterhouse doesn’t say where this info came from. He does not state that Messham had said it. It has been suggested also [but not by B] that X was a friend or acquaintance of Howarth. Why the vagueness? Why doesn’t Waterhouse state who had suggested this? This statement enables [by design] the mainstream to report that X is Jimmie McAlpine and that he was “heavily involved with Howarth”. [Golf connection - Jimmie was president of Wrexham golf club. Howarth played golf, mainly at Wrexham golf club – p 86 of ‘Lost in Care’.] According to B’s statement to the police, X had several different motor cars and would wait for him at the bottom of Bryn Estyn lane when he had a late pass. X would be accompanied by another paedophile now deceased and they would take B to various places. B alleged that he was buggered by X on four or five of these occasions, twice in the car in Moss Valley, once in the Crest Hotel at Wrexham and in the flat of Gary Cooke on the other occasions. Witness B however was very reserved about these allegations when he gave oral evidence saying that, after a particular press article had appeared, his house and his car had been destroyed and he had received numerous threats: he was not taking any chances anymore. He said for example that he knew the Christian name of X but was unwilling to disclose it. X had a young man who was his driver and this man liked people to think he was a member of X’s family. B was unable to say who had told him X’s name.”

As said until we see the transcript of Steve’s words we just don’t know what exactly he said in relation to Lord McNonce. How can he have been “unwilling to disclose” Alistair McAlpine’s name when he had already named over 60 of those perverts [which would have obviously included Alistair McAlpine’s name] that he wanted investigating? As for being unable to say who had told him the peer’s name, that isn’t true either; Steve says the Tory MP himself had told Steve who he was.

Also as said this just further confirms that the story of mistaken identity and an unidentified copper who showed Messham a photo in the early 90s is a load of old phooey cos that would have come out at the tribunal, as Steve was obviously questioned on “who had told him X’s name”.

Waterhouse also says [on p 746]: “It is obvious on this evidence that we cannot be satisfied that any member of the X family was involved in paedophile activity.”

What he means is he was under orders not to find any such evidence.

Waterhouse is supposed to be establishing the truth and bringing us FACTS. His inquiry took 3 years, he had umpteen witnesses and complete access to all the documentation he needed, yet all we get is more of the same Masonic propaganda - lies, spin, vagueness and mystery surrounding McNonce.

The following is the deplorable ‘Independent’s’ spin on it not so independent though since it too is written by David Leigh! If the truth be known it was probably written by him in collaboration with other Masonic monkeys [probably the other Guardian ones.] David Leigh will seriously regret putting his name to these articles when the mass populace finally wake up and realise the absolutely shocking level of lies deception and deceit being propagated by our mainstream news outlets: “The 70-year- old McAlpine was driven from his home after coming under siege from journalists. But the profoundly embarrassing truth was that the story about McAlpine the paedophile was false from the start. That is your disgusting propaganda.

Not only was it a fairly straightforward case of mistaken identity, but this fact had been known about by veteran journalists for more than 15 years. As said, do expand on that point.

Messham's claims, however well intentioned, had already been carefully examined and rejected by the official Waterhouse inquiry in 1997. Publish the inquiry transcripts so that we can see for ourselves how careful Messham’s claims were examined. Simple journalistic checking would have revealed this.

McAlpine's cousin, Jimmie McAlpine, a prominent local businessman, was the one originally named by Wrexham inmates as the object of rumours. Named by who and when? There was no evidence of actual sexual abuse in any event. How do you know? Was this established in a court of law? What were the allegations? Was Jimmie McAlpine questioned by police? Where are the news articles on this? These rather devastating facts are explicitly recorded in transcripts of the official Waterhouse inquiry. Show us these transcripts.

On January 29, 1998, one of the lawyers at the inquiry, Sir Geoffrey Nice QC, referred to notes of a meeting between a social worker and a London-based Observer journalist, Dean Nelson, who had been investigating the home and its deputy head, Peter Howarth, who was eventually jailed for abusing the boys. If you’re going to reference ‘notes’ you have to show them to us! And name this social worker.

The journalist wrote that a number of boys had told him that Jimmie McAlpine, president of the Wrexham golf club, "was heavily involved with Howarth and was his frequent golfing partner". Show us where Dean Nelson states this.

Nelson explained to the inquiry: "The name McAlpine was one that cropped up regularly... but it was never a name you could pin down. I mean, there were lots of McAlpines and it wasn't something that I took seriously." Show us the transcript whereby you obtain this quote.

Nice said: "It's very frustrating from the tribunal's point of view that the name is mouthed and then you ask further questions and you've nothing to grasp at all... The furthest we have ever got is that somebody called 'Jimmie' was referred to." Where is the source of this quote?

Nelson replied: "I think Jimmie McAlpine had been involved in some benevolent charity work, sponsoring various children's playgrounds. Laugh out fukkin loud. Some people drew an innuendo on that, but I certainly didn't. I never heard any allegations... It was just one of the many, many, many rumours knocking around."” Show us the source of that quotation.

It’s just a rumour you understand. You’re hearing that from the more intellectual newspapers. They don’t lie. There’s nothing to be concerned about. It’s just a load of hullabaloo. Get the telly on. Don’t want to miss the latest episode of Coronation Street. http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/video-flawed-probe- severely-damages-bbc-28895350.html

We might ask:

Why didn’t Waterhouse establish who had interviewed Messham and shown him the photo back in the early 1990s?

Why didn’t Waterhouse establish why that police officer had incorrectly told Messham that the man in the photo was Lord McAlpine?

Why didn’t Waterhouse establish who the man in the photo was?

Why didn’t Waterhouse find out if that photo is still in existence?

Why didn’t Waterhouse state exactly when this police officer had shown Messham the photo which we are told was ‘back in the early 1990s’?

Why didn’t Waterhouse outline what action was taken as a result of Messham’s interview by the police at that time?

Why didn’t Waterhouse establish who the senior police officer was who had received the ‘5 or 6 dozen’ explicit photos of Steve and other boys being sodomized by their abusers that Steve Messham had handed to police when he was 16 years old? Why didn’t Waterhouse state the exact date of this occurrence? Why didn’t he name the senior interviewing officers who would have interviewed him at that time? Why isn’t a summary of that interview and the outcome of it outlined in the Waterhouse report? Why didn’t Waterhouse establish whether or not said photos were still in existence, and if they weren’t, who had given the order for them to be shredded?

Of course if Waterhouse was doing an investigation as he was paid to do and not serving his fellow filthy freemason collaborators in crime, he would have established whether or not police had also shown a photo of a ‘particular alleged abuser’ in the early 1990s to other Bryn Estyn victims – Mark Humphreys and Keith Gregory, given them Lord McNonce’s name and asked if said man was their abuser. He would have also established if it was true that Mark had been shown a photo of Gordon Anglesea by journalist Dean Nelson which prompted him to make allegations against Peter Howarth.

Jesus Wept; this is doing my head in.

Back to the filthy paedo protecting Guardian and their propaganda piece: “Both Detective Superintendent Ackerley and Dean Nelson, a journalist to whom X had been mentioned, were asked about any further enquiries that they made to establish his identity. Ackerley said that it was difficult to identify which member of the family was being referred to: he never had anything tangible to get hold of.” What a crock of shit. Isn’t he supposed to be a detective? Why didn’t he investigate ALL the McAlpines? Why didn’t he question the chauffeur? Why didn’t he question the officer[s] who showed Messham, Gregory and Humphreys that photo ...? Messham knew who his abuser - Lord McAlpine - was; why didn’t Ackerley? Cos he’s a lying scumbag mason and a major player in the cover up. You don’t get to climb so high up the police greasy pole unless you’re one of them.

Take a look at the Scally articles below; Ackerley was in charge of an internal police enquiry, in which he took over 1500 statements in 1989 ... Ten years later at the Waterhouse enquiry and he still couldn’t identify the right McAlpine!!! But it gets better. Ackerley was the Detective Superintendent who had personally interviewed and taken the testimony from a CSA victim named Paul who first named Lord McAlpine. Ackerley had referred it on to North Wales C.I.D whereby Paul was interviewed for two days by two C.I.D officers. The person who had persuaded Paul to give evidence to the police was freelance journalist Brian Johnson-Thomas who had previously written an article about Supt Gordon Anglesea in Private Eye in January 1993. After several detailed interviews Brian showed Paul four photographs of completely different men, all of about the same age, who could have easily fitted Paul’s description. One of the photos was of Lord McAlpine. Paul identified him immediately. There was not a moment’s hesitation or scrap of doubt. He was absolutely certain McAlpine was the man.

So Ackerley absolutely knew then that Lord Alistair McAlpine was a child rapist. In fact the peer was formally cautioned by Strathclyde police for a sexual offence against a minor in 1965. Why isn’t Ackerley’s head on a platter?

Of course this really puts to bed the hype that Messham was shown a photo in the early 1990s, as Paul was the person who gave testimony against McAlpine to the police, and that would have been sometime after 1993. Angus James talks about Messham only in terms of the Anglesea libel trial which was on 6/12/1994. It strikes me that the Masonic powers probably avoided using Paul as their celebrity spokesperson [and would never have allowed him on Newsnight] as he is described in Scallywag as being viewed by the police as a credible witness for the prosecution, never wavering from his police statement and sworn affidavit to Brian Johnson-Thomas, and was considered to be capable of withstanding cross examination by eminent QCs.

It probably is the case that the Masonic high honchos got the idea for the photo ‘mistaken identity’ pantomime [and set Messham up in the starring role to get the pervert McAlpine off the hook] from what actually happened in Paul’s case i.e. the story was based loosely on him.

If the story aired by Newsnight was genuine Supt Ackerley would have been the officer who had interviewed Messham back in the early 1990s and had shown him the photo, and, according to procedure would have interviewed him at length and would have involved a couple of C.I.D officers. [It couldn’t have been any other high ranking police officer as Waterhouse states only Ackerley.] So Ackerley was responsible for the Newsnight fiasco, yet his name wasn’t even mentioned in the aftermath!!!

As for other police officers, Angus James reports: “Case files on six police officers, including Anglesea were sent to the CPS. No prosecutions followed. The CPS stated, “It is not in the public interest to prosecute these police officers”. Instead the men who had been responsible for ruining the lives of many young helpless boys were nudged into retirement with handsome commutation payments and pensions intact. All the officers with allegations against them were active freemasons.”

Also in connection with Anglesea, Angus James tells of an incident whereby in 1982 a 14 year old boy David Sellers was raped savagely. Next day, distressed and disorientated, he reported it to Wrexham police. His rapist Alan Beck was questioned at length but never charged. Supt Anglesea was the man in charge.

Back to Waterhouse: Nelson was more outspoken. He said that the name was mentioned to him but he never received any proper allegation about X. He added: “So far as I was concerned the X thing was a distraction. I wasn’t looking into X and I never heard anything that made me think I should.” Until we see the Waterhouse transcripts we don’t know what Dean Nelson said. If he was an independent investigative journalist however, he would have done the research and wrote the article on X; just as Angus James had done. But he isn’t independent; he is a mainstream reporter, beholden to the Masonic powers and as such writes only what he is allowed to. More on him coming up re the Anglesea libel trial.

We might ask why Simon Regan and Brian Johnson-Thomas and Angus Stickler were not asked to testify at the Waterhouse enquiry. Silly me, I forgot Waterhouse wasn’t commissioned to get to the truth, he was chosen to assist in the cover up. Simon Regan says: “It had been alleged that we owed rent, which we disputed, but under a court order the landlords were able to change the locks and seize our assets which included all our files, including those we had made on paedophiles. It was apparently quite legal, but it was most certainly a dirty trick.

All of a sudden very private information, some of it even privileged between ourselves and our lawyer during the John Major libel action, was being published in selected, pro-Conservative sections of the media.

Subsequently, during a court case initiated by Lewis, I was able in my defence to seek discovery of documents and asked to see the seized files. The paedophile papers were missing. This is a very great shame, because Sir Ronald Waterhouse certainly should have been aware of them.”

Interestingly the following conversation, which is said to be quoted from the Waterhouse tribunal, is repeated word for word on the popular shill sites and in ‘news’papers [even the more ‘serious’ ‘news’ reads such as the Telegraph]. The following is taken from The Slog. https://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2012/11/12/exclusive-steve-messham- missing-for-eight-hours John Ward sickeningly says, “let’s stick to solid, recorded evidence for a while”:

“At the Waterhouse Tribunal: Gerard Elias QC: “Does the name McAlpine mean anything to you.” Steven Messham: “Yes, sir.” Elias: “In what context?” Messham: “I was also abused by him sexually.” Sir Ronald Waterhouse: “Is the person you referred to alive or dead?” Messham: “I believe he is dead”.”

I would like Ward to publish the part of the transcript that he copy/pasted this from whereby we can see for ourselves if this is indeed what was stated.

To recap, the name McAlpine isn’t mentioned in the ‘Lost in Care’ report; he is referred to as X. And it is not stated that Messham says he believes the person is dead. Waterhouse is vague about where that info came from, saying only that X “is said to be dead now”. If the above exchange had taken place at the tribunal, Waterhouse would surely have stated in his report that Messham [or witness B] stated that he believes X is dead. According to Waterhouse Messham did know the Christian name of his abuser. This fact is not stated by the shills though. It is clear from Steve’s TV testimony that he absolutely did know who his abusers were; he says one was the “prominent Tory member for one” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJJ2_HGodi4

Waterhouse and the shills also make a point of stressing that this man had ‘several different motor cars’ which is a ruse to get us focussing on cousin Jimmie who is long dead ... For example The Slog says: “Jimmie McAlpine’s ID fits to the letter with his chauffeurs, his massive car collection, the house where he lived, the hotel he frequented, and the golf club membership ...”

Jonathon Sawyer aka Gojam throws in his two-penneth worth and simply says [on 14/11/’14] of the “piece of scum who protected his paedophile cousin”, that “his own cousin ‘Jimmy’ McAlpine, living in Chester, was the real child sexual deviant abusing children from care homes in North Wales.” He doesn’t provide the proof of that though. He also says: “Yep, your ‘ideas’ and your deceit are understood. You, in life, protected your paedophile cousin and in the process you attempted to destroy Steven Messham. You came close to achieving that goal.” Crass hypocrisy. Gojam then quotes from ‘The New Machiavelli, P176, Alistair McAlpine’ and also says: “So, learn that hard lesson and understand that not all stories in the MSM are true. Games are afoot…” https://theneedleblog.wordpress.com/2014/11/14/a- warning-from-the-self-proclaimed-new-machiavelli/ Sawyer is one of the most twisted, spiteful, hateful, manipulative and prolific trolls in cyberspace. He knows all about ‘games’ – read my ‘GOJAM’ pdf http://sharonkilby.co.uk/site/GOJAM.php

And just to add even more confusion to the mix, Keith Gregory said that he believed a different member of the McAlpine family may be responsible instead. He also said that a man who children at the home believed to be a member of the McAlpine family would arrive at Bryn Estyn in an expensive car. So why was so much weight put on the ‘fleet of expensive cars’ indicating that the mystery man was cousin Jimmie? I bet both these McAlpines had a fleet of cars. Why wouldn’t they when both were obscenely wealthy?

V.I.P paedophilia is institutionalised and organised and not just confined to the North Wales area. As for Lord McNonce, the sordid saga of sodomy was suppressed by some stunningly spectacular spin; and with everyone singing from the same hymn sheet – the mainstream media, the ‘alternative’ media, the police, social services, an assortment of local authorities, the government and of course Waterhouse we just kept getting lost in the fog and darkness ... and the perverted peer was allowed to wriggle his way off the hook.

Remember, Angus James was the first to name Lord McAlpine years before the Waterhouse enquiry and he published graphic detail of the abuse metered out; but his Lordship wasn’t in a hurry to sue Scallywag.

Angus says: “There can be little doubt that one of Britain’s most ambitious and profitable paedophile rings, run by a ruthless pervert, had direct connections with leading Tories; that large sums of public money were misused to fund a network of rent boy brothels; and that politicians involved in the ring, in particular former treasurer Lord McAlpine were fully aware of these funds being misappropriated.

Lord McAlpine is not only a crook, but a paedophile. Should Lord McAlpine choose to consult his solicitors over the story we have printed, we would welcome the opportunity of dragging his name through the courts. Should he choose not to take action, then let his silence incriminate him. We shall defend our story assiduously, for no one was there to defend the children continually abused by their rich and powerful overseers. Likewise should Messrs Portillo and Lilley choose to take legal action, we would have not the slightest compunction about the eventual outcome.” http://pebpr.blogspot.co.uk/search?updated-min=1997-01- 01T00:00:00%2B06:00&updated-max=1998-01- 01T00:00:00%2B06:00&max-results=3

http://sharonkilby.co.uk/site/McAlpine_sues_-_but_not_any_shills.php

See http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/bible-of-left-and-satirical- upstart-are-worlds-apart-new-statesman-is-80-scallywag-only-a- fledgling-neither-has-a-lot-of-money-kathy-marks-reports-1481386.html for a bit of Scally history

See http://scallywagarchive.info/ for Scallywag Archive

Steve says:

Here is the ‘Finding of the Editorial Standards Committee of the BBC Trust Newsnight’ http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/appeals/esc_bulletin s/2012/newsnight_2nov.pdf Read it at your peril. Your stomach might not be able to take any more Masonic speak bullshit.

Back to the Daily Mail spin machine and the unjust vicious and disgusting character assassination of Steve Messham:

The BBC programme claimed the ‘narrow’ terms of reference of the Waterhouse inquiry had prevented it from considering abuse outside care homes. But this was untrue: the inquiry could investigate alleged abuse of care home residents that took place anywhere. The BBC programme was right about that. The terms of reference are laid out on page 19. It says the tribunal was to look into the abuse of children in care in the former county council areas of Gwynedd and Clwyd since 1974. That means the investigation concentrated on staff members in the ‘care’ system and foster parents and did not include a wider paedophile ring which included high-profile figures who were in collusion. In any case, even if Waterhouse did have a wider remit, we would still be in the dark as to who the ‘high-profile’ names are, because he granted anonymity to all the perpetrators, apart from those already convicted. In truth there was no investigation; just the pretence of one. The Waterhouse report was produced after a 3 year, very expensive damage limitation exercise.

VIDEO: Man claims on Newsnight he was sexually abused by Tory politician

The reason the report did not name some of those supposedly involved in such abuse was that there was only one source for these claims – Messham. But if Newsnight failed to check the facts, the same mistake was made by Downing Street. Messham was not the only source of these claims, there were many victims making the same claims. See the Scally articles. Remember they were explicit and explosive and the culprits were named ... but no-one sued. Waterhouse criminally aided and abetted the cover up.

In the wake of the Newsnight report, David Cameron has announced two new inquiries. The first, by Mrs Justice Macur, will consider whether the Waterhouse tribunal did its job properly, and whether its terms were indeed ‘narrow’. The second, by the incoming head of the National Crime Agency, Keith Bristow, will re-examine how North Wales police investigated the abuse allegations.

Messham has previously been reluctant to address the contradictions in his stories, as proved by the 1994 libel trial, brought by a former senior police officer he falsely accused of abuse – claims that were reported by Private Eye, The Observer and The Independent on Sunday. I think Rose needs to address his contradictions; he was the one who wrote that Observer article!!! Oops. The masons really should not have let Rose put his name to anything written about ‘care home’ CSA after 1992.

It was put to him in court that just days before he began making claims to reporters, he had approached police to complain he was being harassed by a journalist, who was trying to put words in his mouth. Evidence???

In a signed statement, he said: ‘At no time did [the officer] ever sexually abuse me,’ adding that a journalist ‘wanted me to say things that were not the truth’. Show us this ‘signed statement’. Prove anything you say is the truth. I hope one day Messham gets the money he needs to sue you slanderous scumbags David Rose and Bob Woffinden. And why write “the officer” when that person – Anglesea - is referred to by name in the Waterhouse report? It looks like that quote has come from wicked Webster’s book. According to ‘Rebecca’ https://paddyfrench1.wordpress.com/2013/11/13/the-messham- intervention/: “Another publication where Stephen Messham’s approach to evidence is highlighted is Richard Webster’s 2005 book The Secret of Bryn Estyn. Here Messham is given the alias “Lee Steward”. Webster tells the story of how Messham was approached several times about Gordon Anglesea by the freelance journalist Dean Nelson. Messham complained to the police that Nelson was harassing him. In a statement he said “ … I would like to say that at no time did Gordon Anglesea ever sexually abuse me.” Should we be concerned that Rebecca references Webster’s book? Hell yes. Read on. What is actually stated in the Waterhouse report [p105] is: “A major, although not necessarily fatal, difficulty facing the Defendants in the libel action was the fact that the journalist who wrote the article published in the Independent on Sunday on 1 December 1991 had no evidence at the time of publication that Anglesea had been involved in child abuse.

The journalist, Dean Nelson, was not called as a witness in the libel trial but we have heard full evidence from him about the course of his investigation. His main inquiries had been made in mid-November 1991 but he had met both Councillor Dennis Parry and Alison Taylor before that and he spoke to Anglesea himself by telephone on 30 November 1991. Nelson had been told of visits by Anglesea to Bryn Estyn but he had not received any direct allegation of sexual abuse by Anglesea. It was not until he revisited North Wales in 1992 that he obtained statements implicating Anglesea from witnesses A and B: the former made disclosures between 18 and 29 June 1992 and witness B between 4 and 11 September 1992, after complaining to the police earlier that he was being "hassled" by Nelson.” Waterhouse implies that Messham was pressured by Nelson into making ‘untrue’ sexual abuse allegations against Anglesea. Notice Sir Ron does not confirm what the Daily Mail claim – that Messham had said in a signed statement “At no time did [the officer] ever sexually abuse me”. If Messham had made such a statement, Sir Ron would have clearly confirmed it. This ambiguity in reporting reinforces the scurrilous lie being put out by the MSM, Webster and a variety of other NWO gatekeepers that Messham’s testimony cannot be trusted for a variety of reasons, one of which is that he was persuaded by at least one journalist to make untrue statements of which he later backtracked.

Remember Ron Waterhouse’s report was written by the Masonic hand. It is absolutely not a reflection of the truth. It contains a mixture of truth, a misrepresentation of truth and plain lies. Wherever possible it is written in such a way, such that bits here and there can be twisted and embroidered some more by the likes of Richard Webster, the MSM and the cointelpros, for the public’s mass consumption and programming. Everyone knows that the newspapers put a slant on stories [and we’re told we just have to accept their filthy propagandising; that the only way to put up a challenge it is to put them out of business by refusing to purchase their publications] but someone like Ron Waterhouse, a retired judge, leading a so-called inquiry cannot be seen to be misleading. The masons work in very sly and subtle ways, having many devious tricks up their sleeve. No wonder they’ve managed to pull the wool over our eyes for so long.

I would love to see the transcripts of Steve Messham’s and Dean Nelson’s tribunal testimony. I’d like to see the proof that Messham complained to the police about a journalist hassling him to say things that weren’t true. As if Messham would complain to the police about anything, knowing how thoroughly corrupt they are! Disinfo agent Darren Laverty [see my pdf on him] would have us believe that the mainstream reporters were after ‘embellished’ testimonies. Steve’s numerous police statements bear witness to the truth. He has no need to dramatize. Steve Messham is the guy who, at aged 16, took explicit photographs [of himself and other boys being buggered] to the police. The evidence was so compelling that even the police recommended prosecution, confirmed in the Waterhouse report and by Scallywag and by journalist Paddy French, editor of Rebecca. He reports that “When the Tribunal began its hearings in 1997, one of the most dramatic moments came when the barrister for the North Wales Police revealed that the file sent to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) included a recommendation that the former police officer should be prosecuted.

The CPS decided against prosecution.” Also: “The defence in the libel action was unaware that North Wales Police had recommended prosecution.” https://paddyfrench1.wordpress.com/2013/12/16/waterhouse- report/ See also http://paddyfrench1.wordpress.com/2013/06/24/north-wales- child-abuse-tribunal/ “The proof of that is incontestable in the recommendation made by Supt Ackerley that there was sufficient evidence to prosecute.” According to French, Sir Waterhouse himself shockingly says: “I am not surprised that the police recommendation in respect of Anglesea did not emerge at the civil trial [i.e. the libel proceedings] and it seems to have been assumed that they had not recommended a prosecution.”

He then adds:

“If a sub-poena had been issued in respect of the relevant documents, Crown privilege would have been claimed (i.e. immunity from production) and it is highly doubtful whether the trial judge would have ordered that they should be produced because the issue before the jury was whether the defendants had proved that Anglesea was guilty of child abuse: to that issue the police recommendation was irrelevant in law and might well have prejudiced the jury against him.” That’s all the proof you need of a Masonic cover up.

Waterhouse continues to keep the lid on wherever possible, saying on P745: “Another person who was alleged by complainants to have been present in Howarth’s flat when offences were committed and to have participated in them is Gordon Anglesea. However, as we have explained in Chapter 9, a civil jury found [in effect] that he had not been involved in sexual misconduct at Bryn Estyn and we have not received persuasive evidence to justify us in reaching a different conclusion.” He does report though [p107]: “In the end we have been left with a feeling of considerable disquiet about Anglesea’s repeated denials of any recollection of Peter Howarth and the way in which his evidence of his own presence at Bryn Estyn has emerged. We agree with the trial judge in the libel action, however, that such disquiet or even disbelief of this part of Anglesea’s evidence would not justify a finding that he has committed sexual abuse in the absence of reliable positive proof.” Well it certainly exposes Anglesea as a liar ... and the police recommended prosecution ... Waterhouse continues: “... the potential evidence against Anglesea was investigated very thoroughly by the North Wales Police and that they recommended in February 1993 to the CPS that he should be prosecuted on the basis of evidence that was available then. That advice was not accepted by the CPS but the relevant issues came before a jury later by a different route and it is expressly outside our terms of reference to scrutinise decisions whether to prosecute named individuals.” How is it outside the terms of reference?

As said we have no way of knowing just how much of the Waterhouse report is the truth, how much of it is twisted truth and how much is downright fabrication. One thing is certain it contributed massively to the cover up. Until we see transcripts, individual statements [including police statements] police reports etc [which is never going to happen] the truth remains firmly buried. And that is with regards the abusers that Waterhouse agreed could be ‘investigated’ at his inquiry! What a piss take. People we’re paying for this fukking travesty. We’re paying dirty despicable paedophiles in suits to fuck us over – literally. Comrades, let me hear you belch your outrage.

It is not surprising Anglesea won his case. All he had to do was prove that his reputation had suffered as a result of the coverage. He did not have to prove his innocence. Since the defendants [The Independent on Sunday, The Observer, Private Eye and HTV – see P 33 of the ‘Lost in Care’ report] pleaded justification, they had to prove that he was guilty of sexually assaulting young boys. Justice Drake informed the jury that where the charge against Gordon Anglesea is just about as serious as you could consider, the evidence required to prove the Defendants' case must be that much stronger. But guess what, no-one from those newspapers or HTV turned up at the trial to testify. Who was asked to give evidence? The severely damaged and traumatised victims. They were Steve Messham, Mark Humphreys and another former Bryn Estyn resident. I can’t be sure who that person was because the only information available is provided by known shills, and is therefore unreliable. For example ‘Outlaw’ Jimmy Jones says Darren Laverty testified. According to Laverty, he was summonsed by the plaintiff but was kept on the sidelines. See my pdf on Darren Laverty for more on that. According to https://paddyfrench1.wordpress.com/2013/11/11/the-trials-of-gordon- anglesea/ there were two other witnesses. The first was Joyce Bailey, a part-time house-mother at Bryn Estyn between 1981 and 1984, and the wife of a police constable who had served in Wrexham. She said Anglesea was a regular visitor to the home in an official capacity. She remembered seeing him in casual clothes only once when he arrived in his own car. He got out, took some golf clubs from the back of the car and gave them to Howarth. The second was Michael Bradley, a senior probation officer, who had spent three months at Bryn Estyn in the late summer of 1980 while on a course. He was the ex- husband of an executive at HTV who was not involved in the libel action. He gave evidence that he was at the home one night around nine in the evening when he saw Howarth and Anglesea enter the building. Howarth introduced him to Anglesea as a good friend of Bryn Estyn and the two men then climbed the stairs. He said that he did not know Anglesea but recognised him when he saw pictures of him in the early 1990s. Fat lot of use those two were by the sounds of it. Were they chosen to scupper the defendants’ case?

So where the hell was Dean Nelson [who wrote the Independent of Sunday article] and Brian Johnson-Thomas [who wrote the article for Private Eye]? Why were they not asked to give evidence? And why did David Rose not defend his Observer article? And where was the representation from HTV? Masonic manoeuvres anyone?

Why were the beaten down and extremely vulnerable CSA survivors thrown to the wolves at the trial? They didn’t stand a cat in hell’s chance.

Simon Regan [Sallywag’s editor] reports:

“It was all very well for us to take statements from former victims in the cosy atmosphere of a pub lunch, but put them up against an agile and eminent QC whose sole task is to discredit them, and they quickly crumble, even break down in tears. Many former victims now have criminal records of some kind, owing almost exclusively to the abuse itself, and the barrister will brutally exploit this as evidence that the witness is unreliable and tainted. Faced with the choice of a clearly neurotic young man who quickly falls down in the witness box, and a smooth, experienced, erudite and often highly respected culprit, juries tend to give the accused the benefit of the doubt.

I watched it in the now famous Court 13 at the High Court during the libel action between former Supt. Gordon Anglesey and Private Eye (and others) when, despite the fact that under cross examination, Anglesey had to admit that his evidence did not correspond with his own notebooks, the 'other side' subsequently tore the five main prosecution witnesses to pieces in a monumental act of judicial harassment. Like the whole story of child abuse in North Wales and elsewhere, it broke my heart.”

Scallywag was not sued of course, for the simple reason Regan was not beholden to freemasonry and would have assiduously defended the truth. He could only sit on the sidelines and watch in despair.

It never was about truth; we know that; what it boiled down to in the end was the best performance in court. Rebecca again: “The judge in the trial, Sir Maurice Drake, has told Rebecca Television about his memories of what happened during the fifteen days of hearings. He started by saying “the trial took place many years ago and without refreshing my memory with the full transcript of evidence I am cautious about making comments about the case.” But he added: “One thing which I still have a very clear recollection of is the splendid advocacy of George Carman for the defence and Lord Williams of Mostyn for the plaintiff. Although George Carman displayed all his usual skills with the jury he was, on this occasion, outshone by Gareth Williams. Without Lord Williams’ advocacy I think it very possible indeed that the jury would have found for the defendants.” Was George Carman up against a better man for the job - top libel lawyer LORD WILLIAMS, QC. Lord Williams of Mostyn, no less? Or was he under Masonic orders to perform below par?

Sir Waterhouse states at the beginning of chapter 9 of ‘Lost in Care’: “but the complaints against Anglesea have been repeated to this Tribunal and we have investigated them as fully as possible. Before summarising the results of our investigation, however, it is necessary to repeat that the trial of the libel action in the High Court occupied about a fortnight before a very experienced judge and that all the parties were represented by eminent Counsel so that the central issue was very fully examined.” All judges and legal beagles are answerable to the Masonic powerhouse; since G A is protected by those Masonic fat controllers, his libel trial was rigged before it even got underway to find in his favour.

Doesn’t it just reek to high heaven that, not only does Anglesea win £375,000 in ‘damages’, he had his legal costs underwritten by the Police federation. That’s paid for by you and me folks. https://paddyfrench1.wordpress.com/tag/bryn-estyn/

The latest on Anglesea is that on 17/11/15 he appeared in court and is now on bail facing a total of 10 charges relating to four children. http://www.leaderlive.co.uk/news/154959/former-north-wales- superintendent-gordon-anglesea-faces-further-child-sex-charges.aspx

Paddy French does some great investigative work and he exposes a lot of prominent freemasons. See in particular his articles in relation to the North Wales paedophile ring and the Waterhouse Inquiry: A TOUCH OF FROST, THE CASE OF THE FLAWED TRIBUNAL, SILENT TO THE GRAVE, THE TRIALS OF GORDON ANGLESEA, A MASON- FREE ZONE?, SILENT WITNESS, THE MISSING MASONIC CHILD ABUSER https://paddyfrench1.wordpress.com/

Also take a look at these videos: https://paddyfrench1.wordpress.com/2013/09/09/brothers-in-the- shadows/ http://www.itv.com/news/wales/2012-11-16/wales-this-week-still-lost-in- care/ Just to give you a taster, the Wales This Week, Still Lost in Care report ends: “One thing is now clear; there are real doubts that the ‘Lost in Care’ report told the whole story.”

But just how independent is Paddy French? Is he independent of freemasonry? He writes: “A year after Rebecca Television wrote to the Welsh Secretary, the North Wales child abuse scandal is not being investigated by a barrister as we requested — but by a High Court judge and the head of the National Crime Agency.” Doesn’t he realise that there’s no difference between judges and barristers in the great scheme of things? They all slurp from the same stinking Masonic trough. Is he not aware that freemasonry controls, apart from the common people, just about everything? And most importantly, is he not aware that masonry controls the mainstream ‘news’? It appears not, as he quotes from them without question. For example, he accepts the official line of mistaken identity - that Steve Messham saw a photo of McNonce ‘in the past hour’ ... and he just parrots their propaganda, word for word, without even a raised eyebrow. Take a look at his write up here https://paddyfrench1.wordpress.com/2013/11/13/the-messham- intervention/ It is just repetition of the rubbish written by the Daily Mail and Guardian monkeys, and on shilly street. Why is he not asking the type of questions that I do? Instead he joins in the gutter press smear campaign against poor defenceless Messham. For example: “Messham’s story begins to unravel: Guardian reporter David Leigh uncovers “inconsistencies” in his story.” Why is Paddy not concerned about Leigh’s lies? And: “Guardian suggests the identification of Lord McAlpine is a case of “mistaken identity” because Messham told the Waterhouse Tribunal that the McAlpine who allegedly abused him was dead.” Can Paddy point out where exactly that is stated in the Waterhouse report?

Why doesn’t French do his own research on Messham? Why doesn’t he investigate the mainstream media’s reporting on Messham?

In the same ‘Messham Intervention’ article Paddy French says: “Lord McAlpine is not the only figure Stephen Messham has falsely accused of serious sexual offences.” Now take a look at his article on the Gordon Anglesea libel trial https://paddyfrench1.wordpress.com/2013/11/11/the-trials-of-gordon- anglesea/ French writes “One of Anglesea’s champions is the author Richard Webster, the author of The Secret of Bryn Estyn which claims that both Anglesea and Howarth were the innocent victims of an orchestrated witch-hunt” underneath a large advertisement for Webster’s book, which I’ve copied below

The fact that Paddy prints this stuff; and in particular that he endorses the utterly odious Richard Webster kills his credibility stone dead as far as I’m concerned.

Now, what is even more alarming is that French goes on to say: “Later, Gordon Anglesea was also to sue the magazine Take A Break and the magazine Scallywag, edited by the journalist Simon Regan.

The cases were settled in his favour for undisclosed damages.” Really? When? I’d like Paddy French to show the evidence for that. Why has he not detailed it on his Rebecca blog? He’s covered the 1994 libel trial in some detail, why not the one against Scally? Because it’s a big fat fib? All he says about this momentous occasion is the couple of lines I’ve just quoted! I’m sure that if Gordon Anglesea had sued Scallywag as well, it would have been at the same time as he did the other 4 media organisations. Also I’m sure that there would have been plenty of publicity. Ronald Waterhouse would have certainly given it a fair bit of print space; and the shills would have had an absolute field day spreading that victory far and wide. I’ve scoured cyberspace for any information on this momentous occasion. Not a word on it.

You’d think if it was true the Guardian would have at least gloated about it when they wrote Regan’s obituary http://www.theguardian.com/news/2000/aug/14/guardianobitu aries.nigelfountain But no. No mention of it there either. I notice that the ‘journalist’ [propagandizer] Nigel Fountain mentions the John Major libel action though: “Litigation made the name of journalist Simon Regan, who has died aged 58. His most distinguished plaintiff, in 1993, was John Major. Regan, in his magazine Scallywag, had falsely accused the then prime minister of having an affair with Clare Latimer, a Downing Street caterer.” Fountain doesn’t mention the fact that Major won on a minor point – the name of his mistress [he was at the time shagging Edwina Currie.] Sleazebag John Major sued and won, bankrupting Scallywag Mag. More on that here http://sharonkilby.co.uk/site/McAlpine_sues_-_but_not_any_shills.php See also https://antagonise.wordpress.com/2012/11/23/a-brief-history- of-libel-part-1-john-major/ Nige also says: “Later Regan, and Scallywag's distributors, were worsted in a legal action brought by Julian Lewis, now a Conservative MP.” We only have Lewis’ unproven version http://www.julianlewis.net/old/cuttings_detail.php@id=36 Regan’s account is here http://pebpr.blogspot.co.uk/search?updated-min=1997- 01-01T00:00:00%2B06:00&updated-max=1998-01- 01T00:00:00%2B06:00&max-results=3 Fountain again: “Unlike Private Eye, which had succumbed to the lawyers' embrace and in his opinion had been tamed, Scallywag took its chances.” Yes, Private Eye certainly have been tamed; they too are now ruled by the Masonic fist. They get a mention in my Raccoon pdf.

Under the circumstances isn’t it odd that French says [in his ‘Messham Intervention’ article]: “After all, there has to be a good reason why such a serious allegation had never been reported by a mainstream newspaper or broadcaster in more than two decades.

That reason was simple — journalists could find no evidence that justified publication.

The only title that did accuse Lord McAlpine was the magazine Scallywag — and Scallywag was never taken seriously.” So which is it – Scally mag was insignificant and not worth bothering with, or it was very significant such that French feels motivated to publish an unevidenced claim that Anglesea sued Scally and won?

The only court documentation that I can find in relation to Anglesea and Scallywag mag is here http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/68.html however it is in regards a dirty tactic defamatory publication by Anglesea’s solicitor Thomas Taylor in the North Wales Pioneer.

I copy/paste the crux of it:

“This is an appeal by the claimant, Simon Regan, against the order of Gray J. of 29th April 1999, when the judge dismissed his action for libel against the defendant, Mr Taylor.

In its Issue Number 22 Scallywag published an article which repeated and extended allegations against Mr Anglesea of child sexual abuse which were the subject of his libel proceedings. The libel proceedings which were against the other 4 media outlets. The article also alleged that he was being prosecuted for raping a minor. This allegation was untrue. The published allegations against Mr Anglesea were extremely serious. It is contended on behalf of Mr Taylor that the attack by Scallywag on Mr Anglesea could hardly have been more serious because of its gravity, its timing and potential prejudice on the imminent libel trial; the soon to be admitted falsity of the allegation that Mr Anglesea was under prosecution for raping a minor; the potential effect on Mr Taylor's client who was facing a trial which would place him under great stress; and the risk that the allegations would be picked up by other sections of the media.

On 8th April 1994, Mr Taylor received a telephone call from a journalist from Wales on Sunday. Mr Anglesea was on holiday at the time and was then unaware of the Scallywag article. The journalist referred to the article and asked whether Mr Anglesea was indeed being prosecuted for raping a minor. Mr Taylor denied this on behalf of Mr Anglesea. The journalist asked whether Mr Anglesea would take proceedings against Scallywag. Mr Taylor replied that this was doubtful because the magazine had no money. Lord McAlpine didn’t sue Scally for the same reason. [So he says.] So it’s about money and not reputation??? If that’s the case, why didn’t both these men sue the journalists Simon Regan and Angus Wilson? These men did not need or want Scally’s money, the reason they didn’t sue Scally was because they knew they’d lose. He added that "somebody ought to give some thought to locking these people up" and referred to the possibility of proceedings for criminal libel, saying that if "someone would pay me half my fee, I'll have a go at it".

On 1st June 1994, Mr Taylor received a call from another U.K.P.G. journalist who raised again the allegation that Mr Anglesea was under prosecution for raping a minor. On 6th June 1994, U.K.P.G. published an article headed "Criminal Libel Jail Threat for Regan", which quoted Mr Taylor's explanation why Mr Anglesea was bringing a criminal libel action as "There is no purpose in claiming damages for civil libel against Scallywag because they have consistently claimed they have no money. The court will decide whether the libel is such that it requires the imposition of a criminal penalty. It is extremely serious. The allegations are nothing short of scandalous."

Mr Regan was quoted in response as saying that his lawyer was relishing the action and felt very confident.

On 13th June 1994, Mr Taylor received a telephone call from a journalist on the North Wales Pioneer. The journalist asked why Mr Anglesea had chosen a criminal libel action. Mr Taylor made various observations highly critical of Scallywag's general journalistic and ethical standards. His words were substantially reproduced in an article in the North Wales Pioneer on 16th June 1994. This is the publication which is the subject of these proceedings. The words complained of are: "There is no purpose in claiming damages for civil libel against Scallywag because they consistently claim they have no money. Criminal libel is the only remedy against this worthless organisation who simply seek publicity for themselves. They are not interested in accuracy, even less in fair reporting, and are a disgrace to the profession of journalism."

The Statement of Claim pleads that the words in their natural and ordinary meaning were defamatory of Mr Regan, which they obviously were.”

Now a swift mention of French’s article on ‘Savilisation’ https://paddyfrench1.wordpress.com/2012/12/12/a-brief-history-of- savilisation/ Paddy French wants to - quite rightly - “make sure the Rebecca Television material is considered properly”. Will he go one further and ask the questions/raise the points I do on my ‘FIONA OF THE FORGED LETTER’ PDF?

I did have high hopes that Paddy French was on the level. However my hopes swiftly took a nose dive when I saw that he was propagating the MSM propaganda. But to find that he uses Richard Webster as a credible source, well that just leaves me gobsmacked. It’s a no brainer. There is no doubt about it Paddy French is just another low down dirty disinformationist. Partial truth = unknown quantities of disinformation = CONTAINMENT. It looks like his main role is to discredit Scallywag and Steve Messham.

Back to Rose the rat and his unjust savage attack on Steve Messham:

It also emerged at the trial that before he would give evidence to support the publications, he had insisted that Private Eye pay him £60,000 on the grounds it had previously published an article which had damaged him. Surprisingly, the magazine did agree to pay him £4,500. Where does Rose get the info about a £60,000 demand? Again this claim is being spread by the shill repeaters, and no-one is referencing its source. Waterhouse reports on p98: “... and also about his insistence that he should be paid an agreed sum of £4,500 by Private Eye, in respect of an earlier libel on him, before he gave evidence ...”

Moreover, Messham initially claimed he was indecently assaulted by the officer, but later changed this into a far more serious allegation. When all this was put to him, Messham took an overdose of tranquilisers in court and collapsed in the witness box. Again this is another skewed version of events. The reference to an overdose is made on page 760: “B was admitted to Chester city hospital on 26 January 1980 following an “overdose”, where he was visited by the social worker on 28 January 1980. B would not discuss the reasons for his overdose. On the latter date he was discharged, after being referred to the psychiatric out-patient clinic at Chester Royal Infirmary.” So that incident had occurred long before the libel trial in 1994. Take a look at Anna Raccoon’s publication of Gildas the Monk’s article http://annaraccoon.com/2014/06/08/a-matter-of-f-a-c-t-part-3/ “Whilst this was going on, in 1993 serious allegations were made against a senior Police Officer, Superintendent Gordon Anglesea in the press, by amongst, others The Observer, The Independent and Private Eye. At the heart of many of these allegations was the testimony of one Steven Messham, a former resident of the Bryn Estyn the home. Anglesea felt he had no choice and risked all by suing for libel, with a million pounds in costs on the line. The libel trial was heard at the end of 1994, and in the trial Messham’s evidence was taken apart.

Here is a quote from one of the author’s of The Observer’s article, journalist David Rose, given in a speech to a FACT!!! conference in 2013. Rose has undertaken much lauded work in respect of miscarriages of justice!!! as a crime correspondent, including into the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six. He was initially convinced there were real problems at Bryn Estyn. In hindsight, he regrets this. This is what he had to say: “It became quite apparent when the case went to trial…that Messham was a fantasist; and not only a fantasist but an extremely aggressive and dangerous fantasist who, when challenged would do almost anything rather than confront the reality of his lies….

In fact, what happened during the libel case was that while giving evidence he took an overdose of tranquillisers, collapsed in the witness-box saying it was all too much for him…but to his great credit the Judge insisted that he come back to court the following day when his story further collapsed”.” See also http://www.factuk.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Vol4-1-corrected- 100713.pdf where the despicable Rose is idolising Richard Webster and plugging his books. No surprises there! The congenital liar says: “Unlike most journalists who have written or made programmes about false allegations I can remember very clearly exactly the day that this issue first entered my consciousness, because it was actually the day of my wedding to Ros Burnett’s colleague, Carolyn [Hoyle], who is the Director and Professor at the Centre for Criminology at the University of Oxford. We got married on the 1st July 2000 and at the wedding a good friend of mine, Andy Hall, a defence QC said to me ‘You’ve got to read this book’ and into my hands he thrust a copy of Richard Webster’s book ‘The Great Children’s Home Panic’.1 And it was as a result of that that I made the Panorama programme ‘In the Name of the Children’ a few months later.”

Can you believe the shite he comes out with? Wonder what his reward was for regurgitating that! He continues: “I am sure that like me you have felt over the last few months that we are reliving the famous Hollywood movie ‘Groundhog Day’. Here it comes all over again. And it is not just the issue, but Bryn Estyn and North Wales and some very familiar characters who I’m going to talk about in a few minutes. So, as this has unfolded since the Jimmy Savile affair I have often found myself saying ‘If only Richard was still with us’. And I am sure we all feel very moved... and... He was a good friend, and he was a grand colleague for me. And we miss him very much. So, in looking at this extraordinary resurgence of this old issue in the way that it has, I’m very struck by the way it began, not just with Savile, but in the way it got shifted from celebrities to care homes, children’s homes, approved schools. And that of all people, Steven Messham should have been the vehicle for the resuscitation of North Wales and Bryn Estyn. It is so staggering, which is why I have entitled my talk ‘Institutional Amnesia’. Of all the people who could have been chosen!”

Of course any one of those victims were easy meat for the Masonic heavies who control the mainstream media machine. Some victims had already died. Messham had attempted suicide several times. The media sharks were hoping they could give him that last push over the edge. God has other ideas. Sure, Rose, his co-writer Bob Woffinden [Bob the wolf] and their ilk and the so-called ‘alternative media’, with the likes of the Raccoon, Lavatory and the rest of the ‘core group’ leading the way managed to muddy the waters and drive Messham into a nut house. But Steve Messham isn’t dead yet. And some of us with conscience are cottoning on to who is stirring the pot that swirls people around in a soup of confusion.

Read the rest of Rose’s speech for some breathtaking hypocrisy.

David Rose just keeps mixing things up and making things up. The libel case is referenced on page 98 of the Waterhouse report. It states: “In the course of giving this evidence the witness collapsed [“passed out in the witness box” as the judge described it] and he gave further detail the next day of what had occurred in the outbuilding.” There is no mention of a short stay in hospital at this time as Rose goes on to say. Neither is it stated in the Waterhouse report that, as Rose claims, B [Messham] took an overdose of tranquilizers in court.

After a short stay in hospital, he had to resume his testimony next morning.

Cross-examined about demanding money from Private Eye as a condition of giving evidence, he said: ‘I was only doing what you lawyers all do and making a threat to get my money, and I got it. I wouldn’t in fact have carried it out... it’s what all you lawyers do.’ Again, there is no reference to the page in the Waterhouse report or other source. On p98 Waterhouse reports: “... which he described as perfectly good tactics of the kind employed by Lawyers to ensure payment.”

The libel trial was not Messham’s only day in court. That’s right, you creep, make it sound like Messham is loving his fight for justice ... loving all this media attention ... loving his new found celebrity. He was later charged with theft, deception and false accounting involving almost £65,000 from the charity Norwas (North Wales Abuse Survivors), which he set up. Why was it necessary to mention these charges when he was acquitted of them, as you go on to say??? But he was acquitted of all charges. Rose of course is not the only one trying to break Messham and shut him up. The Masonic head honchos are weighing in wherever possible to deal with this brave trooper and the other nuisance CSA victims.

Yesterday Mr Messham’s solicitor, Michael Gray, admitted his client may have fabricated some of his allegations of abuse over the years. Yet again, where is the source of this information?

Echoing the Waterhouse report – which described Messham as ‘psychologically damaged’ What’s the point saying this? Who TF wouldn’t be psychologically damaged??? David Rose, you fukkin clown, ALL victims of something horrific – not just CSA victims - are psychologically damaged. It’s called being human ... And being human is something that you most certainly are NOT.– he said: ‘People who are vulnerable . . . a good part of them is so disturbed that they’re not going to be wholly consistent and reliable. Whether he’s imagined it, made some up, I don’t know.’ Once again, this quote could have been plucked from thin air since Rose doesn’t reference its source.

He added that Messham – who has last week finally admitted he was wrong about Lord McAlpine – had gone to ground, and would not be giving any more interviews. He was finally forced into a corner; pushed by an army of Satan’s servants to despair and to the brink of insanity. Who the fuck wouldn’t be??? He showed true grit holding up as long as he did and getting as far as he did.

Handle this with care If only Newsnight had heeded the words of Gerard Elias QC, counsel to the Waterhouse inquiry.

In his closing speech, the lawyer said: ‘In certain respects Messham’s evidence was demonstrably untrue and some of his allegations are wholly inconsistent with earlier statements made by him to the police. In these circumstances we submit it is plain that his evidence must be approached with care… the name McAlpine has hung over the rumour of abuse in North Wales by people in high places for as long those rumours have existed. Whether or not the lawyer said this in his closing speech is anyone’s guess since Rose the fabricator cannot reference anything he says. In any case it matters not a jot what any of these puppet lawyers say as they all work for their Masonic paymaster and they all do/say whatever is required of them to assist the cover up. As said the name ‘McAlpine’ is not stated in the Waterhouse report.

‘We submit, sir, the picture is no clearer after 200 days of evidence in this respect than it was before. No Christian name has ever been provided for this shadowy figure.’

In his statement this week, Lord McAlpine said: ‘I have every sympathy for Mr Messham and for the many other young people who were sexually abused when they were residents of the children’s home in Wrexham,’ and added: ‘I do not suggest that Mr Messham is malicious in making the allegations of sexual abuse about me’ I sincerely hope and pray the lying evil Lord and his fellow filthy paedophile dead friends are suffering in hell right now.

But the BBC should surely have been more careful about their source of such appalling allegations. Yesterday The Mail on Sunday asked Mr Stickler about all the flaws and omissions in his Newsnight film. He refused to comment. Any decent reporter is also dealt with – set up, discredited, neutralised, manipulated out or silenced some other way by the Masonic rat bastards. Rose puts the boot into Angus Stickler during his speech at the ‘FACT’ conference, 18th May 2013 http://www.factuk.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Vol4-1-corrected- 100713.pdf He says: “It is incredible – and I really mean incredible in the most literal sense – that Angus Stickler. the so-called reporter that’s rich! (Stickler, odd name that: not for the facts it would seem) what a snidey grub Rose the rat is could have made the film for Newsnight based on Steven Messham, because Stickler had actually covered most of these events before. He knew what was on record about Messham, the libel case, the Waterhouse Inquiry, and so on. And I suppose he just thought: well, more than thirteen years have gone by since Waterhouse now, perhaps people will have forgotten; and it will be a nice easy story for me on Newsnight; and what’s to lose?”

I hope Stickler sticks something appropriate into Rose’s foul lying gob to shut him up permanently.

DON'T PUSH IT! HOW MESSHAM THREW PUNCHES AT INQUIRY QC

Here follows more of the same repeated sensationalism – note the bold title.

Steven Messham stands with a copy of the damning report into two decades of sexual and physical abuse in children's homes in North Wales

Steven Messham, the former care home resident who has admitted his sex abuse claims against former Tory chairman Lord McAlpine were fabricated, has never been good at dealing with questions about his allegations.

While he was giving evidence in 1997 to the North Wales abuse public inquiry, he was cross-examined by Anthony Jennings QC, a barrister from Northern Ireland.

The QC started to press Messham about a very damaging admission: that parts of a long interview he had given to The Independent on Sunday, were untrue.

First Messham refused to answer his questions. Then, according to the official transcript records, he got out of the witness box and ‘moved towards’ Mr Jennings.

He yelled: ‘Excuse me, I will not have it from you ever, Jennings, right? Because one thing I don’t like is a little b******, right? You don’t push it, right? You are sick just like your client. Don’t push me, don’t f****** push me you little... I’ll tell you now, you b******.’

Then he began throwing punches at the QC. A security officer finally intervened, but not, say witnesses, before Mr Messham had landed several blows. Again, this quotation is word for word the same as Rose’s speech to the ‘FACT’ conference. Why doesn’t he show us these official transcript records? Who are these witnesses? If this is what had happened at the Waterhouse inquiry I am sure Rose would have gloatingly referenced the page. In his speech he nauseatingly goes on to say “Tony would have been able to handle himself but was very much a man of peace.” Tony would not be able to handle himself if he didn’t have the Masonic heavyweights to protect him. And he is not a man; he is a wimp. As for peace, he and his vile Masonic henchmen care only about their own peace and security. These lying ugly creatures, which include Rose, are the enablers of war in far off lands. Even if Messham had behaved this way, who could blame him? He is correct in his description of the despicable barrister who is paid obscene amounts of money to protect paedophiles. And when the full awakening of the populace occurs, Steve Messham and the other victims can rest assured that they will not need to throw any punches at these scum lawyers and Establishment journalists, there will be plenty of others baying for their blood.

The inquiry chairman, Sir Ronald Waterhouse, adjourned for the day, but when Messham reappeared the following week, he delivered a stern warning: ‘What happened... was, of course, disgraceful. It amounted to a blatant contempt of court and it also amounted to a criminal offence’ and warned that any repeat would result in criminal charges.” Well we all know who the real criminals are. I long for the day these mega criminals and their treacherous toadies get their just deserts.

Why didn’t Rose interview and do an article on Paul, the other victim of McNonce? Where are Rose’s articles on all the other genuine victims???

David Rose is a British ‘journalist’ who by his own admission served as a conduit for intelligence disinformation on both sides of the Atlantic. Three of his stories, based on alarmist testimony from INC defectors and asserting an Iraq-al-Qaida link, played a key role in selling the Iraq war. Rose has also repeatedly written articles misquoting scientists on climate change. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/David_Rose

There does not appear to be any official documentation, such as police or other statements/court transcripts re Messham published.

And now a handful of F.A.C.T http://www.factuk.org/about-us/fact-the- first-decade/ sewer rats [members] get a mention. These evil paedo protecting Establishment flunkies are trying to convince you that many of the convicted paedophiles are innocent. They point out that since the police and courts are corrupt, the allegations are not proven. The problem they have is that they haven’t proved any corrupt practices. Neither have they shown where anyone has suffered a miscarriage of justice.

Margaret Jervis is a Legal Affairs Advisor/Researcher who works closely with the solicitor who ‘specialises in contested sexual offences’ Chris Saltrese. She has researched and analysed contested sexual allegations for over twenty years in a legal and social framework. Take a look at her letter to Private Eye here http://www.yasni.info/ext.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.richardwebster.net%2Fprint %2Fxtraumaoftrawling.htm&name=Derek+Brushett&showads=1&lc=en- gb&lg=en&rg=gb&rip=gb

“Dear Private Eye

I'm glad to see you recognise the injustice of Operation Goldfinch. Perhaps now the Editor would be willing to retract his claim, made on BBC Question Time, that Derek Brushett, an exemplary headteacher and later inspector of social services in Wales, was a paedophile who was part of a 'cover-up' of the alleged widespread goings on in North Wales children's homes. This claim was made on the publication of the Waterhouse report in 2000.

Mr Brushett was a victim of Operation Goldfinch brought about by the prior chain of events supported by Private Eye. These were aided by the misjudged enthusiasm of Paul Foot, whose weather eye deserted him in this quest, and he became the victim of the glancing shots of opportunists, unwittingly assisting in the proliferation of widespread injustice as exposed by Richard Webster in his withering analysis in The Secret of Bryn Estyn.

By any reasonable standards of investigation, Derek Brushett, along with many others, is innocent. He is currently serving a 12 year sentence for his endeavours in improving the lot of the disadvantaged - something which he ironically and characteristically continues to do in his lot as a prisoner, while his family and friends suffer their loss with the quiet dignity of faith in the eventual triumph of truth and justice.

At the time of the publication of Waterhouse, the Editor was not to know of the gross deceit this furnished. Now the truth has emerged, it is to be hoped that he will turn his attention to righting the many wrongs, including his own.

Yours sincerely,

Margaret Jervis.”

From the same page is:

“Sir,

I read with interest the article entitled 'Trawling For The Truth'. I would agree that not all former care workers and teachers accused are innocent and it is clear that former residents were abused as can be seen from the many guilty pleas.

However there is little doubt in my mind that the justice system is unable to discern between those genuinely guilty and those who are innocent. Clearly there must be reasonable doubt when retired teachers in their sixties without any previous convictions are suddenly arrested and charged with these heinous crimes. The juries are not truly representative of the public as two thirds of the middle classes avoid their responsibilities, this situation is now being altered. Hysteria over child abuse fuelled by the tabloid press and a growing compensation culture also have their part to play.

I am a retired teacher as is my twin brother. My brother taught for over 25 years retiring early( due to ill health) with an unblemished teaching record. In 1998 he was accused of abuse said to have occurred over twenty years before. All who accused him had long criminal records, one had already shown an interest in compensation. Only one complainant went to the police after publicity about care home cases, the rest were trawled. There were no school records or social services records available. Faced with multiple accusations the jury convicted. We are faced with the task of trying to find evidence to prove that these alleged offences did not happen! So far this has cost the family over six thousand pounds. We are totally disillusioned with a justice system that pays more attention to gaining convictions that it does to find the truth. E. V. Argyle , Droitwich Spa, Worcs”

Well who T.F is E V Argyle? This person doesn’t substantiate anything s/he says. This ‘letter’ could be a complete fabrication. It probably is. There is no evidence that Argyle and his/her twin are retired teachers, or that these people even exist. Where is the evidence that the brother was accused of abuse? Notice the point made that the accusers shouldn’t be taken seriously as they had criminal records. Well E.V doesn’t provide the proof of that or that it was about compensation. In any case it is not surprising that a CSA victim would collect a criminal record after leaving ‘care’; crime and injustice is all the victim knows. E.V Argyle is almost certainly a figment of the Masonic imagination.

See also Richard Webster’s article http://www.yasni.info/ext.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.richardwebst er.net%2Fprint%2Fxpresumptionsofinnocence.htm&name=Derek+Brus hett&showads=1&lc=en-gb&lg=en&rg=gb&rip=gb “This is the text of an address made to a conference organised by FACT (False Allegations against Carers and Teachers) at the village of Dinas Powys on the outskirts of Cardiff. This was the place where, in 2000, some three hundred people, including teachers, lecturers, businessmen, a hospital consultant and all four local GPs, banded together to oppose police trawling operations and to fight for justice. The group was formed to campaign on behalf of former Welsh Office social services inspector Derek Brushett. Twenty years earlier, from 1974 to 1980, Brushett had been the widely respected head of the Bryn-y-don residential school, an establishment for difficult adolescent boys. In the late 1990s, however, after a single allegation made against him during the course of the North Wales trawling operation, the South Wales police embarked on an ‘investigation’. By using dangerous trawling techniques including suggestive questioning of a pool of witnesses who were all eligible for compensation payouts, and many of whom had long criminal records, they managed to collect – or generate – 44 allegations against Derek Brushett made by 26 different complainants. In 1999 he was sentenced to 14 years imprisonment. The text which follows has been revised in some minor respects for publication on this website. Webster, the lying piece of shit, cannot of course substantiate any of his shite. Where is the evidence that after a single allegation … bla bla bla bullshit? Notice he talks in vague terms – trawling, suggestive questioning, pool of witnesses, all eligible for compensation, many had long criminal records …

I AM GRATEFUL FOR the opportunity to be able to speak once again to a FACT conference and I must start by saying that it is enormously encouraging to come to a part of Wales which is not the centre of a city and to see so many people gathered together in a cause which we all know is an extremely important one but which is not generally recognised as such.

When I picked up the phone about three-and-a-half years ago to make contact for the first time with a man whose name I had read in the newspapers but about whose case I knew very little – and I am referring here to Derek Brushett – I most certainly did not realise that a single phone call would eventually lead, and not really as a result of any actions of my own, to my addressing a hall thronged with people as this one is today. I know that Derek himself never dreamed that he would enjoy the kind of support that is visible here today. At first he simply didn’t understand the fate that had overtaken him and was clearly embarrassed by the warmth of the response to his plight.

To those who did not know Derek and who read about him only in sensational headlines he was the sadistic headmaster whose cruelty and perverted lusts had terrorised a generation disadvantaged young boys. That was why at his trial he had faced 44 counts of physical and sexual assault against boys as young. To those who did know him, however, this portrait of a monster belonged to the realms of higher fantasy. And it is, of course, because so many of you hold that view that this hall is filled today as full as it is.

To those on the outside, however, who never did meet Derek, the nagging doubts almost inevitably remain. Forty-four counts of physical and sexual abuse? Can anybody who faces that many allegations really be innocent? The answer to that question is very simple. Yes they can. Yet if we try to impart this view to the average jury – or even the average judge – things become much more difficult.

I am reminded of an article Bob Woffinden wrote two or three years ago with which some of you may be familiar. The title of the article was actually a question and it was in quotation marks: ‘Not Guilty to them all?’

But the point of the story which Bob relates about the judge in the earlier hearing remains. The fact is that we have a judicial system which simply does not understand that, over the past ten or fifteen years, there has been a revolution in investigative methods. Simply because investigative techniques have grown up whose function in practice is not simply to collect but actually to generate as many allegations as possible against an individual suspect, it is now common (as we all know) for completely innocent men – or indeed – women, to face multiple allegations all of which are false.

When we conduct crusades against imaginary evils that is precisely what we do. It is not irrational societies who conduct the most destructive kinds of witch-hunts. It is societies who are trying to convince themselves of their own supreme rationality. I believe that precisely because of our vaunted rationalism, our own age is more vulnerable to the witch-hunting mentality than practically any other.

Here in Dinas Powys of all places I should not need to explain why the process of demonisation to which Dawn Reed and Chris Lillie were subjected in Newcastle is so dangerous and so destructive. Webster has not shown the evidence to support his story about Reed and Lillie

For a few years ago Derek Brushett was subjected to just that kind of demonisation. His case had its origins in an allegation which did not seem to pass the threshold test any more than Mrs Wilson’s Easter complaint should have done. The North Wales Police perhaps indicated as much by letting it lie in their files uninvestigated for more than two years. How does he know this? But eventually, as in Newcastle, it was decided to pursue it. The very weakness of the evidence contained in the original allegation made it imperative, if a prosecution were to be successful, to bolster it with more allegations. And as the South Wales Police force came to believe in the evil of the monster that they had themselves created they were impelled to find yet more weak allegations, until Derek Brushett faced the 44 counts which formed the basis of his trial.” My response to that is: horse shit. Stinking, festering piles of poo. This is fabrication and spin of a most repulsive kind, as it concerns the sadistic abuse of children and the protection of despicable ‘men’.

Just because Jervis and Webster say Derek Brushett is innocent, doesn’t make it so! Margaret Jervis doesn’t publish the reply from Private Eye; she doesn’t even say if she got a reply! She doesn’t say on what grounds Brushett is innocent. Was she at his trial? Was she at his appeal against conviction, which he lost? It doesn’t appear so. For someone who is supposedly exposing injustices, she’s doing a lousy job. She doesn’t provide any information. She doesn’t show us any official documentation. I shouldn’t have to go searching for it.

On p 716 of the Waterhouse report it is stated: “It is necessary to mention also certain other recent criminal proceedings that are relevant to our enquiry, namely: Derek Brushett, an SSIW employed by the Welsh Office, is currently suspended from duty whilst he awaits trial on numerous charges of sexual and other offences against boys alleged to have been committed in or around the 1970s, when Brushett was headmaster of Bryn-Y-Don school [initially an approved school] in Dinas Powys. During his employment thereafter by the Welsh Office, Brushett took part in a few inspections in North Wales.”

Here https://spotlightonabuse.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/newcjour190200.j pg it is stated: “A social services inspector jailed for 14 years for physically and sexually abusing children taught at a North Wales school.

Brushett, now 55, a father-of-four was jailed for sexually and physically abusing the boys at Bryn Y Don between 1974 and 1980.

The Judge said nobody who saw and heard Brushett’s victims give evidence would ever forget them. He said some were still receiving psychiatric help up to 25 years after they were abused by him, and they would be scarred for life. He added that Brushett had been emotionally and physically cruel but sadly some had even believed their treatment to be normal for the care system.

The jury had taken more than 26 hours to convict Brushett, a former Scout leader, of 27 offences of sexual abuse and cruelty and cleared him of 17 others. He had denied all charges.

In 1993 after leaving Bryn Y don, Brushett became a social services inspector for the then Welsh Office. Part of his job involved advising on policy and inspecting facilities for young people run by social services departments.”

Webster was never exposed for the evil liar he was. I hope and pray the likes of evil, lying, lower than vermin Margaret Jervis get their due deserts ... and soon. Here is what the lying NWO sell out whore says here http://www.saff.ukhq.co.uk/asiangangs.htm:

“Viewed as ' easy meat' by their predators these victims have finally begun to speak out with the ' tidal wave' of hidden criminal gangs and networks being routed. Make no mistake, there is a widespread problem, particularly in northern towns, of young girls becoming involved with Pakistani men with sex, drink and drugs which may lead on to prostitution.

But far from hidden, this was a highly visible phenomenon. The problem was not merely the absence of police intervention, but the self-assertion of the victims themselves who, under the banner of 'children' s rights' , viewed it as their sovereign right to hang out with whomsoever they pleased, doing whatever they liked.

But the issue that has not been raised is the nature of the investigations and the reliability of evidence.

The crucial evidence is that of the victims. They must name and blame the offenders and describe their ordeals, possibly going back many years, for a prosecution to succeed.

Yet the history of large scale investigations into organised abuse in Britain does not counsel well for objectivity. All too often suspicion can harden into a presumption of guilt, with the innocent implicated in hideous crimes that may never have taken place.

The widespread historic investigations into alleged abuse in children' s homes is one such example. While genuine abuse did occur, it was vastly inflated by false allegations and exaggeration generated, unwittingly, by the methods used by the police to investigate. And while this mania has subsided, many innocent lives have been ruined.”

Now take a look at this needle page entitled the “The ‘Fake’ Elm Guest House List.” http://theneedleblog.wordpress.com/2013/09/26/the-fake-elm-guest-house- list/ Here is a very good example of how the containment agents work together to keep us all in the dark about institutionalised paedophilia, V.I.P paedophilia and the actual extent of it. I copy/paste snippets below. See also the follow on comments:

Gojam says:

“Margaret is a former journalist with Social Work Today but now she is a fact checker. I did try to explain privately to Margaret but without much luck.

So this post is to clear up any possible confusion about the ‘list’ or should I say the ‘lists’ because the Mary Moss docs have a number of lists.

On Aug 24th Chris Fay wrote ‘Elm Guest House. Mary Moss Files – Clarification’ in which he wrote ...

That list was written by Chris Fay while interviewing Carole Kasir in the NAYPIC office a few months before she died.

To begin with, this list was written over 20 years ago and was never meant to be in the public domain. It is a contemporaneous record of an interview that Chris Fay had with Carole Kasir. So, plainly it was never written to deceive people 23 years later.

Is it accurate?

No. One of the first discussions I had with Chris Fay back in January concerned that list and he immediately told me that it was inaccurate. He explained to me that even as he was interviewing Carole Kasir he felt that he was being misled and that he felt that Carole was telling him what she thought he wanted to hear.”

Chris Fay along with Gojam and Jervis is yet another total lying fraud. See my pdfs on the Raccoon and GOJAM for more on Chris Fay.

The fact that the cointelpro are expending so much time and energy fogging the issue of ‘V.I.P’ paedophilia is a hint that this list of alleged paedophiles is almost certainly true. Certainly it is a genuine list of guests. Also the Elm was an exclusively gay guest house. I’ll let you decide what those men were doing there! It is clear that we are only seeing the very tip of the iceberg re the true scale of upper society paedophilia. See this newspaper clip dated 16/6/1985 http://theneedleblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/people.png for an interesting read, when the tabloids used to actually bring us a bit of truth; before blog-a-land arrived with all its smoke and mirrors. It starts: “Today we name the depraved men behind an organisation dedicated to promoting sex between homosexual men and children. The sick network of these partners-in-evil is vast – world wide. Successful too. Forbidden sex is big business. But incredibly the brains behind it operate out of reach of the law.”

Chris Saltrese and Gwen Hurst

Have a read of this http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/paramount- interest-sir-william-uttings-report-into-child-abuse-has-recommended- major-changes-in-the-law-while-the-lord-chancellor-has-announced- cuts-in-legal-aid-and-questioned-the-need-for-each-c/20697.fullarticle I quote from about half way down:

“That is a view that would not be endorsed by Chris Saltrese, the solicitor representing the staff group from Bryn Estyn, the children's home at the centre of the north Wales allegations. He insists that Peter Howarth, the head of Bryn Estyn, is 'wholly innocent' and describes the north Wales investigations and the allegations which have been reported uncritically in the media as 'a modern day witch-hunt'. Peter Howarth is one of Steve Messham’s abusers. See p 89 of the Waterhouse report. I quote: “Despite the weight of evidence that has now emerged against Howarth and the transparent sincerity of many of the witnesses a small number of former members of Bryn Estyn staff still refuse to believe that Howarth was guilty of any sexual misconduct. Some of them gave evidence on his behalf at his trial and they remain wedded to the idea that there has been a giant conspiracy against him and indeed against all or the vast majority of persons against whom other allegations before this Tribunal have been directed. Bad enough that they could claim that a small number had suffered injustice [since there was an overwhelming amount of evidence against these paedophiles] but to declare that all or the vast majority of them are innocent is just mind-blowingly criminal. Surely these people should be charged with aiding and abetting paedophiles?

This view of the evidence has been represented to the Tribunal by, in particular, the loosely formed association calling itself the Bryn Estyn Staff support Group, which apparently came into existence as the result of the arrests of various members of the staff in the course of the major police investigation. Many of the former residents of Bryn Estyn spoke very favourably in their evidence about the Chairperson of the group, Gwen Hurst, and its Secretary John Rayfield, formerly a staff union official. Nevertheless Hurst told us that she is quite certain that the majority of the allegations now being made by former pupils are fabricated. Rayfield, in similar vein, voiced the opinion that they may well have been “carefully trained”, ignoring the detailed chronology of the police investigation and the impracticability of such training. He believes that the complainants’ motive generally is to secure compensation. Whilst loyalty by former colleagues is readily understandable, we are unable to sympathise with the persistent ostrich- like response of these two witnesses [and some others] to the very substantial body of evidence placed before the Tribunal, much of which was heard by both of them for the first time.

... the staff collectively must, in our view, share a degree of the blame for failure to stop his activities. There were clear grounds for grave suspicion and we believe that actual suspicion was felt by many more members of the staff than have admitted it.

The consequences of the abuse by Howarth on his victims were immeasurable and remain so. The lives of these already disturbed children were grossly poisoned by a leading authority figure in whom they should have been able to place their trust. They felt soiled, guilty and embarrassed and some of them were led to question their own sexual orientation. Most them have experienced difficulties in their sexual relationships and their relationships with children ever since and many have continued to rebel against authority. Even more seriously, their self-respect and ability to look forward to the future have been shattered.”

Mr Saltrese told the Gazette that it was 'extremely difficult for the defendants to get a fair hearing' in such cases and that it was now difficult for social workers with children to do their jobs for fear of having allegations made against them. Is there any evidence for this? Mr Saltrese wants to see changes to the law which would force every police interview of a witness to be taped so that leading questions and the floating of the issue of compensation before witnesses would be ruled out. Police interviews are already taped. He says current prosecutions have involved abuse of process in cases dealing with events that happened 15 to 20 years ago where vital witnesses may have died and records and log books gone missing, leaving jurors to be swayed solely by the often dramatic testimony of alleged victims without any other evidence. Where is his evidence that this has happened? Notice this scum solicitor Saltrese can’t be specific. What records? What log books? Date? In any case if that had really happened and it was down to an abuser’s word against a victim’s, who is going to win? It’s a no brainer; the abuser would win hands down every time against his abused and crushed victim. Look what happened in the Anglesea libel case. Simon Regan says: “put them up against an agile and eminent QC whose sole task is to discredit them, and they quickly crumble, even break down in tears. Many former victims now have criminal records of some kind, owing almost exclusively to the abuse itself, and the barrister will brutally exploit this as evidence that the witness is unreliable and tainted. Faced with the choice of a clearly neurotic young man who quickly falls down in the witness box, and a smooth, experienced, erudite and often highly respected culprit, juries tend to give the accused the benefit of the doubt.”

Mr Saltrese points out that the latter were not small children but boys aged between 14 and 17 in Community Homes with Education (CHEs), the successors to the former approved schools. Many, he says, were young offenders, '95% of whom now have a string of convictions'.” It is not surprising that a victim of CSA in ‘care’ would end up committing crimes.

See http://www.innocent.org.uk/misc/carers.html for more of the same from Bob the wolf who says that F.A.C.T is one of 18 campaigning organisations throughout the country. God help us. Saltrese of course receives more publicity. The wolf says: “One of the great sadnesses of this issue is that it is people who were formerly doing one of the most difficult tasks required by society (looking after emotionally disturbed children) who now seem to be targeted.

"The people who are subject to false allegations were usually the most conscientious members of staff," says Thompson. "They are the ones who did the work, who did the extracurricular activities. They certainly did. These people have in a sense set themselves up by being close to the kids and doing the real job they had to do, which was acting as surrogate parents. It's always the nice people who get accused. Vomit inducing.

Chris Saltrese, a solicitor based in Southport who has worked on a number of sex abuse cases, says: "Juries think that there is no smoke without fire and they will convict on the flimsiest of evidence. Who wants to be responsible for letting a paedophile back onto the streets?" As a result of this, he says, "there are at least 20 innocent men in prison in the north west alone".” Saltrese is all hearsay and no substance.

Now take a look at http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:DRQ8lbk9VrA J:insidetime.co.uk/articleview.asp%3Fa%3D1351%26c%3Dbob_woffind en_writes+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk Bob Woffinden again:

“It is not just the BBC that is ingenuous. On that fateful Friday of the Newsnight debacle, Sky News was leading its bulletins with a report about a group of twelve-year-old boys who were rounded up and taken from care homes throughout the country to weekend sex parties in central London where they were sexually abused by ‘posh people’ and ‘members of the Establishment’.

Happily for Sky, this farrago of complete nonsense was so quickly overwhelmed by events at the BBC that no one noticed it.

‘I can understand why these people are doing all this’, said Gwen Hurst, referring to those making allegations. She is a former teacher at Bryn Estyn who formed a support group for staff. ‘They are doing it for money. What I can’t understand is why all the professionals aren’t examining their stories more carefully.’ What stories? These are not bleedin stories. These are factual events of children being terrorised by paedophiles. There is [was!] photographic evidence – acknowledged by the police and by Waterhouse. Gwen Hurst aided and abetted those criminals. She turned a blind eye to the sadistic torture of children and she is continuing to aid and abet criminals. Why isn’t Hurst being prosecuted? Why isn’t Saltrese, Jervis, Woffinden and all the bloody lot of them? ... filthy evil lying sub humans. Gwen Hurst of the Bryn Estyn Staff Support Team(BESST), which she had started with John Rayfield in 1992.” You’d think that if you typed in Bryn Estyn Staff Support Team (BESST] into the search bar you’d find a blog/website or some info on this ‘support group’. NO.

The Waterhouse report makes it clear that staff knew what was going on. On p 87 it states: “We are fully satisfied that all the senior members of the staff at Bryn Estyn and most of the junior staff were aware of the flat list procedure and that favoured boys were regularly spending the evening until a late hour in Howarth’s flat.”

Now take a look at http://www.lgcplus.com/waterhouse-report-staff-go- to-court-over-inquiry/1385303.article I quote: “WATERHOUSE REPORT - STAFF GO TO COURT OVER INQUIRY 23 March, 2000

“Staff from the care home at the centre of the north Wales child abuse inquiry are seeking to take their case to the European Court of Human Rights.

The Bryn Estyn staff support team is working on behalf of employees who were named in the report and implicated in mismanagement. They were not necessarily implicated in abuse.

A spokeswoman for BESST, who was a teacher at the home, said: '[The report] hasn't been tested in a court of law. What is that supposed to mean? The report is a legal document of evidence gathered and heard in a tribunal and adjudicated by a judge. This will be a reference document for years to come. If you're named in that without even having made a police statement it's an abuse of people's rights.' Who is she referring to?

She added that her complaint was against Parliament because it set down the rules for the tribunal. She claimed the conviction of former Bryn Estyn deputy principal Peter Howarth for buggery and indecent assault was a miscarriage of justice. He died in jail before he could appeal against his conviction.” On what grounds did he suffer a miscarriage of justice? No one from any ‘support’ group has provided any information whatsoever on any of these convicted paedophiles, which may go some way to persuade us to lend them some sympathy. They don’t even tell us if they attended at any trials.

P 85 of the Waterhouse report states: “The sessions would begin at about 8.30pm and the boys attending, usually five or six or even more at a time, were required to dress in their pyjamas without any underwear. If they were wearing underpants under their pyjamas they were ordered to remove them.

According to Howarth’s own statement, the idea behind this practice was to provide some sort of ordinary domestic experience in the evening for the boys selected, who were otherwise deprived of normal family life. Howarth was tried in July 1994 in Chester Crown Court on 12 charges, three of which alleged buggery and nine indecent assaults. The total period spanned by the charges was just over ten years, that is from 1 January 1974 to 11 May 1984, and the number of former boy residents of Bryn Estyn named in the counts was nine. Howarth denied at his trial that any sexual impropriety had occurred and he persisted in this denial until his death in April 1997, before he was due to give evidence to us.

He was convicted on 8th July 1994 of one offence of buggery and seven indecent assaults, for which he received a total of ten years imprisonment. There was no appeal by him against his convictions but we were told in the course of the Tribunal’s hearings prior to his death that he was still considering an application for leave to appeal. We have heard compelling evidence however in support of the offences of which he was convicted and of other like offences committed by him against other residents of Bryn Estyn. Although some of the evidence was of much lesser quality, nothing that we have heard has led us to doubt the correctness of those convictions and we are satisfied that they were merely representative of a pattern of conduct by Howarth throughout the time that he lived at Bryn Estyn. He had a number of favourites who were often referred to scurrilously as “bum boys”.

The flat lists ... main victims of Howarth’s sexual assaults ... at which point buggery or other indecency would occur.

... progressing from masturbation to oral sex and in many cases to actual anal penetration.

... the dispenser of discipline against whom no complaint could be made.”

As for their case in the ECHR, I’d like to see their statement! What was the outcome of that???

See also http://www.lgcplus.com/ex-carers-consider-legal-challenge-to- waterhouse-report/1386427.article I quote:

“Former care home workers are considering a legal challenge over the naming of alleged abusers in the report of the north Wales tribunal, reported The Western Mail (11 March, p7). Waterhouse didn’t name any alleged abusers. He named only convicted ones.

Ex-carers revealed in Ronald Waterhouse's report as having been accused of physical and sexual assaults on children at the Bryn Estyn community care home in Wrexham are consulting lawyers about challenging, through the European Court of Human Rights, the decision to identify them.

The spokeswoman added: 'We are taking legal advice and, depending on that, hope to take the tribunal's decision to name people to the European Court of Human Rights. We don't think it's fair to name people who in some cases have not even made a statement to police on the allegations.” As usual there are no details provided. Who are they referring to? Who has been named who hasn’t even provided a statement to police? Notice how this bunch of fakes infer things but can never back anything up.

Ray Wyre and Pamela Klein

Ray Wyre has been included in the Elm Guest House list of alleged paedophiles. As said, see my ‘GOJAM’ pdf for more on the Elm. More research is required to determine whether or not Wyre was a paedophile.

However the red flag is raised re Ray Wyre for a variety of other reasons. I copy/paste below and link to source. I have not checked the veracity of this information; it is there for you to consider and make your own conclusions. From my perspective, just the fact that Ray Wyre is endorsed by ‘F.A.C.T’ http://www.factuk.org/about-us/fact-the-first- decade/ tells me all I need to know. The fact that he and his work is held in such high esteem by the mainstream press is another red flag alert. This is especially so as he is endorsed by Valerie Sinason, the dubious psychotherapist and former lecturer at the Tavistock Clinic [HG connection], and his Satanic Ritual Abuse teachings was allowed and promoted so heavily worldwide. Finally the red flag is raised for his close connection to Madeleine McCann’s parents. http://www.rwauk.co.uk/ Ray Wyre Associates http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/3392259.stm http://www.bbc.co.uk/search?q=ray%20wyre http://3as.madeleinemccann.org/viewtopic.php?p=165626&sid=389810f015aea 3f18d66d291fb96e431 http://www.heraldscotland.com/ray-wire-1.883812 http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Murder-Childhood-Ray- Wyre/dp/0140247157 http://fbga.redguitars.co.uk/aLiveWyre.php

Wyre continued to pursue his own methods and in the 1980’s began to influence social work child protection practices more heavily. In 1988 he introduced the satanic ritual abuse (SRA) element to the large scale Nottingham case. Having been contacted by Tim Tate, journalist, Wyre passed on lists of ‘satanic indicators’ (lists of symptoms which are claimed to indicate the child has been a victim of SRA) to the children’s foster parents. He also briefed them on what to look for, encouraging the foster parents to keep journals on the children’s behaviour and anything the children discussed.

In the subsequent enquiry into the case, Wyre was heavily criticised for his actions and influence on the case. As the bizarre allegations became more and more fantastic, a rift formed between police investigating the case, who could find no evidence supporting the allegations, and the social workers, who were adamant that this abuse had occurred. Police refused to accept any further allegations, and refused to accept as evidence the journals that Wyre had urged the foster parents to keep.

A committed believer in the SRA movement, Ray Wyre continued to spread his beliefs, as did other workers swept up in the tide of hysteria. An associate of Wyre’s, Pamela Klein, also lectured at joint training conferences for police and social workers on the subject of SRA. Originally from Illinois, and a rape crisis worker, Klein’s activities had previously been criticised by an Illinois judge, who stated that she “was not a legitimate therapist” and that she was not licensed to practice.

Wyre and Klein both were instrumental in spreading the SRA movement through Australia and New Zealand. Klein’s list of indicators included bedwetting, a fear of ghosts and nightmares. Four of those involved in the infamous McMartin pre-school scandal in the US, also targeted Australia and New Zealand. Almost immediately cases with strikingly similar allegations to those already seen in the US and UK sprang up.

Despite being criticised for his influence on the Nottingham case, and warnings that training workers to look for these indicators, and the methods used to elicit the desired responses from the interviewees were dangerous and should be stopped, Wyre continued.

In June 1994, another satanic ritual abuse case broke in Pembroke, Wales. It was revealed that workers in the case had attended a 3-day conference held by Wyre.

It was in 1988 that Wyre set up the Gracewell Clinic in Birmingham, the first clinic designed to treat men convicted of sex offences. http://www.smwane.dk/content/view/148/

Two other American figures, both social workers, were to have a significant impact on the dissemination of the satanism scenario. First, Pamela Klein, a rape crisis worker from Illinois, drew up a set of “satanic indicators” which included such symptoms as bed wetting, nightmares, fear of monsters and ghosts, and a preoccupation with faeces, urine and flatulence: these were to feature in a number of subsequent investigations of alleged Satanism in several countries. Her credentials had been questioned by an Illinois judge, who stated that she was “not a legitimate therapist” and was not licensed to practice (Pope, 1991). In July 1985 she settled in Britain and was very influential in generating a network of satanic claims-makers through her contributions to conferences and seminars, including one involving senior police officers. Among her early associates was Ray Wyre, and together they introduced the satanic dimension to the Nottingham child abuse investigation (Emon, 1993, pp. 49-50). Wyre was later to make four lecture tours of Australia, the most recent in July 1998. As will be seen, Klein was also influential in New Zealand. http://www.smwane.dk/content/view/148/

The satanic cult scenario was introduced to New Zealand in May 1990, when Pamela Klein spoke to a child sexual abuse conference. In a rambling speech on the subject of post-traumatic stress disorder and associated disorders in children, she referred to “horrific satanic cult situations,” and went on to claim that children in satanic cults were “purposely programmed to develop multiple personalities” (Klein, transcript). She also spoke of using sand tray therapy to enable a child to bring a memory back of a satanic ceremony. Here we see once again the significance of the new diagnostic labels introduced to the 1980 psychiatric manual in providing apparent scientific legitimacy for a scenario which might otherwise be subject to critical scrutiny. In April, 1989, a Chicago therapist, Pamela Klein, who specializes in ritual child abuse cases, conducted training seminars in Great Britain to social workers while in the city of Nottingham. Not long after her training course where she stated, “Satanism will sweep Britain,” reported cases of satanic ritual abuse begin to surface. Children began to describe bodies being cooked in microwave ovens and eaten, tunnels where children were taken to be abused, and people dancing around a circle while children were being abused. The Nottingham Police thoroughly investigated all allegations. Detective Superintendent Peter Coles stated they found “not one shred of evidence” to support these claims. A second subsequent investigation was conducted with the same results. Great Britain authorities are now pointing fingers at Pamela Klein as being the catalyst of a national panic. According to Detective Coles, not one report of babies being cooked in microwave ovens surfaced until after Pamela Klein’s training class. Similarly in the Chicago area, Pamela Klein conducted over 50 interviews with a young girl, the daughter of Mr. And Mrs. John Fittanto. Their daughter revealed to Pamela Klein vivid details of their parents’ involvement in satanic cannibalism, including mutilation. The judge ruled that Ms. Klein was not a bonafide therapist and that she was responsible for teaching the child to believe the horrendous fantasies. The father was charged with molestation, but the charges were later dropped. John Fittanto subsequently filed a million dollar lawsuit against Pamela Klein. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/sex-offence-clinic-drops-scheme- for-child-unit-1535069.html Ray Wyre, the director, said putting the children’s centre next to the sex offenders’ unit was ‘progressive’.

Gracewell includes a hostel and treatment clinic for 21 sex offenders. It was set up by Mr Wyre, with almost pounds 1m from a Birmingham businessman, Trevor Price, to carry out a pioneering treatment. Company records show Gracewell was originally set up as a commercial proposition. An initial auditor’s report said the company had ‘immensely profitable opportunities’.

This has caused concern among local residents, but Mr Wyre said Gracewell was now registered as a charity. He pointed out that Trevor Price, who set up the original company, had now resigned as chief executive.

Mr Wyre said: ‘I think if private funding had continued and we had got very successful all of us would have had problems.’ http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2008/06/27/child-protection- expert-ray-wyre-dies-at-56/

He later helped found the Lucy Faithfull Foundation, a child protection charity specialising in safeguarding children against sexual abuse, and went on to train professionals all over the world. The Lucy Faithfull Foundation is promoted by the Raccoon; another reason for a red flag http://annaraccoon.com/2014/08/01/an-unsung-hero/

Child psychotherapist Valerie Sinason said Wyre was “passionate” in his wish to demonstrate how “paedophiles themselves could provide the answers as to how children were targeted and hurt”.

Wyre was a frequent contributor to Community Care as a writer and speaker at conferences hosted by the magazine, and worked “tirelessly” to raise awareness of child protection via the media, Lowe said. Heather Wing, director of regulation at the General Social Care Council, said Wyre “will be much missed as a powerful advocate for the protection of children”. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/out-of-the-mouths-of- babes-1576495.html

It was Mr Wyre who, at a conference of social work directors in Scotland in 1990, told delegates that they must “think the unthinkable, believe the unbelievable and imagine the unimaginable”. And it was Mr Wyre who had played in important role in advising social workers and foster parents during a child abuse investigation in Nottingham in 1988-89. After that investigation had broken down amid recriminations between police and social workers, an inquiry was held*. It blamed Mr Wyre for creating unfounded fears of a Satanic abuse network. Inter- viewing and therapy techniques were faulty, it said, and the evidence produced was a reflection of social workers’ obsessions. The report concluded that “unless action was taken, witch-hunts could develop in this country and grave injustice result’’.

This report was suppressed by Nottinghamshire social services and the Department of Health, and has never been published. Instead, the Government set up another inquiry into the existence of satanic abuse, under Jean La Fontaine, professor of anthropology at the London School of Economics. She found no evidence that there was any such thing as Satanic abuse, but her report did not appear until May 1994, as the Pembroke case trial was ending.

WHATEVER the outcome of the Pembroke appeal, families have been devastated. Anne Mason has endured more than most. She has never even been charged with any offence and yet she has been parted from her children longer than anyone else in the case. http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2008/01/ray-wyre- spinning-for-mccanns.html http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower- humanrights.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/references-to-paedophilia-in- relation.html

10. The connection between Ray Wyre, paedophile ‘expert’ and the McCanns

We’ve highlighted the connection between the late Ray Wyre and the McCanns in another article on our website, titled ‘Ray Wyre and the McCanns: What was the connection between the McCanns and the late paedophilia ‘expert’, Ray Wyre?

There are at least four questions we would ask about this connection:

Why was Wyre so keen, in two articles published four and seven days after Madeleine was reported missing, to insist so adamantly that she had been abducted? Why, in addition, did he emphasise the possibility that she had been snatched by a paedophile?

Why did the McCanns agree to meet the Wyres at their Buckinghamshire home?

Was that meeting really much more about producing a helpful Sunday newspaper article than, as was claimed, about starting a new organisation for missing children?

Article filed by Tony Bennett, Secretary, The Madeleine Foundation 10 October 2010

Posted on our forum here

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t1499p10-ray-wyre-plus-his-associate- sally-smith-and-the-mccanns The country was gripped by lurid stories of an alleged Satanic Ritual Abuse network operating in and around Nottingham. And it was all triggered by Wyre.

During the course of investigating claims of a Satanic Abuse Ring, tens of thousands of hours of police and social worker time were spent. The cost ran into tens of millions of pounds. It led to a rift between Nottinghamshire Social Services and Nottinghamshire Police, because, in the end, the police simply refused to investigate any further claims of Satanic Ritual Abuse. The claims, they concluded, were not true.

In 1988, two social workers in the city were encountering a particularly vile case of incest involving nine adults and 23 children who had been taken into care. According to Christine Johnston, a senior social worker, and Judith Dawson, the team leader, the children began telling bizarre stories which they could not understand. They called in Ray Wyre, a former probation officer who runs a clinic in Birmingham for sex offenders. However, another version of the introduction of Ray Wyre to Nottingham held that it was a journalist, Tim Tate, who advised social workers to contact Wyre.

Wyre proceeded to give the social workers a list of “Satanic indicators”, a profile of signs and symptoms used by American police officers which he told the Independent on Sunday he was given by Pamela Klein, a Chicago social worker who lectures on Satanic abuse.

Yet despite this massive and costly blunder by Wyre, he repeated exactly the same thing three years later in Scotland, where there was another Satanic Ritual Abuse false alarm.

One report referred to Wyre in very robust terms:

Perhaps most disturbing of all is the evidence that the investigation team was influenced by Ray Wyre, a former probation officer who describes himself as ‘an independent sexual abuse consultant’. Though the local authority refused to admit it, the investigators attended a special three-day training programme in October 1991 organised by Mr Wyre’s Gracewell Institute. Only after this did they begin group therapy sessions for the children. Subsequently, the allegations of Satantic Ritual Abuse began to flow.

It blamed Mr Wyre for creating unfounded fears of a Satanic Abuse network. Interviewing and therapy techniques were faulty, it said, and the evidence produced was a reflection of social workers’ obsessions. The report concluded that ‘unless action was taken, witch-hunts could develop in this country and grave injustice result’.

Wyre seems to have had a mesmeric influence on social workers and even Social Services Directors. It is also of note that the Nottingham report on Wyre’s activities was suppressed, while in the Scotland case, several social workers ‘refused to admit’ that they attended a special three-day training programme in October 1991. Why did they deny that?

Three years later, Wyre was at it again. In June 1994, another Satanic Ritual Abuse hysteria broke out in Pembrokeshire (Dyfed), Wales. It was subsequently revealed that workers in that case had attended a 3-day conference held by Wyre, for which he was paid tens of thousands of pounds. Despite the trail of havoc in his wake after Nottingham and Scotland, Wyre remained a revered educator and trainer on the subject of ritual abuse of children. http://www.mccannfiles.com/id74.html He appears before the Courts as an independent expert witness for both the prosecution and defence and as an advisor during criminal trials. He works closely with the Social Services departments of various Local Authorities providing expert assessments of ‘Schedule One’ offenders, adolescents, women abusers and non-abusing mothers. He also runs courses in staff selection and supervision of persons working with children and has been involved in a number of inquiries where statutory workers have been accused of sexually abusing children. He assesses individuals who are facing disciplinary action for professional misconduct in cases where there is to be no criminal prosecution.

He works closely with UK and other police forces in profiling, investigation and training police officers in interviewing techniques. He has also assisted in live police major investigations, advising on case management, supporting interview teams as well as directly interviewing suspects under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. He is qualified to undertake such interviews in virtue of completing the Internal Police Investigative and Interviewing Course. He has given evidence in a number of high profile Inquiries including evidence before the Royal Commission into the New South Wales police, The Nolan committee (enquiry into the Catholic Church: England and Wales) The Ferns Enquiry (Enquiry into the catholic church: Ireland) the Dabb’s enquiry (Enquiry into abuse within Nursery schools) He has also been involved in major inquiries into the abuse within Children’s Homes. http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume10/j10_9.htm http://onlyinamericablogging.blogspot.com/2013/01/ray-wyre-exposed.html http://paedofiles.com/savile-forum/?pgno=2016

Take a look now at Richard Webster’s attack on Angus Stickler. Here’s a flavour – from http://www.richardwebster.net/print/xfileon4.htm: “Laverty claimed that although the records presented to the Tribunal indicated that he had spent two periods at the Ty’r Felin Assessment Centre in Bangor and that the second of these had been for nine days, he had not in fact ever returned to the home after his first spell there. Since this claim was made in relation to events which had taken place more than twenty years ago and since no conclusive evidence was presented on either side, it is difficult to know why it featured in the programme at all. See my pdf on Lavatory.

Much more serious, however, was Stickler’s suggestion that a document contained in Laverty’s Tribunal ‘bundle’ had been doctored. ‘There were also,’ he said, ‘documents relating to Darren’s placement at the Bryn Estyn home that looked highly suspect too – handwritten documents purporting to be a daily log of Darren’s time in care.’

Stickler’s report went on to suggest that these documents were not contemporaneous records since they had all been written by the same person; log book entries would have contained entries made by different members of staff, written in different hands. Stickler does have a point. The problem with this part of the programme, with its dark suggestion that persons unknown, perhaps with the assistance or knowledge of Loveridge and Griffiths, had somehow managed to interfere with or replace authentic documents which should have been supplied to the Tribunal, is that it was entirely unsupported by any reliable evidence. When senior officers and social services executives are prepared to cover up child abuse, of course officials will interfere wherever possible with evidence.

Had Angus Stickler taken the trouble to make inquiries among former Bryn Estyn members of staff yeah, the very people who were raping the kids or turning a blind eye to it he could very easily have ascertained that, at the relevant time in Bryn Estyn’s history, one member of staff had taken it upon himself to transcribe by hand entries from the log book which related to particular boys into their personal files. The purpose of this exercise was to make it easier for other members of staff, and for social workers, to follow the progress of individual boys without having to scour the original log books for entries which happened to refer to them. Considering the fact widespread horrific abuse was happening [and being covered up], it is almost certainly not true that anyone did what Webster is suggesting. No-one gave a fig for the progress of boys. Notice this person is unidentified; also how does Webster know that it was a male transcriber? Notice Webster doesn’t even name the former staff members that allegedly informed him. Webster was told to write this bollox by some high up seedy mason[s].

If, as seems likely, the documents referred to by Stickler had come into being in this way, there was nothing remotely suspect or sinister about them. Since, as Stickler himself was obliged to acknowledge in the programme, the original log books had been available to the Tribunal lawyers, there were in any case no grounds for disquiet even in the absence of this information. Had there been discrepancies between any of the handwritten transcripts and the original log book entries it should have been possible for lawyers to uncover these at the time. No such discrepancies were ever pointed out. There is therefore no reason to suppose that any of the Tribunal documents had been ‘doctored’ in the manner that Stickler’s report suggested. The fecking lawyers are part of the cover up. They always toe the Masonic line. Does anyone know an honest lawyer???

However, from these meagre ingredients, which contained hardly enough evidential sulphur to fit on the end of a match-stick, Angus Stickler attempted to manufacture, within the confines of his File on 4 programme, a veritable journalistic bomb. With reference to the conclusions set out in the Waterhouse report (which found, inter alia, that there had been no organised paedophile ring operating from children’s homes in North Wales), this is misleading as Waterhouse made damning findings of extensive abuse; however he was restricted by his terms of reference as laid out on page 19. See P788 of the Waterhouse report’s summary of conclusions https://drive.google.com/viewerng/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVs dGRvbWFpbnxub3J0aHdhbGVzc2NhbmRhbHxneDozY2JkYzkwODIzMDNh OWY4 Stickler said this: ‘We now know that some of [the] documents presented at [the Tribunal] are highly suspect and this new evidence is potentially explosive.’

The fact that there was nothing explosive at all in what Stickler thought he had discovered about the North Wales Tribunal will not generally have been suspected by File on 4 listeners simply because the programme which claimed to inform them actually denied them the full facts. I don’t see Webster bringing us any facts. In doing so it performed a considerable disservice both to the BBC itself and to journalism in general. Quite apart from anything else, the twist feckin hypocrite; he’s the one twisting and spinning which Stickler had made to his report in order to point it in the direction of allegations of child abuse, proven widespread child abuse actually distracted attention away from a story which is truly disturbing – one which suggests the existence of institutionalised dishonesty among senior council officers in at least one local authority in the United Kingdom.” There is evidence of this institutionalised dishonesty. Why was Webster not concerned merely at the existence of freemasonry and other secret societies? Because he was almost certainly a high degree mason himself. Incidentally the report suggests there is ‘no evidence’ that Freemasonry had anything to do with the scandal. Waterhouse would say that, wouldn’t he. He was almost certainly a high up mason himself. How does he explain the fact that the police inquiries, carried out by NWP, which is riddled with freemasons, were inadequate and inconclusive?

According to Rebecca:

“THE WATERHOUSE Tribunal set the tone for its approach to freemasonry right from day one.

In the very first session the barrister for one of the groups of former residents of care homes made an application about masonry.

The barrister, Nick Booth, asked that “the Tribunal should keep a register of the masonic membership amongst its staff, the members, its representatives and witnesses who appear before it”. He explained:

“The duty of loyalty to a brother mason and his duty of impartiality if he is involved in the administration of justice is not a new one and it’s one that’s very much in the public eye, particularly at the moment.”

“The Tribunal will be aware of the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee which is investigating the issue,” he added.

“Sir, I stress, if I have not stressed it before, that I am not making any suggestion of disreputable conduct, merely to put the matter beyond the reach of any possible public comment which might undermine the public confidence in the Inquiry.”

The chairman of the Tribunal, Sir Ronald Waterhouse, and the two other members of the Tribunal, retired for a brief adjournment. Such a matter should not have needed a discussion.

“It will not surprise you that the application is refused,” said Sir Ronald on their return.

“As far as the staff are concerned,” Sir Ronald said, “in so far as the application carries any reflection upon the integrity of the staff of the Tribunal it’s repudiated, wholly unwarranted; there is no evidence whatsoever to support any suggestion that they have not acted with complete integrity…”

“The members of the Tribunal are in this position: the Tribunal was set up by Parliament and the members of it were appointed by the Secretary of State for Wales and the [criticism of the composition] should be addressed through the proper channels”.” And therein lies the coverup.

Also from Webster’s blog: “By now some twelve years have passed since this lurid scenario was first created. After the multi-million pound investigations conducted both by the North Wales Police and by the Tribunal, and after a libel trial whose evidence, if studied carefully, demonstrates that a series of allegations against a former senior police officer had been fabricated, the truth about the scenario is tolerably clear. To any dispassionate observer it should now be apparent that the ‘paedophile ring’ enthusiastically located by journalists and others in North Wales children’s homes belongs to the realm of higher fantasy.” How can we study this evidence that shows that the allegations against a former senior police officer was fabricated, if not presented with it? Presumably he’s talking about Gordon Anglesea. Nuff said about that.

And: “Since Stickler is clearly a journalist who is possessed of considerable talents, this may in the end actually strengthen the programme. It will only do so, however, if the editors and producers who work with him understand that he is, like a number of journalists, credulous in the face of some conspiracy-theories and temperamentally unsuited to dealing rigorously and fairly with one of the very subjects to which he is apparently most powerfully drawn – allegations of child abuse.

If this recognition is not made and if editors continue to allow him to work in this most difficult area, then, on the evidence of his most recent report, it should not be surprising if he gets the story in question dangerously wrong.” Cheeky fukker. I bet Angus Stickler would love to have landed the lying scumbag nonce protecting establishment brown nose Webster a few punches.

Now take a look at his attack on Alison Taylor. The following extracts are taken from Looking back at Richard Webster’s book The Secret of Bryn Estyn : the making of a Modern Witch Hunt

By John Molloy http://www.goodenoughcaring.com/the-journal/looking-back- at-richard-websters-book-the-secret-of-bryn-estyn-the-making-of-a-modern- witch-hunt/

And repeated on the following page https://secretofbrynestyn.wordpress.com/looking-back/ “In summary: One disgruntled former manager (Alison Taylor) who lost her job because of her record of poor performance, made a number of third party allegations. This is a blatant lie, as evidenced in the Waterhouse report.

The police investigating them found her allegations to be untrue. She enlisted the help of a former resident Ryan Tanner (Darren Laverty) from a children’s home, who, acting as her acolyte, sought to involve others. The police are guilty of cover-up and Darren Laverty is now just another rat shill, paid to spread disinfo and confusion. See my Darren Laverty PDF.

The former manager met with a journalist, who when facing a tight deadline, for whatever reason stated, did not do the correct research. That’s just another outright lie. Read the Wiki timeline which follows.

This same woman met with two anti-police labour councillors. From the interactions of these five people, and their different individual motivations, ten years of trauma, trawling, interrogation, convictions, deaths, and suicides emerged.” They were motivated to blow the whistle on child abusers and corruption in the highest echelons of North Walian society.

See also – Waterhouse: a betrayal of trust? http://www.richardwebster.net/waterhouse.html According to Wikipedia: “Alison Taylor: allegations, dismissal and publication[edit]

In the mid-1980s Alison Taylor, a residential care worker and then manager of a children's home in Gwynedd, began hearing stories from children coming to her home from across Clwyd and Gwynedd about a series of child sexual and abuse incidents in various care homes. On investigation, she found that several reports of these incidents had been made by both care and social workers, but that no procedural or disciplinary action had so far been taken as a result.[2][not in citation given]

Creating a file around cases involving six children,[3] Taylor made a series of allegations against senior social care professionals working for the authority[2] which she raised with her superiors at the council, but again no action was taken. Taylor then reported her allegations to North Wales Police in 1986. The council suspended Taylor in January 1987,[3] alleging that there had been a "breakdown in communications" between Taylor and her colleagues.[2][not in citation given]

On two subsequent occasions, the council offered Taylor a financial termination agreement, subject to her signing a confidentiality agreement. After refusing to sign the confidentiality agreement, Taylor was dismissed. With the help of her trade union, Taylor took the council to an industrial tribunal, which was quickly closed after the parties came to an out of court financial settlement. In September 1989, Taylor accepted the agreement, which did not include an associated confidentiality agreement.[2][not in citation given]

At the later Inquiry, Sir Ronald Waterhouse publicly vindicated Taylor.[2] He stated that without Taylor's campaigning, there would have been no inquiry.[2] Taylor was awarded a Pride of Britain award in 2000,[4] and since 1996 has worked as a novelist.[5]

Initial public investigations[edit]

After agreement had been reached with the council, Taylor went to the local, Welsh and UK national media with her allegations. In these reports, Taylor made further allegations about Bryn Estyn care home in Wrexham, which had been run until its closure in 1984 by Clwyd County Council.[2][not in citation given]

In 1990, an investigation was undertaken by Detective Inspector Cronin of North Wales Police into allegations of sexual abuse at Cartrefle. Later reports found that Cronin undertook a thorough investigation to the best of his abilities, but that the investigation was restricted by a lack of co-operation by Children's Services and Social Services. SO WHY WEREN’T THE MANAGERS RESPONSIBLE IN THESE DEPARTMENTS PROSECUTED??? Cronin's report, which found insufficient evidence to undertake a successful prosecution, no surprises there was subsequently submitted to the council and became known as the Cartrefle Report.[2][not in citation given] Taylor continued her media campaign, discovering that more than ten reports of child abuse had been made to both councils before she had raised her concerns. Approached by other former and current residents and care workers with additional allegations, in 1991 Taylor compiled a dossier of allegations from over 100 young people,[2][not in citation given] from which she took evidence from 75 cases which she submitted to North Wales Police,[3] and copied to the council and Welsh Office. Only the police took any action, but were again not given co-operation by the council's social services team.[2][3] Wider UK concerns about children in residential care led to the commissioning of 10 public enquiries between 1990 and 1996, including the Utting Report (1991) and the Warner Report (1992), which exposed large-scale institutional abuse of children and young people. As a result, prompted by public pressure the Welsh Office and with the support of local politicians, the newly appointed Director of Social Services in Clwyd found several instances of previous allegations uncovered by previous council investigations, which had either not been properly investigated or where reports calling for action had been ignored.[6][7]

The wider matter of child sexual abuse was then referred jointly by both councils to North Wales Police who undertook an inquiry in 1993, taking some 2,600 witness statements,[8] and 300 cases were subsequently sent to the Crown Prosecution Service.[9] As a result, seven people were prosecuted and convicted. Six residential social workers were prosecuted for abuse, three of whom had worked at Bryn Estyn. The former deputy head of Bryn Estyn, Peter Howarth, was jailed for 10 years in 1994 for sexually abusing teenage boys;[10] he died in 1997.[11]

Jillings Report[edit]

There were then allegations that members of the police force had themselves colluded in covering up allegations. In March 1994 Clwyd County Council commissioned a further inquiry, the Jillings Report, undertaken by a panel headed by John Jillings,[12] a former director of social services with Derbyshire County Council.[13] The panel of Jillings, Professor Jane Tunstall and Gerrilyn Smith met with considerable opposition:[9] The then newly appointed North Wales chief constable refused to meet them or help with access to the police major-incident database.[9] SO WHY WASN’T HE PROSECUTED? This resulted in the need to collect 70 duplicate and additional witness statements, obtained by local councillors and MPs, who included Ann Clwyd the MP for Cynon Valley since 1984. All paid for by yours truly, the long suffering taxpaying public. 130 boxes of material handed over by the council to the police were not made available to the panel.[9] The Jillings Report stated that allegations involving famous names and paedophile rings were beyond its remit, Masonic controlled Jillings was not allowed to investigate the rich and powerful paedos and something best addressed at a potential later public inquiry. Potential meaning, hopefully, never. Whilst freemasonry and other secret societies remain in existence, there is no such thing as a public inquiry. It found a child care system in which physical and sexual violence were common, from beatings and bullying, to indecent assault and rape.[9]Children who complained of abuse were not believed, or were punished for making false allegations.[9] The report stated that the number of children who were abused is not clear, but estimates range up to 200; in the early 1990s, around 150 had sought compensation.[9] At least 12 former residents were found to have died from unnatural causes.[15] The report states that some staff linked to abuse may have been allowed to resign or retire early. No surprises there. They’ll be collecting a healthy pension, living in comfort in their upmarket homes ... and we’re paying for it! The report concludes that its panel members had considered quitting before publication, due to: "...the considerable constraints placed upon us. All the more reason to persevere; not quit. The final report's appendices included limited copies of the key witness statements taken by North Wales Police during their earlier investigation.

The final report was not published because of concerns over libel, it isn’t libellous if it’s the truth and legal advice and concerns from the council's insurers, Municipal Mutual Insurance, which warned that the report would encourage court cases and compensation claims.[6][7] The report also states that Municipal Mutual suggested that the then chair of the council's social services committee, Malcolm King, be sacked if he spoke out. Who in Municipal Mutual said this? Why wasn’t that person prosecuted? In November 2012, King commented:[9] Because it was suppressed, the lessons of the Jillings report were “ not learned. No, the result was that the public did not learn the full extent of the horror and of the cover up, and the names of the powerful paedos ... and that consequently the big guns have never faced justice. It was the exchange of financial safety for the safety of real people. It was one of the most shameful parts of recent history. No it wasn’t. That was the excuse put out by the Masonic heavyweights to avoid publication, as public scrutiny is the only thing the Masonic big wigs fear. King is a pretender and a cover upper. He’s almost certainly a high degree mason. He cares more about his job than injustice. You don’t get to be the chair of the social services committee unless you are one of them. ”

It was assumed until November 2012 that all publicly held copies of the Jillings Report had been destroyed, and hence it could not be published. In light of the re-emergence of the scandal that month, one of the few legally held what the fuck is that supposed to mean! remaining copies was sent to the Children's Commissioner for Wales, Keith Towler.[9]

In November 2012, Anne Clwyd MP called for the legal archive copy of the report to be published, claiming that she was shown a copy in 1994: "I would say please get the Jillings report published because it shows... rape, bestiality, violent assaults and torture, and the effects on those young boys at that time cannot be under-estimated." BBC Wales subsequently spoke to Jillings about Ms Clwyd's claim of bestiality, but Jillings said his report did not unearth any such claims. Publish it in full then, and let’s see if Jillings or Anne Clwyd are lying. Jillings also commented that public figures were not among names given by victims, liar and that: "The people the investigation focussed on, because these were the people that the children spoke to us about, were staff members." The Masonic cabal agreed that they would appease the public to some degree - they’d throw the small fry to the wolves and protect the big guns. In November 2012 Flintshire County Council uncovered a copy of the Jillings Report in their archive. They knew exactly where to find it. The six north Wales councils took legal advice Masonic advice about whether it could be made available under Freedom of Information legislation. They were under public pressure and so forced to reveal something. A redacted version of the report was finally published in July 2013, after a request by the BBC under the Freedom of Information Act. It severely criticised North Wales Police, and stated that "the most striking fact to emerge is that five men who shared in common their employment as residential care workers at Bryn Estyn were convicted of serious offences involving at least 24 young people."

In June 2013, former-Bryn Estyn resident Darren Laverty attempted to sell a redacted copy of the Jillings report on internet auction site eBay. After Wrexham Council threatened legal action, the item was removed from sale by eBay. Truth should be free Lavatory. Why were you trying to make money from it?

The Waterhouse Inquiry[edit]

The inquiry began in January 1997. The tribunal sat for 203 days, and heard evidence directly from 250 witnesses, attracted 200 additional personal statements, and in total heard from more than 650 people.[20] Of the 260 witnesses that the inquiry, nearly half subsequently needed counselling for psychiatric help after giving evidence, paid for by the inquiry. Why was it necessary to state who paid for counselling services to help victims? In any case it was the taxpayer [as always] who coughed up. The inquiry finished taking evidence in May 1998, with Waterhouse expecting to submit his report to the Welsh Secretary within 6 to 8 months.[22] However, the volume of evidence taken and the serious of allegations within, led to a 12-month delay in publication of the report to the Welsh Secretary until October 1999.[22] The final report ran to over 500,000 words, and contained 700 allegations of abuse involving 170 individuals.[22] More than 80 people, many of whom were care staff or teachers, were named as child abusers the rest were the unnamed and protected rich and powerful in statements to the inquiry. Costing more than £12M, it was stated to be: "the biggest investigation ever held in Britain into allegations of physical, sexual and emotional abuse of children who passed through the care system."[10]

The findings were published in February 2000, as Lost In Care - The Waterhouse Report.[23][24] The report concluded that there was: "Widespread sexual abuse of boys occurred in children's residential establishments in Clwyd between 1974 and 1990. There were some incidents of sexual abuse of girl residents in these establishments but they were comparatively rare."[2] As well as physical abuse and the unacceptable use of force,[11] there was "widespread sexual abuse, including buggery."[2] The public version of the report named and criticised almost 200 people, for either abusing children or failing to offer them sufficient protection. Show us the original version. Although it identified 28 alleged perpetrators,[25] many names were redacted due to either pending prosecutions or lack of evidence. To protect the perps. The report stated:[11]

The evidence before us has disclosed that for many children “ who were consigned to Bryn Estyn, in the 10 or so years of its existence as a community home, it was a form of purgatory or worse from which they emerged more damaged than when they had entered and for whom the future had become even more bleak. ”

The report found no evidence "to establish that there was a wide-ranging conspiracy involving prominent persons and others with the objective of sexual activity with children in care",[11] but did recognise the existence of a paedophile ring in the Wrexham and Chester area. How did it find no evidence of ‘V.I.P’ paedos when it’s remit didn’t stretch to those people??? That’s a lie anyway since Steve Messham for one was told to remove around 30 names from his list of paedophiles.

The Inquiry made 72 recommendations for changes,[2] constituting a massive overhaul of the way in which children in care are dealt with by local councils, social services and the police. What a waste of time and money. Bring the Masonic hierarchy of the councils, police and SS to book and then we’ll see changes for the betterment of society and especially its children.

After the report was published, a window opened to allow victims to claim for compensation. On top of cases which had previously been handled and closed directly by both councils, additional cases were handled by lead solicitors Nelsons of Nottingham. In total, 140 compensation claims were settled on behalf of victims by the time that the claim window closed in July 1999. That’s it pay them off with taxpayer’s money; make them go away so that the Masonic toff nonces can get back to business as usual. Further, a Children's Commissioner for Wales was appointed as a result of one of the reports recommendations. Let the lumpenproletariat think something is being done.

In a subsequent statement to the House of Commons, the Welsh Secretary Paul Murphy stated: "It is a tragedy that such treatment should have been meted out to children in care." Murphy said there was no evidence of a high-level paedophile conspiracy, but that a paedophile ring around Cheshire and Wrexham had preyed on young people in care in the 1970s and 1980s. Murphy can be relied on to spout the official line. You don’t get to be Welsh Secretary unless you’re prepared to toe the Masonic line. Carry on claiming your fat wages, you fake; courtesy of the tax paying public, for protecting toff paedos. You too will get your comeuppance in the not too distant future. The Secret of Bryn Estyn: The Making of a Modern Witch Hunt[edit] In 2005, the cultural historian fully paid up rat shill Richard Webster published a book, The Secret of Bryn Estyn: The Making of a Modern Witch Hunt, which investigated the scandal. Why did the ‘controlled opposition’ Wiki need to mention Webster? It was highly critical of the Waterhouse Inquiry, argued that abuse scandals could be phenomena created by public hysteria.

Further allegations and investigations in 2012[edit] On 5 November 2012 the Prime Minister, David Cameron, said that any new allegations of abuse would be investigated, and announced that a "senior independent!!! figure", later named as Mrs Justice Julia Macur,[31] would be appointed to look urgently into the terms of the original inquiry and whether it was properly constituted.[25] Tom Watson MP called for a wider ranging inquiry, and referred to allegations of abuse by a former Cabinet minister.[32] Tom Watson is the MP who, just like ALL the MPs, refused to expose the Hollie Greig hoax. So much for his sincerity in challenging prominent paedophiles! The Home Secretary,Theresa May, said that "... we should look to make sure that the work that was done in relation to the Waterhouse inquiry did cover everything that it needed to cover." She announced on 6 November that Keith Bristow, the head of the National Crime Agency, would lead an investigation into how old claims of abuse were handled, and at fresh allegations. The investigation would involve the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) and the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP), and would report by April 2013.[31] The investigation was subsequently known as Operation Pallial.[33]

The Shadow Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, called for a single, overarching public inquiry to be held in order to examine all the recent allegations of child abuse, including those relating to the Jimmy Savile scandal,[34] a call which was supported by former minister Tim Loughton and by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children.[35] On 7 November, Ann Clwyd MP called for the 1994 Jillings report to be published.[36] On 6 November, Channel 4 News reported that Sir Peter Morrison, a former aide to Margaret Thatcher and MP for Chester, who died in 1995, had been 'seen' driving a boy away from the Bryn Estyn home.[37] The Conservative Party said that they were investigating the claims.[31] The Guardian reported that references made to the alleged involvement of another prominent Conservative politician may have been the result of confusion over the identities of two people sharing the same surname.[38] Lord McAlpine subsequently released a statement denying the allegations and describing them as 'seriously defamatory'. A week after theNewsnight programme, on 9 November, the BBC apologised "unreservedly" for its broadcast, after Steve Messham apologised for the mistaken identity.[39] TheDirector-General of the BBC, George Entwistle, stated that he had been unaware of the content of the report before it was broadcast, and after further criticism in the media resigned on 10 November.[41] For more on the cowardly lying Masonic controlled PRICK Twistle, see my ‘FIONA OF THE FORGED LETTER’ PDF.

An former ITV journalist, Paddy French, claimed in November 2012 that Waterhouse had been surprised that evidence from Des Frost, a former Deputy Director of Bryn Alyn, had not been reported to his inquiry, despite Frost reporting abuse to the police.[42]

Operation Pallial[edit]

On 17 December 2012 it was reported that Operation Pallial had received information from 105 possible victims of abuse in North Wales care homes, across 22 police force areas across the UK and Ireland. The investigation involved 27 police officers and staff, mainly from forces in north west England, supported by SOCA. Senior investigating officer Detective Superintendent Ian Mulcahey of Merseyside Police said that "Operation Pallial is investigating new allegations of historic child abuse, some from victims previously known about and some from victims who have come forward for the first time. All victims of abuse have a right to expect all allegations of abuse, no matter how much time has passed, to be investigated professionally and appropriately. We will do so. Equally importantly, if offenders are still alive they must be identified, investigated and brought to justice, with those who still have access to children being prioritised." A report, to be submitted to the Chief Constable of North Wales Police and the Home Secretary, Theresa May, was being prepared for publication in April 2013.[33]

The report of Phase One of Operation Pallial was published on 29 April 2013. It set out a total of 140 allegations of abuse, involving girls and boys between the ages of 7 and 19, at 18 children's homes in north Wales between 1963 and 1992. During the inquiry, 76 new complainants came forward, and the police reported allegations against 84 individuals, of whom 16 had been named by more than one complainant. Some of those named were deceased. The Chief Constable of North Wales, Mark Polin, said: "Offenders quite rightly should have to look over their shoulders for the rest of their lives."[43] A 71-year-old man, John Allen, appeared in court at Mold on 1 August 2013, charged with 32 serious sexual offences relating to allegations of historical child abuse, and was remanded in custody.[44] On 15 August the police announced that a fifth man, aged 62, had been arrested in connection with Operation Pallial, on suspicion of buggery and indecent assault on two boys in the 1980s.[45] A 52-year old man from Mold was arrested in the St. Helens area on 10 October, on suspicion of child cruelty and indecent assault against four boys and one girl between 1981 and 1988.[46]

In November 2013, the police stated that, since November 2012, 235 people had contacted them with information about alleged abuse in care homes in north Wales. Detective Superintendent Mulcahey said that over 100 names of alleged offenders had been put forward to Operation Pallial, and said that the police were "currently pursuing a large number of active lines of enquiry".[47] A fifteenth arrest, of a 62-year-old man from Mold, was reported on 20 November.[48] Further arrests, bringing the total to 18, were reported on 12 December.[49] In July 2014, the BBC reported that 275 people had made allegations, and 49 possible suspects were being investigated.[50]

In October 2014, John Allen appeared at Mold Crown Court accused of 40 counts of sexual abuse against 19 boys and one girl, aged between 7 and 15, during the 1960s and 1970s. At the time, Allen ran the Bryn Alyn Community which owned three children's residential homes near Wrexham. It was said that Allen employed child care staff at the homes, but involved himself in the work especially at night, and created a "sexualised atmosphere alongside a culture of fear" at the homes, in particular at Bryn Alyn, Pentre Saeson and Bryn Terion. Allen denied all the charges,[51] but was found guilty on 33 of the charges.[52] On 1 December he was sentenced to life imprisonment and told he would serve at least 11 years in prison.”[53]