DOCSLIB.ORG

IICSA Inquiry-Westminster 11 March 2019 (+44)207 4041400

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
IICSA Inquiry-Westminster 11 March 2019 (+44)207 4041400 IICSA Inquiry-Westminster 11 March 2019 1 Monday, 11 March 2019 1 Q. If there are any problems with the equipment, 2 (10.00 am) 2 Mrs Mowatt, or if, for any other reason, you just need 3 THE CHAIR: Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the 3 to take a short break, just say so, and we will have 4 second week of this public hearing. Mr O'Connor? 4 a break. Do you understand? 5 MR O'CONNOR: Good morning, chair. Our first witness this 5 A. Thank you. 6 morning is Frances Mowatt. As you can see, she is 6 Q. Just a few questions about background first, Mrs Mowatt. 7 giving evidence by videolink. Perhaps if I can 7 You now live in Essex, don't you? 8 establish that we can both hear each other and then I'll 8 A. I do. 9 ask for her to be sworn. 9 Q. But previously, you lived and worked in Chester? 10 MS DOREEN FRANCES MOWATT (sworn) 10 A. I didn't live in Chester, but I worked in Chester. 11 (Evidence given via videolink) 11 Q. We don't need to know exactly where you lived, but you 12 Examination by MR O'CONNOR 12 lived just outside, I think? 13 MR O'CONNOR: Could you give us your full name, please, 13 A. About 23 miles, yes. 14 Mrs Mowatt. 14 Q. When you lived outside Chester, you moved there, 15 A. My full name is Doreen Frances Mowatt. 15 I think, or at least you started working for the City of 16 Q. Mrs Mowatt, I know that you have had the procedure for 16 Chester Conservative Association in 1975? 17 this morning explained to you. I am going to ask you 17 A. That's correct. 18 some questions first and, when I finish, the chair and 18 Q. What was your job, what was the title of your job, at 19 panel may have some questions for you. You have got 19 that time? 20 a bundle of documents in front of you, mainly witness 20 A. I was the agent and secretary to the City of Chester 21 statements, and the chair and panel have got the same 21 Conservative Association. 22 bundles in front of them. So if I ask you to look at 22 Q. Now, we are going to talk a little bit more about what 23 some documents, we will be looking at the same documents 23 that job involved, but did that remain your job for some 24 here in court. Do you understand? 24 time, until you left Chester, I think, in 1988? 25 A. Thank you, yes. 25 A. Yes, the beginning of 1988. With additions to my Page 1 Page 2 1 responsibilities, the job was basically the same. 1 A. Yes, indeed. It was organising voluntary workers for 2 Q. You have said that that job started in 1975 and, at that 2 victory. 3 time, Peter Morrison was the MP for Chester, wasn't he? 3 Q. Having started in 1975, Mrs Mowatt, I think it is right 4 A. He was. 4 to say that you fought, or were involved in fighting, 5 Q. I think he was first elected the year before, in1974? 5 three General Elections during your time in Chester? 6 A. Yes, indeed. 6 A. That is so, yes. 7 Q. He remained the MP throughout the time that you were 7 Q. Those would have been the elections in 1979, 1983 and, 8 there; he was still the MP when you left in 1988? 8 lastly, 1987? 9 A. Yes, he was. 9 A. Correct. 10 Q. You mentioned that part of your title and part of your 10 Q. The 1987 election was also Mr Morrison's last election; 11 job being the election agent for the Chester 11 he didn't fight the 1992 election, did he? 12 Conservative Association. That role has some very 12 A. I believe not. 13 specific responsibilities, particularly at the time of 13 Q. Can you remember, Mrs Mowatt, when you found out that 14 a General Election, doesn't it? 14 Mr Morrison didn't intend to fight the 1992 election? 15 A. Yes. 15 A. I heard about it when the vacancy was published in 1991. 16 Q. For example, responsibilities relating to campaign 16 Q. In other words, after you had left Chester? 17 financing? 17 A. Several years. 18 A. Yes. I had to raise a fighting fund to cover all 18 Q. I wondered whether you'd found out earlier than that. 19 expenses of the election. 19 Even perhaps during the 1987 election, did Mr Morrison 20 Q. Was it also part of your responsibility to account for 20 perhaps tell you privately that that was going to be his 21 the way in which that money had been spent? 21 last election and he wasn't going to stand again? 22 A. Yes, I was responsible for making a return of election 22 A. No, he didn't. 23 expenses within the due timetable. 23 Q. Can you give us an idea of your relationship with 24 Q. You were aware of all those responsibilities of being an 24 Mr Morrison, please, Mrs Mowatt? You worked with him 25 election agent at the time that you did that job? 25 for some time. How did you get on with him? Page 3 Page 4 1 (Pages 1 to 4) Epiq Europe Ltd www.epiqglobal.com Lower Ground, 20 Furnival Street (+44)207 4041400 [email protected] London EC4A 1JS IICSA Inquiry-Westminster 11 March 2019 1 A. We got on very well, yes; professionally, that is. He 1 Q. You mentioned a moment ago that Mr Morrison was popular 2 was a very good constituency member of parliament. For 2 in Chester and you gave some examples of different areas 3 him, nothing was too much trouble for everyone who 3 in society, different groups of people, who found him to 4 approached him for help. The professions in the city, 4 be a good MP. Was that part of your job, if you like, 5 business and commerce, greatly admired him, not only his 5 improving his image and talking to people on his behalf 6 diligence, but for everything that he achieved in the 6 in Chester? 7 City of Chester. He was a very popular member of 7 A. No, that wasn't my role. The voluntary workers -- I had 8 parliament. I knew nothing of Westminster, where he 8 branches in every one of the local government areas. 9 lived, worked and socialised. 9 The voluntary workers were very keen to promote 10 Q. Mrs Mowatt, Mr Morrison obviously spent a fair amount of 10 Mr Morrison, and I kept records, mainly, of their work. 11 his time in Westminster, in the House of Commons? 11 Q. I just want to ask you about a few other people, and 12 A. He did, and he was also, from -- I think it was from 12 just ask whether you knew them. First of all, a man 13 1986, he was vice chairman and was in Conservative 13 called David Robinson, who I think was initially 14 Central Office. 14 a Labour Party agent, and then became the candidate in 15 Q. Would it be fair to say that part of your job between 15 the 1987 election, the Labour candidate. Do you 16 elections was looking after the interests of 16 remember him? 17 the Conservative Party and also Mr Morrison's interests, 17 A. I remember him being the Labour candidate at the 1987 18 political interests, in Chester while he was down in 18 election. 19 London? 19 Q. I am going to ask you some questions about him in 20 A. Yes. Largely, of course, on an annual basis, we would 20 a moment, but just moving on, do you remember 21 have local government elections in what was then the 21 Christine Russell? 22 Chester Corporation, and also the county council 22 A. Yes. Christine Russell, I think she was his agent. 23 elections, and I was also looking after the interests of 23 Q. In the Labour Party? 24 the Cheshire West European member of parliament, and of 24 A. I never met her. 25 course Mr Morrison. 25 Q. I see. Page 5 Page 6 1 A. Yes, in the Labour Party, yes. 1 Q. I was going to ask you what prompted the move, 2 Q. What about Grahame Nicholls, Mrs Mowatt? 2 Mrs Mowatt, and I think you may have already given us 3 A. I knew of him. I think he was the Trades Council and 3 some of the answer to that question? 4 the National Union of Public Employees' representative. 4 A. Yes. Happily, over the 50 years that I have conducted 5 But I never met him. 5 parliamentary elections, I developed a reputation for 6 Q. You never met him in all the years that you were in 6 winning those elections, and I was headhunted to come 7 Chester and doing that job? 7 down to Essex with the specific job of securing the 8 A. I never met him, ever. 8 return of a Conservative member to the European 9 Q. You have already mentioned, Mrs Mowatt, that you moved 9 Parliament, as the then existing member of parliament 10 away from Chester, and that was the time that you moved 10 was retiring.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • IICSA Inquiry-Westminster 12 March 2019 (+44)207 4041400
    IICSA Inquiry-Westminster 12 March 2019 1 Tuesday, 12 March 2019 1 was looking for a diary secretary? 2 (10.00 am) 2 A. That's correct, yes. 3 THE CHAIR: Good morning, everyone, and welcome to Day 7 of 3 Q. Which you thought was in 1983? 4 this public inquiry. Mr Altman? 4 A. Yes. 5 MR ALTMAN: Good morning, chair. The first witness, sitting 5 Q. But you couldn't remember precisely which month. You 6 in the witness box, is Mrs Susan Hogg. 6 thought about September? 7 MRS SUSAN HOGG (sworn) 7 A. It was probably September, yes. 8 Examination by MR ALTMAN 8 Q. You took the position, ending up working as a diary 9 MR ALTMAN: Sit down, please. 9 secretary for Peter Morrison from between 1983 and 1985? 10 A. Thank you. 10 A. That's correct. 11 Q. Give us your name. 11 Q. What were your functions as his diary secretary? 12 A. Susan Hogg. 12 A. Well, in those days, it was a paper diary, so it was 13 Q. Susan Hogg. Mrs Hogg, I want to ask you, please, for 13 a little bit more complicated than it is presently, but 14 a little assistance about what you did by way of 14 I was responsible for organising all of his departmental 15 occupation in the 1980s? 15 commitments, including regional visits and all of his 16 A. I worked for Sir Peter Morrison as his diary secretary 16 many meetings that he had throughout the day with 17 in the Department of Employment.
    [Show full text]
  • An Independent Review of Two Home Office Commissioned Independent Reviews Looking at Information Held in Connection with Child Abuse from 1979-1999
    An Independent Review Of Two Home Office Commissioned Independent Reviews Looking At Information Held In Connection With Child Abuse from 1979-1999 Peter Wanless and Richard Whittam QC INDEX 1. Foreword Page 1 2. Introduction and Context Page 2 3. Executive Summary Page 7 4. Consideration of Review 1 Page 10 5. Further Home Office searches and Page 13 The Brighton Assaults File 6. Our Approach In Detail Page 16 7. Consideration of Review 2 Page 27 8. The Questions Posed In the Terms Page 31 Of Reference 9. Conclusions Page 34 10. Recommendations Page 35 Annexes A Terms of Reference B Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) – retention policy C Who we asked D What we asked E Review 1, interim and final F Review 2 G Schedule of redactions H Protocol; Police & Home Office I 114 files schedule J File pre-fixes 1 Foreword 1. The Home Secretary appointed us to conduct an independent review of two previous pieces of work commissioned by her Permanent Secretary. Review 1 had been invited to consider: What, if any, material was provided to the Department [Home Office] in relation to alleged organised child abuse; and What, if any, action was taken in relation to such allegations and whether relevant materials were passed to the police or law enforcement body to investigate; and Whether any member of Home Office staff was alleged or found to be involved or implicated in organised child abuse and what action was taken. 2. Review 2 looked into whether the Home Office ever directly or indirectly funded the Paedophile Information Exchange [PIE].
    [Show full text]
  • Wanless Whittam Review Report Nov 14 Summary
    Summary of An Independent Review of Two Home Office Commissioned Independent Reviews looking at Information Held in Connection with Child Abuse from 1979-1999, by Peter Wanless and Richard Whittam, November 2014 Introduction On 7th July 2014 Home Secretary Theresa May announced two separate inquires to address public concerns: first that in the 1980s the Home Office failed to act on allegations of child sex abuse and, second, that public bodies and other important institutions failed to take seriously their duty of care towards children. In relation to the first concern, Peter Wanless, NSPCC Chief Executive, and lawyer Richard Whittam, QC, were asked to undertake an eight to ten week review into the Home Office handling of historical child sex abuse and how police and prosecutors had dealt with information they had received in the 1980s. That report was published on November 11th 2014. The review was, in fact, a review of two previous reviews commissioned by the Home Office Permanent Secretary. One examined what the Home Office knew and did about cases of organised child abuse from 1979 to 1999 (Review 1 completed in June 2013) whilst the other looked specifically at whether the Home Office had ever given grant funding to the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) (Review 2). Both earlier reviews were published as annexes to the Wanless and Whittam report The current review, the findings of which were presented as a single document, had been asked to consider: • Whether the Terms of Reference of the original reviews had been appropriate
    [Show full text]
  • Allegations of Child Sexual Abuse Linked to Westminster: Investigation Report
    Allegations child sexual of abuse Westminster to linked Allegations of child sexual abuse linked to Westminster Investigation Report Investigation Investigation Report February 2020 February 2020 2020 Allegations of child sexual abuse linked to Westminster Investigation Report February 2020 A report of the Inquiry Panel Professor Alexis Jay OBE Professor Sir Malcolm Evans KCMG OBE Ivor Frank Drusilla Sharpling CBE © Crown copyright 2020 The text of this document (this excludes, where present, the Royal Arms and all departmental or agency logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium provided that it is reproduced accurately and not in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the document title specified. Where third‑party material has been identified, permission from the respective copyright holder must be sought. Any enquiries related to this publication should be sent to us at [email protected] or Freepost IICSA INDEPENDENT INQUIRY. This publication is available at https://www.iicsa.org.uk/reports CCS1219768174 02/20 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled‑fibre content minimum. Printed in the UK by the APS Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. The following corrections were made to this version of the report on 29 May 2020: Page vii, paragraph 3: was amended to read ‘hand over the same documents’. Page 159 in Annex 1: profession removed, amended to read David Ford Campbell-Chalmers Contents Executive Summary v Part A: Introduction 1 A.1: Background
    [Show full text]
  • Wanless/Whittam Supplementary
    SUPPLEMENT TO THE WANLESS/WHITTAM REVIEW 1. Since our Review two matters have been brought to our attention, nne hy the Cabinet Office, •he other by the Home Office. Our response has to be considered in the context of the approach we took to our work, including: 1.1. ''Our terms o! ref a renee, which we were not involved in drafting, concentrate specifically on what the Home Office knew or did during a lixed period of time, drawing upon information held in registered files." (Review 2.3]. 1.2. "We were asked to complete the work in 8·1 0 weeks. This was not a statutory inquiry. We did not take evidence from witnesses in a formal sense but were open to receiving and reading information from anyone who sought to contact us. Through the Home Office we have made many requests of others across Govemment .and wider public services where filing and record keeping methods are inconsistent. On occasion the . replies we received required clarification or prompted further inquiry. Whilst that necessarily prolonged the process we sought to conduct our review expeditiously. In the time available we have had to rely on the efficiency and integrity of those who have sought material on our behal1." {Review 2.8]. 1.3. "Whilst we have femained true to our terms of reference we have not been unnecessarily constrained by them, as evidenced by our decision to look beyond what is recorded at the Home Office to see whether we could uncover any material that could throw some light on the apparent discrepancies between what it is publicly thought did exist [or may have existed] and what is recorqed as having existed.
    [Show full text]
  • Suffer the Little Children – 2
    Suffer the little children – 2 Introduction A few months ago I sent out my first paper on the subject of UK institutional paedophilia. This was a shocking expose of just how involved all levels of the establishment are in paedophile rings, right to the top of the monarchy and Parliament. Although it covered 75 detailed pages, with full references, it was really only an introduction to the subject. It beggars belief to grasp the full extent of the criminality of the establishment. There is no doubt that if the extent of this criminality was known to the public, it would bring the country to its knees; but that is what is necessary to rid institutions of a free reign of abusing children. However, shortly after I sent out that paper to my circle, the bubble of state secrecy began to burst wide open. This followed the courageous involvement of a group of seven MPs who began to demand answers. This, in turn was subsequent to Labour MP Tom Watson’s questions to David Cameron regarding Westminster paedophile rings (which led to Operations Fairbank / Fernbridge) and then a book by Simon Danczuk MP 1 exposing the child abuse by Sir Cyril Smith in Rochdale which had been long covered up by the police, the council and many people in authority. All of these, of course, resulted from the publicity regarding the full extent of the child abuse of Jimmy Savile. What is necessary is to get the full story from survivors of child abuse, families of the victims of child abuse, social workers that tried to stop child abuse whose reports were squashed, whistle-blowers and investigative journalists who could not be bribed and gagged.
    [Show full text]
  • Clifford Hindley: Pederasty and Scholarship Ian Pace
    Clifford Hindley: Pederasty and Scholarship Ian Pace Originally published on blog Desiring Progress, March 3rd, 2014, at https://ianpace.wordpress.com/2014/03/03/clifford-hindley-pederasty-and- scholarship/ Both Exaro News and the Sunday People broke an important story yesterday concerning a senior civil servant at the Home Office who has been identified as blocking any objections to funding being distributed to the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE). This civil servant was J. Clifford Hindley, who was head of the Home Office’s voluntary services unit (VSU) and an assistant secretary at the Home Office, in which capacity he oversaw ‘co-ordination of government action in relation to voluntary services and funding of certain voluntary organisations’, with the VSU dealing with ‘community programmes’ (David Hencke and Alex Varley-Winter, ‘Revealed: Whitehall official who blocked objections to fund PIE’, Exaro News, March 1st, 2014). Hindley was also secretary to the Devlin Committee on Evidence of Identification in Criminal Cases (‘The Age of Consent for Male Homosexuals’, Criminal Law Review 595-603 (1986)). One colleague of Hindley’s at VSU found that PIE had made a re-application to the department for funding in 1979 or 1980, and raised concerns with Hindley on the grounds that the organisation campaigned to legalise sexual relations with children. However, Hindley apparently just took away the paperwork and told his colleague to drop his objections. This individual recently approached Labour MP and leading anti- abuse campaigner Tom
    [Show full text]
  • Westminster 'Paedophile Ring': Now Where Does the Investigation Go? - Telegraph
    Westminster 'paedophile ring': now where does the investigation go? - Telegraph Search - enhanced by OpenText Friday 01 July 2016 Home Video News World Sport Business Money Comment Culture Travel Life Women Fashion Luxury Tech Film Politics Investigations Obits Education Science Earth Weather Health Royal Celebrity Defence Scotland Conservatives Liberal Democrats Labour Political Parties Scottish Politics Local Elections General election 2015 HOME » NEWS » POLITICS Westminster 'paedophile ring': now where does the investigation go? The Telegraph Like Page 3.4M likes How did Dolphin Square - the Pimlico apartment complex favoured by generations of Establishment figures - become the latest focus for the ever- widening investigation into Westminster child sex abuse claims? Sign up for our Politics email Latest News Videos» Large rat climbs on Teen pepper-sprayed at sleeping commuter Trump rally Disabled great- Elderly wombat grandfather denied rescued after being stairlift and forced to attacked crawl The Palace of Westminster Photo: Alamy By Andrew Gilligan EgyptAir crew finally Sponsored 8:16PM GMT 15 Nov 2014 Politics arrive in Cairo When media meets medicine Conservative » Labour » 'Both MPs were brutal,” says “Nick”, in his account of being abused as an Liberal Democrats » Features » Comment » 11-year-old by two Conservative politicians. “I was raped over a bathtub, Featured Current Accounts while my head was submerged beneath the water. One [MP] attempted In Politics to get me to beat another boy with a baton. I refused, and was physically Account More and sexually punished for it.” Bank Offer Name details Another alleged victim was 13 when an MP took him to a “dinner party” Exclusive for about a dozen people in the same block of flats.
    [Show full text]
  • I Think We Have Enough Evidence Together Now to Clearly Prove That…
    I think we have enough evidence together now to clearly prove that the uber- elite, the ones running the banks, governments and religions are heavily involved in a collective Global VIP Pedophilia ring. And it has people such as Clinton who will still try her best to be the next US President on the 19th of Dec, right in the middle of it. They are being protected by the secret services, the courts, the press. These are the people above the law. If you want Illuminati, this is it. Child sacrificing satanic world leaders who control all elements around us to convince us we are crazy if we even try and talk about the subject. I say fuck it, blow it wide open, lets find all the info we can on these demon cocksuckers and spread it all over the internet. Every social media platform, create wordpress blogs, set up twitter accounts, Google+, snapchat, share it with everyone. Because if not, not only are these scumbags going to get away with it, but if we're not careful we're going to have one of the people heavily involved with it all trying to run one of the most dangerous countries in the world today. Lets send these bastards right back to the hell they came from. #PizzaGate #Clinton #Epstein #RoyalFamily #BBC #FBI #MI6 #Podesta #DCPedos Clinton Inc, Clinton Group and Clinton Foundation need to be destroyed forever. #PizzaGate #Epstein #Podesta #DCPedos An Anonymous Hacker Just Got Into Comet Ping Pong's Server The internet is waiting... #PizzaGate #Podesta #Clinton #Epstein #Wikileaks #Anonymous https://therealstrategy.com/anonymous-hacked-cometpingpong-pizzagate/ DCʼs “Comet Pizza” Pedophile Ring May Literally Bring Our Government Down!! #PizzaGate #Epstein #Clinton #RoyalFamily #Podesta #DCPedos The alt media is running wild connecting the dots for the DC Pedophile Ring and itʼs not pretty.
    [Show full text]
  • The Westminster Investigation Opening Statement By
    THE WESTMINSTER INVESTIGATION OPENING STATEMENT BY COUNSEL TO THE INQUIRY Introduction 1. Chair, today you and the Panel begin three weeks of hearings in the Westminster investigation, which is but one part of the statutory Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse set up by the then Home Secretary in March 2015, offering an unprecedented opportunity to examine the extent to which institutions and organisations in England & Wales have taken seriously their responsibility to protect children. 2. May I first make introductions of those who are present and represented before you today: I am Brian Altman QC, Lead Counsel to the Inquiry. I appear with Mr Andrew O’Connor QC, Lead Counsel to the Westminster Investigation, and we are assisted by Ms Kate Beattie, Mr Alasdair Henderson and Ms Katie O’Byrne. 3. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is represented by Ms Zoe Johnson QC. The Labour Party is represented by Ms Eleanor Grey QC. The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) is represented by Ms Lorna Skinner. The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) is represented by Ms Samantha Leek QC. Wiltshire Police is represented by Ms Anne Studd QC. The Home Office, which has been granted core participant status in a representative capacity for Her Majesty's Government, is represented by Mr Nicholas Griffin QC. A group of seven complainants, whose ciphers are listed in the list of core participants, are represented by Mr Richard Scorer. Ms Esther Baker is represented by Mr Jonathan Price. Mr Tim Hulbert is represented ​ ​ by Mr Sam Stein QC. Finally, Mr Harvey Proctor is represented by Mr Geoffrey ​ Robertson QC.
    [Show full text]
  • Allegations of Child Sexual Abuse Linked to Westminster Abuse of Sexual Child Allegations Allegations of Child Sexual Abuse Linked to Westminster
    Allegations child sexual of abuse Westminster to linked Allegations of child sexual abuse linked to Westminster Investigation Report Investigation Investigation Report February 2020 February 2020 2020 Allegations of child sexual abuse linked to Westminster Investigation Report February 2020 A report of the Inquiry Panel Professor Alexis Jay OBE Professor Sir Malcolm Evans KCMG OBE Ivor Frank Drusilla Sharpling CBE © Crown copyright 2020 The text of this document (this excludes, where present, the Royal Arms and all departmental or agency logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium provided that it is reproduced accurately and not in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the document title specified. Where third‑party material has been identified, permission from the respective copyright holder must be sought. Any enquiries related to this publication should be sent to us at [email protected] or Freepost IICSA INDEPENDENT INQUIRY. This publication is available at https://www.iicsa.org.uk/reports CCS1219768174 02/20 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled‑fibre content minimum. Printed in the UK by the APS Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. Contents Executive Summary v Part A: Introduction 1 A.1: Background to the investigation 2 A.2: Scope of this investigation 3 A.3: Methodology 6 A.4: Terminology and references 7 Part B: Allegations of child sexual abuse linked to Westminster 9 B.1: The 1960s 10 B.2: The 1970s 10 B.3: The 1980s 11 B.4:
    [Show full text]
  • Speaking About Speaking About Child Sexual Abuse in Britain, 1965-1991
    ORBIT-OnlineRepository ofBirkbeckInstitutionalTheses Enabling Open Access to Birkbeck’s Research Degree output Speaking about speaking about child sexual abuse in Britain, 1965-1991 https://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/id/eprint/40384/ Version: Full Version Citation: Basannavar, Nicholas Ranjan Gadsby (2019) Speaking about speaking about child sexual abuse in Britain, 1965-1991. [Thesis] (Un- published) c 2020 The Author(s) All material available through ORBIT is protected by intellectual property law, including copy- right law. Any use made of the contents should comply with the relevant law. Deposit Guide Contact: email Speaking About Speaking About Child Sexual Abuse in Britain, 1965-1991 Nicholas Ranjan Gadsby Basannavar Department oF History, Classics and Archaeology Birkbeck College, University oF London Submitted For the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2018 Declaration The work presented in the thesis is my own. Where information has been derived from other sources, this has been indicated within the thesis. Nicholas Ranjan Gadsby Basannavar Abstract Focusing on three case studies between the years 1965 and 1991, this thesis explores the mutable ways in which child sexual abuse has been represented – or spoken about – in Britain, particularly in popular media forms. Drawing on historian Frank Ankersmit’s observation that historical investigation is a form of “speaking about speaking”, it paints a picture of representational, attitudinal and social change over time, clarifies definitional forms relating to childhood, attraction, and abuse, and examines the deeply historical tropes inherent in present-day inquiries into abuse. An analysis of the Moors murders trial shows that discussions about sexual attraction to children did exist, but were often couched in heavily coded, indirect ways.
    [Show full text]