STATEMENT OF ANDREA DAVISON
1. GENERAL BACKGROUND
The Terms of Reference of the Waterhouse Inquiry announced on 17 June 1996 were:-
(a) To inquire into the abuse of children in care in the former county council areas of Gwynedd and Clwyd since 1974;
(b) To examine whether the agencies and authorities responsible for such care, through the placement of children or through the regulation or management of the facilities, could have prevented the abuse or detected its occurrence at an earlier stage;
(c) To examine the response of the relevant authorities and agencies to allegations and complaints of abuse made either by children in care, children formerly in care or any other persons, excluding scrutiny of whether to prosecute named individuals;
(d) In the light of this examination, to consider whether the relevant caring and investigative agencies discharged their functions appropriately and, in the case of the caring agencies, whether they are doing so now; and to report its findings and make recommendations to the Secretary of State for Wales.
1.1 In 1994 the Jilling’s report, by the former Director of Derbyshire Social Services Mr Jillings and his panel, detailed the rape and torture of children in Care Homes in North Wales.
1.2 The Report stated that allegations involving famous names and paedophile rings were beyond its remit, and something best addressed at a potential later 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. Children who complained of abuse were not believed, or were punished for making false allegations.
1.3 Mr Jillings and his team were hampered by the NWP. The Chief Constable David Owen refused to meet them or help with access to the police major-incident database
1.4 130 boxes of material handed over by the council to the NWP were not made available to the panel and the council did not allow the inquiry to place a notice in the local press seeking information.
1.5 In November 2012 Roger Dobson for the Independent published:-
The then newly appointed North Wales Chief Constable, who was un-contactable yesterday, refused to meet them or help with access to the police major-incident database. "We were disappointed at the apparent impossibility of obtaining a breakdown of data. We are unable to identify the overall extent of the allegations received by the police in the many witness statements which they took.''
1.6 Some one hundred and thirty boxes of material handed over by the council to the police were not made available to the panel and the Council did not allow the panel to place a notice in the local press seeking information.
1.7 In his report Mr Jillings said “What we found was horrific and on a significant scale. If the events in children's homes in North Wales were to be translated into a film, Oliver Twist would seem relatively benign. The scale of what happened, and how it was allowed, are a disgrace, and stain on the history of child care in this country.”
The significant points are that:-
1.7.1 The North Wales Police (NWP) withheld evidence and obstructed Mr Jillings. This failure should have been itself the subject of an Inquiry considering the number of NWP Officers named by the victims as abusers. Certainly Tony Blair who was shadow Home Secretary at that time believed an Outside Force was essential for the truth to be discovered.
1.7.2 The Macur Review could ask the former Chief Constable David Owen to explain his reasons for obstructing Mr Jillings and make inquiries into the 130 boxes of evidence, if these 130 boxes were not provided to the Waterhouse Tribunal. Further inquiry into the reasons why prosecutions did not take place of the NWP Officers named as abusers.
1.7.3 The Council, responsible for using public money to fund Care Homes where children were sexually, physically and mentally abused and who were, responsible for the Care and Protection of the Children therein, obstructed Mr Jillings by preventing him from advertising for victims to come forward.
1.7.4 In conclusion, the fact that those organisations responsible for the care and protection of the children, and who could alone act on complaints, were actively involved in an apparent cover-up of the rape, sexual abuse and torture of those children was a matter which should have been properly investigated by an outside Police Force. This was never done. Neither did the Waterhouse Inquiry investigate the vast amount of evidence and testimony of the cover-up or the evidence of an elite paedophile ring.
1.8 Following the public outrage at the suppression of the Jillings report and suffering continued public pressure William Hague, then Secretary of State for Wales, was forced in 1996 to order a Tribunal of Inquiry. The Inquiry was to look into allegations of hundreds of cases of child abuse in care homes in former county council areas of Clwyd and Gwynedd between 1974 and 1990. Sir Ronald Waterhouse QC, a retired High Court judge, was appointed to head the inquiry.
1.9 The inquiry began in January 1997 and 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. It cost £13.5 million pounds and produced a report in 2000 called ‘Lost in Care’ which although damming had limited its scope to mainly abuse inside the homes from the staff. The Inquiry failed to address the allegations of abuse outside of the actual physical curt ledges of Care Homes which abuse was alleged to be by an elite paedophile network involving allegations against Famous names, Politicians, Police Officers, Judges, Legal Professionals and Businessmen.
1.10 I intent to demonstrate that in my view the terms of reference of the Waterhouse inquiry were woefully inadequate and where adequate show that the Inquiry restricted its own terms to the extent that it was a very effective Inquiry limited to the abuse and torture by the staff of children in the Care Homes.
1.11 The Result of the limits the Inquiry placed upon itself operated to prevent proper inquiry and investigation into the systematic abuse of children, over decades, and their exploitation by a ‘VIP paedophile ring’ and use as commodities in the lucrative child porn network with its links to Peter Righton, the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) and the Home Office itself. The Inquiry also operated to reduce public speculation into the allegations against public figures and linked criminal activities.
1.12 The resulting report ‘Lost in Care’ whilst dealing with the allegations made against staff by the children in effect stifled further investigation into the Elite Paedophile Ring, the child porn Network and the criminal financial gain made by the Directors of the Care Homes and those who procured children for exploitation by an elite Paedophile network.
1.13 Inquires can expose wrongdoing or close down all investigation into the wrongdoing by presenting the fiction that a full investigation has taken place and either the issue has been fully addressed and nothing outside of those matters discovered exists.
1.14 The current Macur Review has the opportunity to redress the wrongs of the original Inquiry and dispel public concern and concerns of investigators and journalists, whistleblowers and victims that a full and proper investigation will not take place into the historic abuse of children in care. Particularly where that abuse was by public figures, police officers and members of the judiciary.
1.15 The Macur Review should obtain the evidence from all parties who hold evidence and have those accused of abuse or cover-up of the abuse, police and victims exposed to scrutiny and questioning. This Review has the opportunity to end organised child abuse in the United Kingdom.
2 PERSONAL BACKGROUND IN BRIEF
2.1 During the 80’s and 90’s I was based in North Wales working for and with the Intelligence Services mainly on investigations concerning the illegal supply of arms and technology to Iraq Iran and the Former Yugoslavia. I was involved in an investigation into the transfer of Chemical and Biological Warfare (CBW) technology to Iraq. At one point I was working with a strictly military intelligence section and when the Gulf war started all the reserves were called up and I became involved in detecting sabotage and other matters.
2.2 During the course of the investigation clear links were identified between illegal arms sales, drugs trafficking, support for terrorist groups and the sale and distribution of child pornography, including snuff videos. The illegal arms trade is connected to a much larger organised criminal network. The fact that sections of the Conservative Government, the police and government agencies were involved made it more perilous and destructive to the fabric of society. No-one knew who is working for whom!
2.3 I was later to give evidence of these matters in secret to Lord Justice Scott’s Inquiry into ‘Arms to Iraq’ (Sample Documents 1 and 2)
2.4 I became involved in the investigation of child abuse in 1989 whilst carrying out a search of a suspect xxxxxxxxx premises. We found hard drugs and child pornography in video and photographic form. Some of it looked ritualistic. The suspect was involved with a company called xxxx Technology. xxxxx was engaged in research at a building connected with Bangor University. The investigation concerned tech transfer of biological weapons data to Iraq. xxxxxxxx lived close to and was associated with xxxxxx who ran the xxxxxx gym in xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx following further investigation it was discovered that xxxxxxxxxx was distributing pornography on a large scale including child porn videos and highly priced snuff videos, where a child would be sexually abused and murdered on film. xxxxxxx a former mercenary was involved with another mercenary xxxxxx who had been in Angola. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxe were protected by the Police and certain sections of the intelligence community for which they worked, I understand, on contract.
2.5 Following the discovery of the child porn, mentioned above I decided to run an unsanctioned parallel investigation into child pornography. This included an investigation into ‘snuff’ videos. I discovered some of the children exploited were from local children’s homes where there appeared to exist a ready supply of children.
2.6 Having been myself an abused child, cruelly committed at 14years of age to two and a half years in the now infamous Approved School Duncroft, I was keen to expose the abuse of children in state run establishments. It was at Duncroft that I first learnt about the Paedophile Network.
2.7 Around this time I secretly met DC Nick Lewis from the North Wales Drug Squad in a car park in Seiont Manor. I later secretly met Nick Lewis and DI Maldwyn Roberts of a Bridge in Caernarfon at the request of Nick Lewis. They asked me to help them with the an investigation into child abuse and Satanic Ritual Abuse they told me it was a Home Office Directive and asked for my confidence. I agreed to assist them and did so and did share some information with them and passed them evidence. I kept detailed notes in my diary.
2.8 The Macur Review may want to ask DC Nick Lewis and DI Maldwyn Roberts for their testimony concerning these matters.
2.9 When the opportunity arose I asked colleagues to check the Home Office Directive and they came back with a negative. Following this I was briefed about PIE, which had at one time been printed in the Home Office and the use of child porn and paedophilia by M15 to control influential people. The briefing included information about the abuse of children in local Care homes, the extended elite paedophile network and the lucrative child porn sex trade. I was firmly told not to trust anyone in the NWP because they were deeply involved.
2.10 It was at this time I realised the cover-up was actually more revealing than the actual abuse itself and more complex, convoluted and insidious. Without the systematic and organised cover-up of the abuse by the Police the abuse could not have continued. It became clear to me that the abuse and cover-up was supported also by a network of paedophiles and a wider criminal network involving rogue elements within Police Forces, State Agencies and Government itself.
2.11 Decades of cover-up had led directly to children being sexually, physically and psychologically abused by protected paedophiles since the 1960’s
2.12 The Macur Review has the opportunity to ask the intelligence and security services for all their files, including photographs and videos, on and of politicians and VIPS’s involved in paedophile activities and or paedophile rings. Similar files exist on judges, civil servants and police officers. Some files include police files which have been confiscated by the security services. The intelligence and security services have all the names and details of what happened where and when and who was and is involved. This disclosure is necessary so that those who may have been wrongly accused can be identified. Also disclosure of this hidden evidence is vital if child abuse, sanctioned, protected and covered-up by state agencies, is to be eliminated from the United Kingdom.
2.13 The paedophile network specifically included members of the police and the judiciary as well as businessmen, solicitors, politicians, security and intelligence insiders. This network by its very nature is linked to other types of organised crime with direct links to the lucrative child porn industry and sex trade, drug trafficking, arms dealing and terrorism. The people involved in these different branches of organised crime covered each other’s backs and actively supported each other to their mutual benefit.
2.14 In 1989 the only way to prevent further arms and technology transfer to Iraq was to expose the Governments involvement and I was instructed to approach the Labour party in opposition and work with the media. Consequently I worked closely with Politicians in the Labour Party spending much time in Parliament and otherwise I was briefing the Press.
2.15 At the same time I chose to expose child abuse and Police corruption. Working initially with local officials in North Wales including Dennis Parry who was then Labour Leader of Clwyd Council who worked with Malcolm King then head of Clwyd council Social Services children’s committee. Dennis Parry said ‘we are fighting a machine trying to cover things up’. He accused the NW Police ‘of mounting a cover-up to conceal the failure of senior officers and social services executives to reveal the extent of abuse in the children’s homes’.
2.16 From 1990 to 1996 I worked with Journalist xxxxxxx on Scallywag Magazine and its successor Spiked Magazine exposing child abuse. Where details could be verified or affidavits taken from the victims Scallywag and its successor Spiked published regardless of the consequences. Articles were published about PIE of which Peter Righton and Jimmy Savile were members, and about the Jillings report and Spiked called for a Public Inquiry.
2.17 There was a dedicated group of journalists from HTV, the Independent and Wales On Sunday and freelance journalists such as Eileen Fairweather who from about 1992 started to write and broadcast about the child abuse and the Paedophile Ring.
2.18 The NWP tried to silence me and I suffered concerted and obvious persecution. Arrested several times and interrogated, the NWP tried to find out who I was working for and repeatedly asked me who I was working for!
2.19 The lady next door to me xxxxxxxxs disappeared and I was questioned by Chief Inspector Gareth Luke told me confidently they would find blood and hair in the boot of my vehicle and he would charge me with her murder. The Police seized my vehicle, documents and other property some of which has never been returned. Months later xxxxxxxxxxx was mysteriously found dead. The Macur review has the opportunity to ask retired Chief Inspector Gareth Luke about the death of xxxxxxxx and the circumstances surrounding her death.
2.20 Whilst I was assisting the Select committee during the inquiry into ‘Arms to Iraq (document 3) and was due to visit Parliament to brief members of the Select Committee I was arrested again and quickly prosecuted for a fraudulent car tax disc on my car. An out of date tax disc had been mysteriously moved from one of my cars to another.
2.21 I visited the Attorney General’s office at the request of Sir Patrick Mayhew. I made it clear I was being persecuted by the NWP who were involved with organised crime. I also made it clear that his Government would stop at nothing to cover-up their illegal sales of arms and technology to Iraq and the involvement of Conservative politicians in paedophilia. I made a case that these false arrests were counter-productive as they did nothing to prevent the exposure but in fact made the cover-up more obvious. Following this all charges was dropped by the Prosecution.
2.22 Due to my prominence in the ‘Arms to Iraq’ affair, the Conservative Government and those involved in organised crime decided they could not simply silence me. Had this not been the case I am quite certain my life and liberty would have been in serious danger. In fact I was under close protective surveillance.
2.23 Undaunted by the arrests I continued to liaise with the Press and a growing number of concerned parties who networked. Amongst others, I contacted Geoffrey Dickens MP because of his keen interest in exposing the child porn network and VIP involvement. I also communicated with Tony Blair, who was Shadow Home Secretary at the time, and who was keen to root out and expose Police participation in child abuse and the cover-up of child abuse in North Wales.
2.24 Tony Blair wrote to the then Home Secretary Kenneth Clarke about the child abuse. Kenneth Clarke who was recently Justice Secretary in the current Government dismissed him and indeed anyone who raised concerns about the NWP and child abuse. (Documents 4 and 5)
2.25 Tony Blair later became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. The Macur Review has the opportunity to invite Tony Blair to disclose what he knew then, and subsequently discovered, about NW Police involvement in child abuse. The Review also has the opportunity to invite Tony Blair to disclose what he knew about the cover-up of child abuse and the links to and protection of the elite paedophile ring.
2.26 I campaigned along with Politicians, the Press and concerned others to have an all reaching Public Inquiry set-up. We sort a Public Inquiry that would investigate the sexual, physical and psychological abuse of children from Care Homes. The abuse was alleged to be by the Directors and staff of the Homes, members of the extended paedophile network which included famous names, police officers, politicians, businessmen and members of the legal profession including judges. We also wanted specifically an investigation into the on-going cover-up and the targeting of investigators, whistle-blowers and victims.
2.27 Around 1995 I was trained as a mental health advocate and later as an appropriate adult. In my capacity as a Mental Health Advocate, survivors of the systematic child abuse became my clients. I was in contact with the Waterhouse Inquiry from the very beginning principally on behalf of my clients.
2.28 The Restrictions placed on the Media, by the Waterhouse Inquiry, particularly not to publish names of persons who were named during the Inquiry, unless they had already been convicted, meant that investigation and reporting into the abuse was stifled.
2.29 The resulting publication of the Inquiry report ‘Lost in Care was a disappointment because it protected politicians, police officers and judges. Welsh MP Martyn Jones described the report as "a whitewash” and threatened to use parliamentary privilege to expose protected child abusers. During a debate in parliament, he complained that the report did not name politicians, police officers and judges suspected of abuse during the inquiry.’
2.30 I carefully documented and filed letters and kept contemporaneous notes in reporter’s notebooks of interviews with victims and officials and Parliamentarians concerning the child abuse and the cover-up. I kept dairies and all the documents provided to me both openly and in confidence for example the contents of the Jillings report and statements from victims. Following the Publication of the Waterhouse Inquiry report ‘Lost in Care’ I archived the material collected. Until illness depleted my energy I continued to investigate child abuse with particular interest in the child porn network and exploitation of children. I collected evidence of, as Eileen Fairweather eloquently puts it, child brothels, transportation routes, hotels and bars, fixers, providers of false documents and outlets for the lucrative trade in images of child abuse.
2.31 Eileen Fairweather an award winning journalist wrote in November 2012 in the Guardian:-
‘Many survivors or those supporting them have tried to point police towards the people and places used to prostitute children. They have identified child brothels, transportation routes, hotels and bars, fixers, providers of false documents and outlets for the lucrative trade in images of child abuse. Almost none of this evidence has ever been acted upon.
The child protection whistleblower who contacted the MP Tom Watson last month did so because he was once in a team of just the kind needed now. I was first in contact with his team and wrote about it 19 years ago, before it was abruptly closed down by orders from on high. It was a brilliant prototype, a joint police/social services investigation into the ring around childcare guru Peter Righton. It produced establishment names and revealed an alleged linked cover-up by Labour – let us never forget paedophilia is a cross-party crime – and was shut down as a result. Not one of the implicated men was prosecuted.’
2.32 The Cover-up of Child Abuse is on-going
2.32.1 The majority of my documentary evidence was taken by 19 North Wales and Derby Police Officers headed by DC Winnard and DS Hunt on January 13th 2010 who emptied my three flats of documents and valuables. The warrant was signed by Derby Judge Burgess. A full list of the thousands of documents taken has never been provided, neither has a list been provided of the thousands of pounds worth of gold jewellery and heirlooms seized at the same time. Save for my tenants firearms, filing cabinet and Rolex watch, over three years later nothing seized has been returned either to me or my tenant who has not even been questioned by the Police. My tenant’s solicitors have so far failed to get a response asking for the return of his property and valuables from the NW Police (witness statement available)
2.32.2 I made a concerted effort to get my documents about illegal arms sales and child abuse and journalistic material back, from the Derby and North Wales Police, but whoever was behind the raid on my property had enough power to ignore legitimate requests for the documents return. Clearly DC Winnard and DS Hunt were not acting on their own as sanction would be required to look at let alone seize/steal and keep documents and computers from a prominent Intelligence Agent and her tenant who held Top Secret clearance and had recently worked in Aldermaston.
2.32.3 In February 2010 Lord Hoyle kindly personally passed a letter to Gordon Brown who was Prime Minister at the time and with whom I had communicated previously. In the letter I advised Gordon Brown of the seizure of my documents and asked his assistance in getting them returned. (Document 6)
2.32.4 On the 17th March April 2010 Lord Hoyle of Warrington wrote to the Chief Constable of Derby Mike Creedon later to the Chief Constable of North Wales Mark Polin asking them to return the seized documents and property to my tenant and myself. He asked them for “the return of all documents” (document 7 and 9)
2.32.5 The result was that the Derby Police obtained a Restraint Order from Judge Burgess on the April 7th 2010 which put a veneer of legitimacy over the Police holding all my property and all my documents, including excluded documents, and prevented anyone asking for their return. To prevent me challenging the Restraint Order the Court made it a contempt of Court for me to pay for legal advice or assistance. I applied for Legal Aid but this was refused. This tactic has resulted in not one document or item of property being returned in over three years
2.32.6 Following repeated evidence that the Derby Police were encouraging adverse publicity to be published against me I made a complaint on the 16th of September to Derby Professional Standards complaining that “Almost every document and every moveable item of value was seized from the premises” and “The Seizure not only included a large amount of documents and items not related to the investigation but also included documents subject to legal privilege and excluded material.” (A summary of the complaint is included in as Document 10) This, surprisingly, did not elicit the return of the illegally seized material but acts as a record. The trouble with files and evidence on child abuse by prominent people, judges and police officers is that it invariably disappears.
2.32.7 Judge Nicolas Parry, whom I knew as a solicitor when he represented one or more of the accused paedophiles at the Waterhouse Inquiry eventually presided over my case and still does. Eventually jailing me, in my absence, for a total three years although he admitted no-one had lost any money and no one was harmed. He said I was led into offending by my work for the intelligence services and my fragile mental health. I intent to appeal, this wrongful conviction, as soon as the Court gives me permission to pay for legal advice and assistance.
2.32.8 The Restraint Order prevented me paying for legal advice or assistance in effect depriving me of adequate legal advice or assistance from the 7th April 2010 until the 30th February 2012 when the Court belatedly granted me Legal Aid. Following this a further judgment denied me the right to the solicitor of my choice. The Court Ordered I use Garstangs Solicitors or have no legal help at all. Garstangs refused to follow instructions and were in effect assisting the prosecution either by design or incompetence.
2.32.9 These Court Orders, judgments and restraints prevented me from, and still do prevent me from, obtaining a full list of the documents and property seized from myself and my tenant. This includes not only the documents but thousands of pounds worth of Gold jewellery which along with the documents has been excluded from the selective lists made by the prosecution.
2.32.10 The Macur Review could ask for a full list of the documents seized/taken from my tenant and I and a full list of the valuables seized. so that evidence of child abuse and the cover-up of same can be identified. Together with an explanation as to why proper lists of documents and items seized/taken was not made?
2.32.11 Fortunately some of my diaries, letters and other documents had been saved from the Police raid. A substantial amount of these were stolen, along with my two vehicles, both of which were restrained by a Restraint Order, and other property and my cat, Miss Kitty from North Wales around September 2012.
2.32.12 The thieves Mathew Pike and Robert Ostler, whom I knew as we were once all members of Bangor Gun Club, admitted the theft of my property. They knew that the vehicles were on a Restraint Order and stealing the vehicles or dealing with then whilst on a Restraint Order made the theft more serious. I made a formal complaint to the NWP and was provided with incident number N207229.
2.32.13 Following this I received an e-mail from one of the thieves Robert Ostler who stole my Land Rover and he wrote to me saying “All of any property Mat may have of yours will be placed in the Land Rover which I have been advised NOT to release to you by Craig Law at RART North Yorkshire” Craig Law of the prosecution appears to have bizarrely authorised the thieves not to return my two vehicles, my property, my documents or my cat.
2.32.14 Would the Macur Review ask Craig Law of RART Yorkshire for a list of the documents stolen so that evidence concerning child abuse and the cover-up can be identified?
2.32.15 Around the 22nd of March 2013 as I was writing this report the prosecution had my Co-operative Bank account into which my State Pension and income is paid frozen. This has left me unable to pay my rent, buy food or medication without which I will rapidly deteriorate and eventually die.
2.32.16 The actions of the Police in wrongfully seizing and withholding evidence of child abuse, and Police treatment of investigators and whistleblowers leads towards a reasonable deduction that; the cover-up of the abuse, particularly in North Wales is continuing and not at all historic.
2.32.17 I believe the reasons behind the perverse actions of the Police and the Prosecuting authorities were to discredit me. They have persecuted my tenant and I, as well as blackmailing witnesses and fabricating evidence. More importantly their intention could have been to prevent me giving evidence against the paedophile network and linked organised criminal activities, which I had investigated whilst working for and with the Intelligence Services. Their intention could also have been to seize and conceal evidence of same.
2.32.18 I am currently a refugee in xxxxxxxx and the Government have kindly provided entirely free of charge experienced Human Rights lawyers to represent me. My Lawyers have noted and explained to me the clear International Human Rights Abuses perpetrated by the United Kingdom against me and abuse of process.
2.32.19 I am one of many who have been ruthlessly persecuted by those in who fear that the truth about historic and current child abuse will surface. It is likely the Review will receive testimony of suspicious incidents, arrests, threats and suspicious suicides and accidents.
2.32.20 In November 2012 Wrexham County Councillor Malcolm King had a mysterious accident in which he narrowly escaped death. Cll King, who had recently renewed his campaign for a fresh probe into child abuse in Wales following the revelations about Jimmy Savile, Said “I’m someone who speaks his mind,” he said. “If I know something is happening that I don’t like I will always speak out and try to change things. “I spent a lot of time when the allegations first surfaced being incredibly paranoid.” “I didn’t know who to trust other than family. It was a terrible time.” Sadly the threats, the intimidation, the arrests and persecution continue.
2.32.21 All this goes to suggest that the cover-up is very much on-going and this puts children at risk. It protects those involved in the child sex trade and allows the persecution of those who are a threat to the paedophiles or a threat to those involved in the historic and current cover-up.
2.32.22 The cover-up should end with the Macur Review so that vulnerable children, now and in the future, can be protected by the agencies of the State. Agencies of the State and their officers and or employees who are involved in child abuse either directly or indirectly should risk prosecution and censure not, as is now the case, immunity and promotion.
2.32.23 The current Review should be provided with the testimony of those persons who were involved both historically and recently in the destruction and or theft/seizure of evidence concerning child abuse and the cover-up.
2.33 The current review has the opportunity to take testimony from the politicians and journalists and investigators and officials involved
3 Question 1. - Were the terms of reference for the Waterhouse Inquiry sufficiently wide to address all matters of legitimate public interest and or disquiet concerning allegations of continuing abuse of children in care and the nature of child care procedures and practice in North Wales?
3.1 The terms of reference were either not far reaching enough or could be used and were used to restrict the inquiry to areas of investigation. This prevented all matters to which the public had a legitimate interest being examined and or investigated.
3.2 Below is a list identifying the New Child Abuse Inquiries and Police Investigations recently begun by the United Kingdom Government into the decades of Child Abuse and the cover-ups of that abuse;-
a) Operation Yewtree: Scotland Yard criminal investigation into claims that Jimmy Savile sexually abused young people,
b) BBC investigation into management failures over the dropping of a Newsnight report into the Savile allegations,
c) BBC investigation into culture and practices during Sir Jimmy Savile's career and current policies,
d) BBC investigation into handling of past sexual harassment claims,
e) Department of Health investigation into Sir Jimmy Savile's appointment to Broadmoor "taskforce" and his activities at Broadmoor, Stoke Mandeville Hospital and Leeds General Infirmary,
f) Director of Public Prosecutions review into decisions not to prosecute Savile in 2009,
g) North Wales abuse inquiry by National Crime Agency head into abuse claims from 70s and 80s, fresh claims, and police handling of the claims,
h) Mrs Justice Macur appointed by PM to review the 2000 Waterhouse review which looked into the north Wales abuse,
i) Kincora - In March 2013 Police re-opened an investigation into the NI Kincora scandal child abuse scandal PSNI spokesman said: “There is currently a public inquiry on-going in relation to historical abuse. Individuals are being encouraged to contact Judge Hart, who is heading the inquiry”
3.3 Lost in Care was published in 2000 and yet 12 years later a spate of new reviews and investigations have had to be convened because the Waterhouse Inquiry was woefully inadequate and wrongfully avoided exposing the Paedophile ring which Sir Jimmy Savile and others procured for. The Waterhouse inquiry failed to investigate the operation of the elite paedophile ring and the child porn network in North Wales and its links outside of North Wales. It also failed to investigate the cover-up. These failures together with the protection extended to elite paedophiles by the NWP and the CPS aided the paedophiles to not only escape prosecution but to continue to operate.
3.4 I am aware that the following Parliamentarians knew about the elite paedophile ring and the cover-up Willie Whitelaw, John Major, Ken Livingston, Edwina Curry, David Waddington, Michael Howard, Margaret Thatcher, Leon Brittan, Ken Clarke, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Geoffrey Dickens, Alun Michael, Rod Richards, John Merek and William Hague.
3.4.1 Ken Livingston said on radio in November 2012:-
"I was raising in parliament against Mrs Thatcher the Kincora Boys Home where boys were being abused and MI5 was filming it because they were hoping to be able to blackmail senior politicians in Northern Ireland. They were hoping to catch one of Ian Paisley's MP's - and they never did - and give themselves some leverage. The truth is there's been an awful lot of covering up of paedophiles and paedophile rings for decades and decades."
3.4.2 Tony Blair raised the issue in the early 1990’s; as evidenced by the his letters
3.4.3 On the 12th November 1992 Tony Blair wrote to the then Home Secretary Kenneth Clarke:-
“As you will no doubt be aware, the allegations being made against some half a dozen serving and retired police officers in respect of child abuse in North Wales are extremely serious. Assurances have been made by the Deputy Chief Constable of N. Wales that there will be no cover-up in the circumstances can I urge you to consider recommending that an outside police force be involved.”
3.4.4 However Kenneth Clarke himself now openly accused of being paedophile by child actor Ben fellows dismissed Tony Blair’s concerns and my own.
3.4.5 Rod Richards MP named Sir Peter Morrison as an abuser of children from North Wales care Homes.
3.5 The Macur Review now has the opportunity to ask, for the accused police officers, who remain alive, to be questioned by an outside force. There is also an opportunity to ask Kenneth Clarke why he dismissed the concerns of Tony Blair as well as questioning other politicians as to what they knew and when.
3.6 The Terms of reference restricted the inquiry unnecessarily into abuse from 1974 and to the specific areas of Gwynedd and Clwyd. Complaints have been made that the Organisation owned by and operated under the flag of Bryn Alyn Community included Homes outside of this net such as Cotsbrook Hall in Telford.
3.7 There appears to be no compelling reason not to include all the Care Homes operated by the paedophiles directing the Bryn Alyn Community. This organisation, centred in North Wales was funded by the State and used to procure children for the ‘sex trade’.
3.8 Evidence existed that children were removed from the Care Homes in North Wales and Care Homes throughout the United Kingdom where they would be exploited in the sex trade by a sophisticated nationwide organisation of elite paedophiles.
3.9 Allegations were made concerning the exploitation and procurement of children from North Wales Care Homes to a Hotel in Wrexham, Dolphin Square London and private properties in various places which were either owned by paedophiles or were safe-houses owned by various state agencies. The allegations exposed the tip of a network which included Peter Righton, Sir Jimmy Savile and various well known people in the procurement, exploitation and even murder of children for the sex trade. The public had a legitimate interest in the investigation of these allegations.
3.10 Other allegations whilst not specifically concerning exploitation of children from care homes in North Wales were made concerning exploitation in other care homes in the UK. The nationwide practice of exploiting children in State care for the sex trade should have been a matter which was taken up by the Waterhouse inquiry or otherwise a recommendation made for a Nationwide Inquiry. Once these allegations of very serious and organised criminal activities surfaced they should not have been ignored because of the limited terms of reference.
3.11 The Public had a legitimate interest in the full exposure and investigation of the horrific sexual, physical and psychological abuse of children and subsequent and satellite issues arising from that abuse. This included full and proper investigation of public figures, police officers, judges, intelligence personnel, civil servants and others accused of horrific crimes or the cover-up of those crimes. The Public had a legitimate interest in the exposure of the extent and nature of the cover-up and the names and organisation involved in the cover-up. This is particularly the case as more than one Home Secretary was believed to have been involved.
3.12 For there to be no further on-going concern about the welfare of children in North Wales, it was essential to root out, expose and prosecute those who were involved in both the abuse and the cover-up of that abuse.
3.13.1 It is reported that Local authorities paid more than £28 million to the Bryn Alyn community of children’s homes. Their owner John Allen was jailed in 1995 for child abuse. John Allen also gave gifts from public funds to the abused children as hush money, one single boy being paid £25,000. The Inquiry however did not appear to fully investigate the financial affairs of John Allen or the matter of the gross waste of public money. Public money, which for decades, had been poured into the pockets of paedophiles who were exploiting the children in their care. The Inquiry should have investigated all the people who benefited from this massive fraud and those who covered it up for reasons of personal gain such as the child procurers.
3.14 Suspicious Deaths
3.14.1 Journalist Nick Davies wrote in 1997 that: - 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’.
3.14.2 Suspicious deaths of child abuse victims include:-
a) Robert Chapman, a former resident of Bryn Alyn, fell to his death from a railway bridge.
b) Robert Arthur Smith, a former resident of Bryn Alyn, killed himself in May 1978, aged 16, by overdosing on painkillers.
c) Barry Williams, former resident of Little Acton Assessment centre, Clwyd, found dead in a flat where he lived in poverty, aged 21.Peter Davies died 1985.
d) Adrian Johns, former resident of Bryn Alyn, died in a 1992 fire aged 32 in Brighton, Sussex. Verdict - unlawful killing.
e) Heath Kelvin Jones, former resident of Bryn Alyn, found dead in 1992 in a bedsit, aged 18. Cause of death, acute respiratory failure due to solvent abuse.
f) Peter Wynn hanged himself in January 1994, aged 27.
g) Brendon Randalls, former Bryn Estyn resident, died aged 27 from alcohol abuse in April 1994.
h) Richard Williams was found dead in a car aged 18 in July 1994.
i) Craig Wilson hanged himself in November 1994 aged 16.
j) Lee Johns, also known as Lee Homberg, former resident of Bryn Alyn where it was alleged he had been sexually abused. Died in February 1995 aged 37.
k) Mark Humphries hanged himself in February 1995 aged 31.
l) Simon Birley, former resident of Bryn Estyn, was found hanging in May 1995 aged 27
m) Tony Wallis found dead 1996.
The Macur Review has the opportunity to have these deaths investigated to ascertain if they are indeed part of the cover-up and if there is or is not a sinister reason for the deaths of these men.
3.15 The Waterhouse Inquiry did make some crucial recommendations which still need to be implemented for example Whistle-blowing
3.16.1 The Inquiry did properly conclude that the discouragement of whistle-blowing may persist and fear of reprisals should be eliminated.
3.16.2 (92) There is real danger that the discouragement of "whistle blowing" may persist and positive action is required to ensure that the new procedures are implemented conscientiously and that any fear of reprisals is eliminated
3.16.3 Whistleblowers continue to be persecuted by those who profit from the exploitation of children. The climate has not improved because those who were active in the cover-up were all left in place so there was no chance of a culture change.
3.17 Prolific paedophiles like Sir Jimmy Savile who was close to the Royal Family and Margret Thatcher and in and out of Downing Street were positively vetted, Metropolitan Police Commander Peter Spindle said that Savile's crimes were 'vast, predatory and opportunistic' They spanned 54 years ending in 2009 54 years of cover-up.”
3.18 The power and influence of the paedophile network in the United Kingdom is such that even Prime Ministers fear to expose it. The abused children were terrified by the power their abusers had over the police and the judiciary “when we were boys it was not just the sex abuse it was the gagging, beatings and threats to kill which still wake me in the dead of night “recalled one man
3.19 Because the paedophile ring has such far reaching power, investigators like myself whistleblowers and survivors are at risk of persecution and even assassination. The paedophile ring could silence almost anyone using bribery, blackmail or intimidation or worse. The extent and success of the cover-up provides clear evidence of a powerful, influential, well organised criminal group
3.20 Anne Machon former MI5 officer said “the need for integrity in intelligence, describing the terrible ethical dilemma that confronts government employees who witness illegal activity including serious threats to public safety and fraud, waste and abuse.”
3.21.1 The Terms of Reference or the interpretation of the Terms of Reference excluded the investigation of Government and its various agencies complicity in the cover-up of child abuse.
3.21.2 Whilst the names of VIP paedophiles are of interest it is in fact the cover-up involving the police, Local Government, the security and intelligence services and the Courts which protects paedophiles from exposure and prosecution and enables the persecution of survivors and those who try to expose child abuse
3.21.3 Certainly the public had then and do now have a legitimate interest in learning the extent and nature of the elite paedophile Ring. The public have an even wider interest in the extent of the cover-up and the nature of the agencies involved in the cover-up because this goes to the very heart of the Justice System in the United Kingdom. In this instance the cover-up involved children who were let down by the very system and agencies designed to protect them. The children in effect were without the protection of the United Kingdom because the organs of State had turned against them and were at the very least party to the cover-up if not the actual abuse.
3.21.4 The Guardian - 'True scandal of the child abusers'. June 6, 1996;-
‘From East Belfast's Kincora Boys' Home, via Leicestershire, Staffordshire and London, to the children's homes of Clwyd, we have witnessed 25 years of cover-up. Cover-up, not to protect the innocent but to protect the regularly named elements of the British establishment who surface whenever widespread evidence of child abuse is exposed.
From the public schools right through to the Catholic and Anglican churches, child abuse has been allowed a special place of sanctuary... Social workers, police, security services, local and national political figures remain the common factors in the fall-out from the [child abuse] inquiries...
In case after case the cycle is described - a child is 'taken into care', then abused in a home, handed on to an outside paedophile ring and out on to the rent-boy/prostitution circuit beyond, if they live that long... Journalists find themselves battling first with authority, then with the libel laws, to publish the truth about a vast web of abuse.’
4 Question 2 - Was any undue restriction placed upon the terms of reference to prevent a full inquiry or examination of the evidence in order to protect any individual or organisation?
4.1 I repeat paragraphs:-
3.3 to 3.4.5,
3.8 to 3.9,
3.13 to 3.13.1,
3.17 to 3.18
3.21 to 3.21.4.
4.2 The terms of reference were either not far reaching enough or could be used and were used to restrict the inquiry to areas of investigation which did protect particular Groups and Individuals. Terms of reference are necessary but should have been as wide as possible where the protection of vulnerable children was at issue and the exploitation of those children by individuals and bodies the State has placed in power over them. Where it was clear those individuals and bodies to whom the State had given control had not just been guilty of wholesale negligence but were accused of exploitation on a grand scale.
4.3 The decision by Sir Ronald Waterhouse, to grant anonymity to all those who are alleged to have belonged to the paedophile ring made it almost impossible for the public to make any judgement about the strength of the allegations.
4.4 Threats by the Sir Ronald Waterhouse of High Court Proceedings for Contempt if journalists or the media mentioned the allegations made during the Inquiry against VIP paedophiles and the ring to which they belonged prevented media exposure of the ring. These threats caused a halt to investigation into the ring.
4.5 The more disturbing effect of protecting elite paedophiles with anonymity was that many victims were afraid to testify against them to the Tribunal. Victims claim that they had been burgled, had their vehicles interfered with and threatened with being murdered or suicided if they talked. For years their complaints of abuse had gone unheard and they claimed that members of the paedophile ring were protected by the North Wales Police.
4.6 It seems that the Waterhouse Inquiry primarily considered the conduct of the staff at the children’s homes and did not look too far beyond this to the wider picture of abuse perpetrated by the paedophile ring operating outside these establishments. A paedophile ring which evidentially included high profile individuals.
4.7 Nick Davies of the Guardian wrote in 1996 that:-
“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,”
4.8 Then there are the linked issues of the Paedophile Information Exchange(PIE) and Peter Righton who was a childcare consultant for the National Children’s Bureau and then Director of Education at the prestigious National Institute of Social Work in London which had some direct influence over policy matters under the Thatcher government before he lost his reputation when he was convicted in 1992 on charges of importing and distributing illegal pornographic material (for which he was fined £900). The Organisation to which Peter Righton belonged had links to extremely disturbing child abuse, even murder and child pornography including snuff videos. This well connected organisation had links to the Foreign Office and the Home Office. It was the duty of the tribunal to investigate Peter Righton’s and PIE’s possible links to the scandal of children abused in care in North Wales.”
4.9 Historic Cover-up
4.9.1 What struck me and everyone involved was the extent of the cover-up and the organisations involved in the cover-up. These included the police, the judiciary, the crown prosecution service, hospitals, councils and social services. The crucial organisation involved, fully aware of all the sordid details and without whom the cover-up could not have continued was the NWP
4.9.2 The Terms of Reference or the interpretation of the Terms of Reference excluded the investigation of Government and its various agencies complicity in the cover-up of child abuse. This prevented proper investigation into allegations of child abuse and the subsequent cover-up. People in the following groups were protected.
a) Senior Politicians,
b) Legal Professionals including judges,
d) Police Officers,
f) Paedophile offenders in the wider network for example the Peter Righton and Jimmy Savile’s network.
4.9.3 Individuals from these groups (Ref 4.9.2 above) named by survivors who were not questioned or investigated about the allegations were certainly protected by the Inquiry. The information about the wider paedophile network and individual paedophiles was not passed on to any other investigating body, as far as I am aware. Certainly Sir Jimmy Savile would have been apprehended and prosecuted and many children saved if information had been acted upon.
4.9.4 One survivor knowingly wrote that “The people involved in this, are by their very nature secretive, they will never be open and honest about anything they do, and that has, and always will be the case. They lie, cheat, deceive and commit criminal and immoral acts of every kind, as they know full well that they can safely hide behind the facade of respectability that their wealth, power and position brings them.”
5 Question 3 If not, did the Tribunal appear to restrict the terms of reference to avoid investigation or examination of relevant evidence?
5.1 In my opinion, the Tribunal appeared to restrict the terms of reference to avoid investigation or examination of relevant evidence, as I detail in the following paragraphs.
5.2 I repeat paragraphs:-
3.7 to 3.9,
3.21 to 3.21.4,
5.3 The Inquiry did acknowledge there was a paedophile ring operating stating that:-
“(83) During the period under review there was a paedophile ring in the Wrexham and Chester areas in the sense that there were a number of male persons, many of them known to each other, who were engaged in paedophile activities and were targeting young males in their middle teens. The evidence does not establish that they were solely or mainly interested in persons in care but such youngsters were particularly vulnerable to their approaches.”
5.4 Disregarding this they failed to look into it or accept evidence of the paedophile ring or the linked child porn network. Despite the vast illegal profits being made from this particularly heinous organised crime, which operated without restriction centring in North Wales for decades, a proper investigation was not made by the Inquiry and has not been made since.
5.5 Fraud I repeat paragraph 3.13.1
5.6 The decades of sexual, physical and mental abuse of children in the Care Homes and Approved Schools under consideration were not only for the gratification of perverse sexual and sadistic desires of a group of paedophiles but this abuse was also extremely lucrative.
5.7 Large amounts of public funds were paid to paedophiles to run the establishments. All the running costs of maintaining a supply of children available to be sold to VIP paedophiles and available for the making of child pornography was funded by the State.
5.8 Vast profits come from the procurement of children for the child sex trade and lucrative child porn trade. Although the NWP were fully aware of both the abuse and the child sex trade they failed to take proper action to arrest the criminals involved in this sophisticated organised crime or stop the exploitation of societies most vulnerable children.
5.9 Tragically the NWP actually protected elite paedophiles, NWP Officers were named by the survivors of this horrific abuse and not one was charged. Despite the Fact that the paedophile network was identified during the Waterhouse Inquiry and highlighted in the resulting Report ‘Lost in Care’ the NWP failed to take any action. Lessons certainly were not learned and those responsible for the cover-up were left in place to infect the system of child care.
5.10 Court Orders destruction of evidence
5.10.1 Damming evidence, in the form of Photographs, of the sexual abuse was ordered by the Court to be destroyed.This protected the paedophiles in the photographs and prevented proper investigation into the paedophile ring.
5.10.2 Sian Griffiths disclosed in November 2012 to the Mirror that:- “Photographs of men abusing boys in the North Wales paedophile scandal were deliberately destroyed by the authorities. Sian Griffiths worked for Clwyd Council in the inquiry office on the 1994 Jillings and six years later on the Waterhouse inquiry which looked into the systematic abuse at the children’s homes. She said “We were supplied with copies of court documents…there was an order made for the book of photos to be destroyed.”
The Review has an opportunity to take evidence from Sian Griffiths so as to develop a more comprehensive view of the culture which created a situation where the Court itself ordered the destruction of vital evidence against paedophiles.
5.10.3 Again and again it is revealed that evidence against paedophiles is destroyed or seized and or disappears and is hardly ever apparently recoverable or acted upon.
5.10.4 For example Geoffrey Dickens MP gave a 30 page dossier on child abuse to Home Secretary Leon Brittan in 1983. This has since ‘disappeared’. Photographic evidence of child abuse is destroyed by Order of the Court. The Jillings report into child abuse in North Wales was also ordered to be pulped by order of the County Council. Investigators and whistleblowers evidence of child abuse is seized.. Evidence of child brothels, transportation routes, hotels and bars, fixers, providers of false documents and outlets for the trade in images of child abuse and snuff videos that has been identified also is ignored. Tragically all the evidence either disappears or is ignored.
Wherever this has happened the Review now has the opportunity to ask those involved to account for the disappearance of evidence of child abuse and reasons why intelligence was and is not acted on.
6 Question 4 - Was any pressure brought to bear upon those participating in the Inquiry whether as members of the Tribunal, its staff, legal teams, witnesses or contributors to deflect, deter or conceal evidence of relevance to the Waterhouse Inquiry?
6.1 Pressure was, I understand, brought to bear upon witnesses and pressures of a more nefarious nature existed to prevent exposure of the full facts and evidence concerning child abuse.
6.2 I repeat paragraphs:-
3.17 to 3.19,
4.3 to 4.5,
4.9.1 to 4.9.3,
5.3 to 5.4,
6.3 From the information I received from the witnesses
6.3.1 Pressure was brought on them to omit the names of elite paedophiles and restrict their statements to abuse that took place inside the care homes.
6.3.2 Witnesses were discouraged from giving evidence of abuse that took place outside the care homes.
6.4 The above resulted in serious limitations being placed on the witnesses and the evidence they gave, which because of the discouragement did not reflect the extent of the mental, physical and sexual abuse they suffered. It also protected the paedophile ring and the linked criminal organisation.
7 Question 5 - Were witnesses prevented or discouraged otherwise from giving relevant oral evidence or making statements? If so, by whom and/or in what circumstances.
7.1 I repeat paragraphs 6.3 to 6.4.
7.2 The climate in which witnesses, who did come forward, were expected to give evidence was not conducive to a fair inquiry. Vulnerable witnesses were not offered protection. They had not only suffered years of abuse at the hands of paedophiles but following this many had experienced threats and persecution from the NWP. The State agencies which protected their abusers from prosecution were ever ready to prosecute the vulnerable survivors for misdemeanours or invented crimes.
7.3 Mr Jillings former Director of Derbyshire Social Services whose report ‘the Jillings report’ into the Child abuse in North Wales Children’s Homes was pulped on the orders of the Council said he was “baffled by North Wales Police’ failure to cooperate with his investigation”.
7.4 Although the NWP were aware of both the abuse and the child sex trade they failed to take proper action to arrest the criminals involved in this sophisticated organised crime or stop the exploitation of societies most vulnerable children. Further to this they protected the VIP elite paedophiles and their own organisation. Nineteen Police officers were named by the survivors of this horrific abuse and not one was properly investigated or charged. There had been a number of failed Police investigations where paedophiles had escaped prosecution and victims had not been listened to.
7.5 Witnesses I spoke to were aware that VIP paedophiles, which the Inquiry was so clearly protecting from exposure and prosecution, were able to employ means through the police and other agencies to persecute them. It is not too farfetched to say that some were in fear for their lives.
7.6 The Inquiry failed to provide a safe place where witnesses were encouraged to tell the whole truth. It failed to protect the witnesses or offer protection.
7.7 It is vital where decades of cover-up of sexual abuse and mental and physical torture precede an Inquiry that the witnesses are guaranteed a fair hearing and total protection from those who can harm them. This was not done and in consequence witnesses were deterred from revealing the whole truth.
7.8 The witnesses had been taken as children by State agencies, in many instances with police involvement and placed in the hands of paedophiles by the State. They were then subjected to years of abuse and torture. If they escaped the NWP would bring them back to the paedophiles where they would be beaten and placed in solitary confinement.
7.9 This together with the suspicious deaths, interference with vehicles and threats led to a climate of fear where those who would have given evidence were too afraid to do so.
7.10 The Review may consider offering real protection to witnesses and guaranteeing their safety. With protection in place those who feared to speak out in the Waterhouse Tribunal may feel able to speak out now.
8 Question 6 - Were all relevant witnesses invited to furnish statements and/or be heard by the Inquiry? If not, why not?
8.1 Relevant witnesses, including journalists, who were involved in the investigation of the sexual, physical and mental abuse of the children in North Wales care homes were not called to give evidence and should have been. Politicians, who knew about the cover-up should have been called but were not. VIP’s and a number of police officers who were accused by the victims were not called and should have been.
8.2 I repeat paragraphs:-
3.43.17 to 220.127.116.11,
8.3 Journalist Nick Davies wrote in 1997 that One lawyer who has been involved with the tribunal said he feared that the anonymity ruling was actively discouraging witnesses. “Newspaper readers may well have information of potential value to this tribunal. They may themselves have been the victims of abuse, or they may have worked with the alleged abusers. But if the press is not allowed to inform them of the names of those against whom allegations are made, they will not learn that their information is important. So they will not come forward.”
8.4 I had a number of conversations with the inquiry team and found that there was an aura of deep concern and an unwillingness to venture into the dark underbelly of child abuse. It was my opinion that they were ill prepared to explore the truth and may have been actually afraid. Pressure can be brought to bear and people can be silenced in sophisticated ways.
8.5 It was crucial for the inquiry to investigate the cover-up because without the cover-up the abuse would have been quickly exposed, the abusers arrested and convicted. The cover-up was responsible for permitting the abuse to continue for decades not because the paedophiles were cautious and clever but because the paedophiles could rely on the police, local government and state agencies to protect them from exposure and prosecution.
8.6 Those who investigated or had intelligence on the cover-up should have been invited to give evidence. Those involved in the cover-up should have been questioned on that specific matter and called to give evidence. But the real cover-up was not mentioned as far as I am aware the inquiry used words like, obstruction, incompetence, failure. These are words of excuse; where children were brutally sexually and physically abused over decades because of a deliberate cover-up, excuses are unacceptable.
9 Question 7 - Were witnesses given adequate support (e.g. legal advice, advocacy or counselling) to facilitate giving evidence to the Inquiry?
9.1 Witnesses were not given adequate support in the form of advocacy or counselling
9.2 The Mental Health advocacy scheme for which I worked one day a week was a private scheme funded by Sainsbury’s Plc. We worked mainly with the Hergest unit a mental health unit at Ysybty Gwynedd hospital. We also operated as Appropriate Adults for those vulnerable adults arrested by the NWP. We were not encouraged to support the witnesses to the Inquiry and no funding was in place. I was the only trained advocate who supported the witnesses from the scheme.
9.3 I had not been trained as a counsellor but I did provide the best service I could. The Survivors went over the abuse with me and in doing so relived the experience. I understand they were promised counsellors but as far as I am aware they were not provided.
9.4 The victims were dragged into a public court to recite their ordeals and only given expenses if they brought in their bus tickets so I was told. It was painful to see the trauma they suffered having to relive the terrifying and traumatic experiences without proper support.
9.5 The Inquiry was some distance from where my clients lived. All my clients lived in the villages surrounding Bangor. I supported them to the best of my ability and helped with transport on occasion.
9.6 My clients were not provided with independent legal advice or representation. A group of 30 or so victims were represented by a Pannone and Partners who are specialists in child abuse Solicitor Richard Scorer from Pannone said in November 2012 that:-
“the terms of reference were an important restriction. It’s also fair to say at that time, and were going back to the mid 1990’s here at that time the idea that senior public figures,politicians,celebreties could be involved in child abuse was seen as a bit far-fetched.” and “We now know of course from recent revelations that it isn’t far-fetched at all-and that’s part of the reason why it is important that these allegations are looked at again”
9.7 The alleged paedophiles had solicitors to represent them. Mold and Caernarfon Crown Court Judge Niclas Parry, then a solicitor, represented one or more of the paedophiles at that time told the BBC at the commencement of the inquiry that:-
"Our concern at the start of this major inquiry is that perhaps public opinion has swayed the balance far too greatly in favour of those who make allegations of abuse and the understandable anxiety to look after their needs and care may outweigh justice."
9.8 In my view each vulnerable witness should have been provided with independent legal representation of their choice provided freely by the State. Equality of arms was necessary to prevent bullying and witnesses being told what they could and could not put in their statements. Without proper support it was highly unlikely vulnerable witnesses felt comfortable in giving evidence or were permitted to give the evidence they would have wished.
9.9 I hope the Macur Review will consider providing victims with access to professional counselling and State provided legal advice and assistance on an individual basis. For too long the survivors have been let down by the State which itself was responsible for the horrific abuse they suffered and the legacy of that abuse which has bighted the lives of many.
10 Question 8 - Were the arrangements made for the Inquiry, including but not limited to, notice of the Inquiry and its proceedings, witness interviewing, location of Tribunal headquarters, configuration of hearing chamber, oral evidence taking, conducive to encourage the participation of relevant witnesses.
10.1 As far as I am aware notice of the inquiry and its proceedings were properly made and reported in the press. However I was actively involved and following the Inquiries progress. I did not have any clients living outside of the North Wales area.
10.2 I understand from victims that those living outside of North Wales were not informed of the Inquiry or invited to attend. Many Survivors suffer mental difficulties as a direct result of the horrific abuse they suffered and it should have been obvious they needed to be traced so that they could be encouraged to give evidence. This was not done and thereby justice was not done.
10.3 For my clients the location was unfortunate and caused them considerable difficulty. This difficulty could have been alleviated if proper arrangements for transport had been made for those witnesses who lived more than 15 miles from the inquiry headquarters especially where witnesses may live in rural areas with poor public transport facilities.
10.4 It is my view that the witnesses were neither adequately supported nor encouraged to attend the Inquiry. Their emotional and mental health was not considered and it is without doubt that many refused to come forward to give evidence because they did not believe they would have a fair hearing. Others feared the NWP and the power of the monsters who had abused them as children
10.5 For those who did come forward it was traumatic having to relive the terrifying experiences of childhood rape and mental and physical abuse without adequate mental health support.
Had appropriate consideration been given to the witnesses and a proper appreciation of the ordeal they were being asked to go through, then the evidence would have been clearer and the witnesses would not have suffered further damage.
The Waterhouse team were aware of the allegations of the elite paedophile ring and the cover-up. The existence of an elite paedophile ring has been an open secret in Parliament, the police and security and intelligence services, the courts and local governments for decades. The most compelling necessity to insure that children were protected in the future was to expose the cover-up and the Waterhouse Tribunal of Inquiry avoided doing so.
I confirm that the above facts set out in this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
DONATE NOW TO HELP FUND ANDREA DAVISON'S APPEAL
DOCUMENTS APPENDED TO THE MACUR REVIEW STATEMENT
1 Inquiry into Exports of Defence Equipment
8 Letter to Andrea Davison
9 Letter to Chief Constable of North Wales
10 Complaint against Derby Police (reduced and redacted_
This is a witness statement to support Andrea Davison’s complaint against Police Officers from the Derby Constabulary. The matters set out in this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
The Complaint concerns the Officers listed below hereinafter called ‘the Officers’ unless specifically named.
I. DS Hunt the Arresting Officer
II. DC Winnard the Accredited Financial investigator
III. Other officers named by the Journalists Peter Eyre and Gordon Bowden where applicable
I am a senior citizen, disabled within the meaning of the 2010 disability and equality act with a chronic incurable illness. Formerly I was principally involved in the investigation of covert arms deals and terrorism and the financial network underpinning this for and with British Intelligence.
In December 2009 I was advised that plain clothes men claiming to be from ‘the met’ were making enquiries about my home in north Wales by asking neighbours questions. I was not approached directly by these men who I believe to have been police officers from a force outside of Wales.
I believe my business colleagues Denis and Phil Holt of MOAS Mail Service Cheshire had given information to DC Winnard and DS Hunt during inquiries into a former client calling himself Robin Jacob. The information included my address telephone number and e-mail. No telephone call or message or e-mail or letter was received by me. To my knowledge a production Order was not applied for and or served.
On the 5th of January 2010 DC Winnard obtained a search warrant to search the premises (Exhibit AD 1 page 1) I refer to search and Seizure 4.40 POCA (2002).
“A search and seizure warrant under s352 is a warrant to seize material likely to be of substantial value to the investigation. It does not allow carte blanch seizure no-matter how valuable it might be. The material seized must relate to the particular investigation for which the warrant has been granted.”
Flat 1b was occupied by an individual who held a firearms certificate issued by the North Wales Police registered to the address, the individual had also been vetted and held top Secret Clearance. This individual was not approached or contacted by the Officers at the time or subsequently although the Officers retain his property.
On the 10th of January 2010 my Flat was searched by 19 male police officers. I was in bed and woken up and subsequently kept in my night dress all day until on or around 17.00 hrs whilst the 19 male officers searched the premises. I was prevented from getting dressed or leaving the property and prevented from making a phone call. My request for a female Officer to be present was also refused.
The Officers also searched Flat 1b and seized from the individual’s firearms cabinet legally registered firearms and a quantity of gold. They also seized a large unlocked filing cabinet from the individual and a computer he used whilst working at the Atomic Weapons Establishment. The Filing cabinet included documents subject to legal privilege and excluded material and had no connection with the investigation in any way.
Almost every document and every moveable item of value was seized from the premises including £100 and Euro 40 under the £1000 limit. The Seizure not only included a large amount documents and items not related to the investigation but also included documents subject to legal privilege and excluded material.
On the 16th April 2010 DC Winnard stated to be a financial investigator made a witness statement in support of a Restraint Order which was fanciful, did not make full and frank disclosure and contained false statements. (I refer to Section 9 below).
Following this I was informed DC Winnard made inquiries from my acquaintances. He asked about me and gold and I was told DC Winnard had a personal grudge against me.
The Officers have provided information about me to bloggers xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. This information included my bail dates and details of the investigation against me whilst I was on Pre Charge Bail.
RESTRAINT ORDER AND WITNESS STATEMENT
Exhibit (AD1 page 85-102)
It is the Duty of the Prosecutors to make full and Frank disclosure. They should put themselves in the position of the Defence. This was not done. There was no chance of dissipation. DC Winnard and DS Hunt had the evidence in the form of e-mails and documents proving I was not involved in the Fraud they were investigating.
DC WINNARD an accredited financial investigator swore a false oath concerning matters material to a judicial proceeding to obtain a Restraint Order against me. At Paragraph 3 he states “I have conducted a financial investigation into the financial affairs of Andrea Davison, hereinafter called DAVISON
A large body of the witness statement is false or fanciful and is designed to give a false impression there is no attempt to make full and frank disclosure. The Restraint order and Witness Statement mainly concerns Regal and Archer LLC and Quantum Holding LLC both companies stated in the Restraint Order to be controlled by me Andrea Davison.
At Paragraph 5 the Restraint Order States AND IT IS ORDERED THAT:-
The Assets of Regal and Archer LLC and Quantum Holdings Limited are treated as the personal assets of the Defendant.
And goes on to name two bank accounts in Cyprus.
AT paragraph 8 of the Restraint order “the Defendant must within 21days after service of this Order upon her bring any movable asset in respect of which she has an interest, which is outside England and Wales, to a location within England and Wales.
The restraint order made it a Contempt of Court for me not to repatriate within 21 days of service of the Order money from 2 Cyprus Bank Accounts about which I had no Knowledge or interest in and which I believe DC WInnard knew I had no knowledge or interest in.
From on or around May 10th 2010 I have been in Contempt of Court because I did not repatriate the moneys from the two Cyprus Bank Accounts. To be placed in this invidious and terrifying position is against my convention rights.
In the Witness statement at paragraph 31 DC WInnard stated I claimed to have worked “for covert government agencies “thus misleading the Court as he knew I worked for British Intelligence and had informed my Solicitor he had contacted M15. Lord Warrington had also written a letter to the Chief Constable mentioning my intelligence background. Exhibit (AD1 page 103)
The term ‘covert government agencies’ was used as a derogatory term I believe to suggest I worked for British or Foreign intelligence agencies concerned in black operations, or in the alternative DC Winnard considers British intelligence agencies to be ‘covert government agencies’ because he does not support British Intelligence.
Under Realisable Property DC Winnard states:-
“Davison is in receipt of benefit payments”. This was false and as an accredited Financial Investigator it can be assumed he knew it was false or alternatively was careless whether it was true or false.
This violated my Convention Rights and is particularly damaging to an elderly disabled lady.
DC Winnard knew the Restraint Order prevented me from paying for legal advice or assistance.
Because of the terms of the restraint order I was prevented from buying the necessities for life until the Order was varied. The Order was varied only because my solicitor kindly acted Pro Bono.
Further and other evidence, information and witnesses are available to investigating officers. The above outlines the basis of my complaint but I reserve the right to raise other matters should it become necessary.
I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.
Dated the 16th day of September 2011
Please Donate Now to Andrea's Defence Fund
Please Donate Now to Andrea's Defence Fund