Open Letter to Lib Peck – Lambeth Council.

From: Paula Donohoe
Sent: 08 September 2017 14:54
To: Lib Peck
Subject: Re: Your local police station might be closing – here’s how to stop it

Dear Elizabeth Peck,

thank-you for your e-mail advising of the potential closure of Police stations across Lambeth. I wanted to write personally to let you, your fellow councillors and local Police know that I, for one, will not be sorry to see these Police stations close. As many residents of Lambeth are all to painfully aware , the failures to thoroughly and properly investigate serious organised crime in this Borough have been continual over many decades. The exploitation of children in Lambeth streets is more visible than it has ever been, there are some areas that are nothing short of being seething vipers nests of peadophiles and the desperate children they pray upon and exploit. Council estates are also targeted and appear to have resident groomers within them, children developing in these circumstances have to become resilient very quickly. I guess the demolition plans will at least ‘clean-up’ the evidence of exploitation and the devastation of human life it has created?

The inaction of Police to thoroughly and properly investigate these crimes raises many questions, as does the inaction of the Local Authority in safeguarding these children. This coincides with what appears to be a political perspective that children are a source of crime and deserve frequent Police attention, whether they have done anything criminal or not. Both LA staff and local Police have written to me to say there is not a significant problem of child exploitation in Lambeth (i.e.; 64 children identified as at risk of sexual exploitation, may I suggest it is more like 1064 and that is probably an underestimation). The continued political and professional failures to see what is happening to children on Lambeth streets, mirrors the problems and inaction of yesteryear and we all know how that panned out. The political ambivalence and misinformation is an indicator of potential corruption and requires challenge. Are you aware of the problem? Do you care? Lambeth LA and the local Police are certainly not safeguarding vulnerable children in this Borough, although the groomers and criminal exploiters appear to be doing pretty well! Whistleblowers and those who make allegations remain unheard, despite the IICSA and history with SOSA. I have previously received correspondence indicating whistleblowers are supported, my experience suggests quite the opposite appears to be true; I would go so far as to say the local authority and Police are complicit in the persecution and character assassination of whistleblowers, whilst denying the problem of child exploitation. Have any lessons been learned? Or are you happy to make apologies and pay out compensation at tax payers expense as the circumstance will eventually demand?

Quite frankly Lambeth citizens and children will be safer with no Police than with Police operating under a corrupt administration. Our children appear to be more vulnerable and at risk of exploitation when Police and Local Authority are aware of them than when not. These children are certainly not being protected, not by any stretch of the imagination. I will say again, as I have said many times before, the problem of child grooming and exploitation in Lambeth is rife, it has not been helped by the numerous Police stations. Why on earth would we want to support such an ineffectual service? That said, should you make a stand to clean up the political and bureaucratic corruptions in Lambeth and the Police complicity in it, I would be more than happy to support a campaign for Police stations in the community. I have met some very good Police Officers in my lifetime, unfortunately many of them are severely let down by the hierarchical structures. It is always unfortunate when good professionals have to pay the price for corrupt administrations.

Again, many thanks for your e-mail, please feel free to share my views as widely as your conscience permits.

Many kind regards

Paula Donohoe

Lambeth resident: Researching the local criminal and sexual exploitation of children and the associated political, legal and procedural frameworks that allow for it.
From: Lib Peck <info@lambeth-labour.org.uk>
Sent: 07 September 2017 17:00:55
To: Paula Donohoe
Subject: Your local police station might be closing – here’s how to stop it


Investigation into CSA or rather not investigation!

 Letter from Professional Standards Department (PSD) of the IPCC; regarding failures to investigate crime reported to them over a 28 year period.
Response to PSD (edited);

                                                                                Your Reference; PC/01/302/17

My reference; Knock-knock

09 May 2017.

Dear Sergeant Grey,

Many thanks for your correspondence, received on 08/05/17. You have requested ‘more information’ about a ‘complaint’ the IPCC received directly from the National Crime Agency on 30/03/17 (PC/01302/17).  You also indicated that you would ‘apply to disapply’ the ‘complaint’ as, in your view, it is ‘repetitious’.

The issue I raised with the NCA was forwarded to the IPCC on procedural grounds. My correspondence with the NCA concerned indications of Police complicity with ‘serious and organised crime’, including the repeated failures to investigate on the part of the MPS (neglect of duty). I understand the NCA had a procedural duty to forward my concerns to the IPCC, which they duly did.  I have since indicated a preference that no further information is shared with the IPCC by NCA, without my consent. I am sure you are familiar with the ECHR and article 8; it is the legal convention to which all legislation and associated statutory procedural frameworks must comply, I do not seek to reiterate this, other than to request the legislative framework is considered and respected within the context of your professional operations and decisions.

That said, I would like to take this opportunity to respond to your letter in full, it presented an interesting view; although unclear as to what constitutes ‘repetitious’.   Your request for information to prove that the complaint is not ‘repetitious’ left me rather puzzled. It seems to me that in order clarify what, if any, information is being requested, we must first define and reach agreement as to what constitutes ‘repetitious’. For the sake of expediency I have assumed the Oxford dictionary definition of the word; repetitive; particularly when unnecessary or tiresome.  

In the spirit of considering your request for information; it is my initial assessment that repetition is indicated. Crime has repeatedly taken place and has repeatedly been reported, it has not been resolved to satisfactory conclusion and thorough and effective investigation has not taken place, hence complaint has been made.   Crime towards myself and my family has continued and escalated in nature and gravity, having serious and life altering consequences on a number of people I know and myself. The impact has been far reaching.   It has not been investigated to a satisfactory standard by Police. This has constituted grounds for complaint, there is ongoing stalking and harassment; threat to life and finance continues.   Whilst repetition of crime is indicated, it has been necessary to report this. Failures to investigate those allegations have however been both unnecessary and tiresome, they have constituted a ‘repetitious’ ‘neglect of duty’.

It would therefore appear that no further information is required by the PSD/IPCC, as ‘repetitious’ is stated as grounds for ‘no investigating’ in your correspondence.

MPS failures to investigate allegations of serious crime have been particularly ‘repetitious’, both in my individual case, professional cases I have raised as a social worker and indeed, across the Met. A conclusive summary from the HMIC report was provided by Sir Thomas Winsor;

“Protecting the vulnerable, particularly children, is perhaps the most important job that police officers and staff undertake. Staff whose job it is to respond to and investigate these challenging and often distressing cases need to be competent, trained, and supported: this is not the case consistently in the Met.

“Of course, child protection is not the sole preserve of the police, but we found inexcusably poor practice at every stage of a child’s interaction with the police and across the parts of the force we inspected.

“The Met is a large and complex force but, nevertheless, the importance of the police getting this right and protecting children cannot be overstated.”

As I am sure you are aware, the HMIC has made a number of recommendations to the MPS, some of which were to be implemented immediately and others between three to six months from the report; released 7 months ago.

Sergeant Grey, whilst you are correct in your assessment that this ‘complaint’ has been made before (PC/6075/16), you are not so clear as to ‘repetitious’, nor why ‘repetitious’ is grounds for ‘no investigation’.   You may also note that the original complaint was taken out of context by the investigating PSD and that IPCC ‘procedures’ were not consistently implemented; namely that any allegation of corruption within the Police should not be investigated locally, but rather escalated to the IPCC, which was indeed what I requested at that juncture. In my view, thorough and effective investigation has not happened; from Police or the IPCC.   The procedural scope and investigative integrity of IPCC appears insufficient to address the matters I have raised.

It occurs to me that there is little to be gained from the IPCC appeals process; it is not geared to address procedural limitations. Continuing with any formal complaint is, at best, laborious and time consuming and the scope for investigation and addressing imminent safeguarding issues is limited. Safeguarding is not being achieved by the safeguarding system, nor is thorough and effective investigation of criminal allegations into serious crime.  The IPCC have not proven helpful in ensuring relevant investigations take place to date, nor has operation Hydrant. Not much appears to get investigated, indeed it is proving a real struggle for me to recognise the value of the Police to our society at this juncture, this despite having relatives and friends in the Police whom I believe to be hard working, committed and decent individuals.

In recent correspondence with Internal Investigations Unit of the IPCC, it was stated that matters I have raised could be dealt with under ‘disciplinary procedures’.   This again, in my view, is a profoundly inadequate response to what constitutes a major failure in investigation and safeguarding.   What is ‘repetitious’ Sergeant Grey is the failure of safeguarding across Lambeth, the Met and the country, on such a massive scale, it presents to me as a ‘criminal’ failure of children and those whom genuinely seek to safeguard them. There appears to be an associated, inconsistent and ineffective implementation of procedures.     This is now very well evidenced.

All that said and with due consideration and respect, it appears to me that the human condition is particularly fallible when it comes to repetitive behaviours. For example, when it rains (a particularly repetitive behaviour on the part of the atmosphere), humans tend to use an umbrella or waterproof to protect themselves. This use of an umbrella/water-proof is repetitive, as is the rain.   When it’s cold, we wrap up, when it’s warm, we wear lighter clothing and so on and so forth, it is a human response to environmental change, it repeats itself according to the behaviour of the atmosphere. Human behaviour, not unlike the weather, can be cyclical and repetitive, human behaviour is interactive by nature. Should we consider it ‘repetitious’ is a matter of perspective & opinion.

It appears that ‘my’ ‘complaint’ (PC/0130217) is consistent with the findings of the HMIC; it is also consistent with the foundation for the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse and the reason many Serious Case Reviews, charities and organisations exist.   The ‘complaint’ is as ‘repetitious’ as the failures to safeguard by Police & wider safeguarding system.

I have consulted with the Home Office safeguarding department regarding IPCC operations. It is their view that the IPCC are the relevant body for thorough and effective investigation, clearly they have a different interpretation and experience of the operational procedures to you and myself.  Whilst your letter did not reference the procedural frameworks guiding your conclusion of ‘repetitious complaint’, it appears what this comes down to is; what is being measured; by whom; and from what perspective? What hasn’t been measured is the impact and harmful nature of the crimes that have been reported and not investigated.

It is my personal and professional view that Police have failed to thoroughly and effectively investigate; repeatedly. It is my further view that these repeated failures to investigate are often justified on the basis of procedure, the failures to investigate are repetitive, unnecessary and tiresome, by definition; ‘repetitious’.   The failures of Police to investigate are part of a wider safeguarding system, there has been significant indication of historical failures and there is little reason for confidence in the current system according to; the Inspectorate; Serious Case Reviews; whistle-blowers and the survivors who continue to experience adverse and criminal consequence as a result of speaking out.   This said; an inconsistent application of the procedures could also present as a lack of integrity in the system and lend itself to corruption.   It probably goes without saying, that any investigative system only has the integrity of those devising, utilising and implementing it.

Many thanks for giving this matter your consideration Sergeant. Grey and please be my guest; show this letter to your Chief Inspector and ‘apply to disapply’ this ‘complaint’. I agree; it is ‘repetitious’. What I require and request is institutional integrity in investigation, in both my personal and professional experience, this has been profoundly absent, both from Police and the IPCC.

On a final note and at risk of sounding highly ‘repetitious’, I thought I would share an alternative version of an old joke;

A; Knock knock

B; Who’s there?

A: Sergeant

B; Sergeant? Sergeant Who?

A; Sergeant Repetitious

B; Sergeant Repetitious; What?

A; Sergeant Repetitious; failures to thoroughly or properly investigate!

B; Sorry, I can’t open the door on the basis that your knock was ‘repetitious’.

Don’t worry I am not considering stand-up comedy, with jokes like that I’d be laughed off the stage! Social Work has always been my calling Sergeant Grey. That said, I must go, I have a dinner to cook, whoops, there I go again with those repetitive behaviours! Thank the Lord, it’s not grounds for arrest, I would undoubtedly fall into a recidivist category, as, it seems, would the whole of the Met and, in all probability, the whole of the human population, the animal kingdom and indeed the weather!   Life itself is repetitive! Plenty of evidence on that!

Many kind regards

Paula Donohoe

BSc; Psychology; MSc; Social Policy and Social Science; PGDip; Social Work.

Ps; I would prefer that you do not have cause to write to me again.

Vaz & Bercow – open letter to PSC

Pre-amble – Vaz’s behaviour is a potential threat to National Security, he cannot control his own sexual behaviour & prioritises this over the public interest. Bercow Is utilising his power as Speaker of the house to suppress open, objective & honest debate about the matter. It  is in the public interest to know if our MPs are compromising themselves and potentially national security! Any member of the public can write to the Parliamentary standards committee to launch their concern, complaint or allegation, the email address is below, the rest is up to you. An open copy of my letter to the parliamentary standards commissioner is below. Feel free!

Email: standardscommissioner@parliament.uk

Dear Parliamentary Standards Commissioner

I write to express my concern regarding the conduct of Keith Vaz MP and John Bercow MP, whose recent actions I consider to constitute a failure to act in accordance with the code of conduct for MP’s, specifically a failure to represent the public interest.

Mr. Keith Vaz MP

I refer to the Rules of Conduct V, section 16. “Members shall never undertake any action which would cause significant damage to the reputation and integrity of the House of Commons as a whole, or of its Members generally”.

It is my understanding that Mr. Vaz failed to declare his personal indulgences with prostitutes as a potential conflict of interest to either the HASC or subsequent role on the Justice Committee. I consider this omission relevant and to constitute misconduct on the part of Mr. Vaz. It is a failure to adhere to the rules of conduct and general principles of the code.

Conflict of interest; Mr Vaz clearly uses prostitutes and is happy to support the cost and use of illicit drugs by prostitutes whilst purchasing their services. Mr. Vaz’s activities have been broadcast across the country and internationally, with millions of people viewing what appeared to be a practiced pattern of behavior, including the use of code in texts, the assumed identity of a washing machine salesman and the use of ‘Grindr’ to locate others who maybe willing to join the ‘party’. These are not the behaviours of a novice, his confidence in the situation is indicative of somebody who is well practiced in the art of facilitating such exchanges.

Whilst Mr. Vaz appears to have continued support and sympathy of various members of parliament, this presents to myself, albeit just a member of the public, as a very serious matter, which could arguably cause significant damage to the reputation and integrity of the House of Commons and the UK generally. The wider support apparently received by Mr Vaz from members of Parliament, portrays a level of approval to his activities, this leads one to question the integrity and standards of members generally?

Mr. Vaz appears to have accepted that his ‘party’ with prostitutes presented a conflict of interest to the HASC and he resigned from his role as chair to this committee. May I suggest that Mr. Vaz’s behaviour also presents a conflict of interest to the Justice Committee, the failure of Mr. Vaz, to declare his use of prostitutes and support for their drug use is a serious concern, this presents a conflict of interest to a prominent position on a committee. Mr. Vaz’s omission falls well below the standards of openness, honesty, integrity, accountability and selflessness that the code commits to, it seriously undermines public confidence. MP’s who use prostitutes and support their illicit drug use to facilitate sex, are susceptible to blackmail and this can, in turn, undermine National Security. At a time when news reports of terror attacks, grooming and affiliations are an almost daily occurrence, the public require, possibly more than ever before, confidence in the integrity of Parliament. Such confidence is not facilitated by MP’s enjoying the company of prostitutes, whilst apparently affording a lesser priority to their parliamentary and public responsibilities.

Mr. Vaz, far from demonstrating selflessness and accountability, simply moves on to the next committee, with a list of 203 supporting MP’s. As a voting member of the public, this is not the conduct or standards I wish to see demonstrated by Parliament.

Parliament will be aware of the comments made by Mr. Vaz when he resigned from the HASC; “The integrity of the Select Committee system matters to me. Those who hold others to account, must themselves be accountable.” I request that Mr. Vaz is indeed held accountable and that action is taken to ensure he no longer damages the reputation and integrity of Parliament. The failure to represent the public interest appears clear, Mr. Vaz’s actions potentially compromise National Security, he has favoured the indulgence of his personal whims over the public interest, which leads on to my concerns regarding MP John Bercow.

Mr. John Bercow MP

I refer to the Rules of Conduct V, section 10; “Members shall base their conduct on a consideration of the public interest, avoid conflict between personal interest and the public interest and resolve any conflict between the two, at once, and in favour of the public interest.”

It is my understanding that challenges have been made in parliament regarding Keith Vaz’s behavior and his appointment to the Justice committee. Wider discussions were blocked in the house of parliament by the speaker; Mr. Bercow. It has been widely reported in the news that MP Mr. Andrew Bridgen challenged Mr. Vaz regarding his use of prostitutes and requested investigation for a potential misconduct in public office, Mr. Vaz made a counter-complaint regarding damage to his reputation, indicating his behavior was ‘a personal matter’ and outside the scope of PSC. Mr. Vaz presents a highly contradictory view, accepting his behavior presents a problem to the reputation of parliamentary committee’s, whilst simultaneously accusing MP’s who challenge him for ‘damaging his reputation’. The implications of Mr. Vaz’s behaviour to the reputation of parliament and to the wider British public appear to have taken a back-seat. Mr. Bercow, as speaker, repeatedly asked Bridgen to ‘desist’ from speaking about this matter and controlled the sphere of discussion. May I suggest that this refusal to explore the implications of Mr. Vaz’s behavior was a failure to resolve conflict between personal and public interest. Mr. Bercow has failed to consider the interest of the British public by restricting the proper and legitimate concerns raised by Mr. Bridgen.

A freedom of information request asking for the correspondence between Mr. Bercow and Mr. Bridgen to be made available, was declined by Mr. Bercow in Dec 2016. It is in the public interest to know of MP’s potentially abusing their position and authority and to formulate an understanding of the implication, a failure to do so undermines democracy and is not consistent with the principles of objectivity, openness, honesty and accountability. I therefore request that Mr. Bercow is investigated by the PSC for failing, repeatedly, to consider the public interest in his own conduct and decisions, regarding open and transparent discourse on the activities of his fellow MP Mr. Vaz.

Many kind regards

Response from commissioner;

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: Standards Commissioner <standardscommissioner@parliament.uk
Date: 7 February 2017 at 11:24:45 GMT
Subject: Our reference PCS542/3 Private & confidential

Dear Ms

Thank you for your email. You raise three separate but related issues.

Rt Hon Keith Vaz MP
The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards is currently undertaking an inquiry into alleged breaches of the rules of conduct by Rt Hon Keith Vaz MP. This information is posted on the Commissioner’s webpages: http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/standards-and-financial-interests/parliamentary-commissioner-for-standards/complaints-and-investigations/allegations-under-investigation-by-the-commissioner/. As I am sure you would appreciate, it is not appropriate for us to comment while an investigation is in progress. When the Commissioner has completed her work and, when Parliament has had the opportunity to consider any report she may publish, the Commissioner’s decision will be made public and the reasons for her decision and all the evidence on which she has relied will be put into the public domain. (It will be posted on the Parliament website.)

The Commissioner has no power to remove an MP from a Select Committee while an inquiry is in progress. Members of Select Committees are elected by the House of Commons. (If at the end of an inquiry, the Commissioner finds a serious breach of the rules, she may refer a Memorandum to the Select Committee on Standards. Only the Committee may recommend sanctions for a serious breach of the rules and, depending on the nature of the recommended sanction, it may also require the approval of the House of Commons as a whole.)

Rt Hon John Bercow MP
The Commissioner has no remit to consider the words used by MPs during parliamentary proceedings; this includes the words used by the Speaker when ruling on matters of order within the Chamber. I think this means the Commissioner would not be able to investigate a complaint along the lines you have described, if you were to submit a formal complaint by post.

Freedom of Information
There is a procedure for challenging a refusal to provide information requested under a Freedom of Information request. Ultimately, decisions on disclosure may be considered by the Information Commissioner’s Office. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards has no role in that process.

I am sorry that this will not be the response you were hoping for but I hope I have explained the position clearly.

Yours sincerely
Gwen Harrison
Complaints Manager

Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA
T: 0207 219 8431 E: harrisongj@parliament.uk
Text Relay: 18001 207 219 8431




Open Letter to Theresa May


In the summer of 2016, a 20,000 word submission was made to the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse.   The submission provided significant evidence of Police failing to investigate serious crime within the Met, both historical and current.   The IICSA, in turn, sent information to Operation Hydrant and they in turn to the Met for further investigation. As yet the Met Police  do not consider these criminal allegations grounds to investigate:

Rape of a child;  Coercion into drug-taking and Prostitution; Robbery; Harassment; Witness intimidation;  Stalking;  Emotional Abuse;  Possession and Distribution of Indecent Images of Children;  Child Grooming; Corruption (offences range between 1984 and 2017)

The IPCC are limited in their powers, they do not have the power to intervene in complaints and  resolution is expected via the appeals process (time consuming and un-necessary).   Threats and harassment towards myself as a whistleblower continue in various forms, including behaviours which indicate an intent to endanger life.  In exasperation with the circular and procedural game playing I wrote to Theresa May, attaching a copy of the submission to the IICSA and highlighting Police failures.  Theresa May sent my letter to the Home Office safeguarding department for a response.  I have received two responses, the first letter explained that the Police are completely independent from government, the second letter also reinforced the independence of Police from government and sought to explain the work currently being undertaken by the government to address CSA.

The letter concluded with a comment that I should call 999 in an emergency!

Below is a full transcript of the response to the home office safeguarding department:

Complaint ref:  T13872/16
Mon 23/01, 14:50
Public Enquiries (CD) (Public.Enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk)
Dear Public Enquiries/Home Office Safeguarding Unit

thank-you for your extensive response to my inquiry. Whilst seeking clarification on Government influence upon Police operations and investigations, I also sought to clarify if government officials have the powers and authority to intervene in Police conduct. You have confirmed, repeatedly, that the Police are independent of Government and that Government is not able to intervene in police operations as this would breach a fundamental principle.

Unfortunately my questions regarding parliamentary use of procedures and legislation, in order to suppress child abuse investigations, appears to have been overlooked in your response. Hence, I will reiterate my previous question, add to it and provide some clarification as to why it is important that this matter is reviewed with imminence.

Is it the case that Government ministers have utilized gagging orders and the Official Secrets Act in order to suppress either Police evidence or investigation regarding child abuse? Do we currently have MP’s and Lords utilising these legislative frameworks to suppress information or inquiry regarding child abuse?

The reason this is important is because the use of procedures and legislation in Parliament, which suppresses Police investigation, evidence or inquiry, lends itself to the secrecy required for child abuse to thrive. Regardless on whether we view Police and Government as independent entities or as having a systemic and interconnected relationship, the use of parliamentary privilege to exercise powers that suppress child abuse investigation lends itself to a continuance of behaviours that cause significant harm to children. Furthermore, such practices disable the professionals with a remit to safeguard children and can encourage corruption within the safeguarding system. No amount of consultation, training, education, legislation reviews, road shows or procedural frameworks can compensate for a lack of integrity in government operations. Such is the sphere of governmental influence upon institutional functioning.

Whilst I agree that “Where abuse has occurred it must be thoroughly and properly investigated and those responsible brought to justice”, this is not taking place in practice. The HMIC report demonstrates a failing response to child abuse across the Met, as do my own personal and professional examples and many others. There has been significant political influence in the evolution of the safeguarding system, it is likely there will continue to be political influence, indeed political influence is a primary force in safeguarding, this is regardless of whether politicians become involved in individual cases or not . As comprehensively explained in your response, government has significant influence and oversight in a range of capacities. Unfortunately, the inappropriate use of parliamentary powers and self serving use of procedure can undermine the safeguarding system and it is this that I would please like clarified.

Political parties of all colours have indicated safeguarding is a priority. Despite this and whether governed by Tory, Labour, or Coalition governments, safeguarding has been systematically and continually undermined. Whilst my own experience of the Police failing to investigate is a particularly trying and circular one, I am also aware of some incredibly good, committed and hard-working Police. Unfortunately those who speak out against operational failures and abuses of power within the leadership hierarchy have met extreme and detrimental consequences – i.e.; Andrea Davison, a former British intelligence officer who had to seek asylum in another country, such was the level of threat and violence posed to her. This violence is not the type you can always call 999 for, it is passive, engineered, often procedural, as well as direct threat. Social Work whistleblowers have been sectioned on dubious grounds, care workers have been imprisoned on dubious grounds (Melanie Shaw has been categorised by some as a Political Prisoner), health workers have had their children removed on dubious grounds, the systemic abuses of professional whistleblowers are as endemic as the problem of child exploitation itself in the UK. How can safeguarding ever be achieved when the Police Officers and Social Workers, who do their jobs well, are treated in such a derogatory and harmful manner by the very government systems and procedures that are supposed to support safeguarding?

Whilst I can certainly testify to the level of systemic, passive procedural violence and associated harms that becomes the reality for whistleblowers, this is not my intent. What I will say is that such an orchestrated, strategic and adverse response to whistleblowers is akin to a type of psychological warfare, it undermines safeguarding on an individual and social level and could only be orchestrated by those with a sufficient level of systemic influence (i.e.; political leadership). Hence, whilst I appreciate that this government are going some of the way to address the problem, this is hardly possible if members of parliament prevent investigation into themselves. Government can only support and achieve a safeguarding objective, if parliament and the House of Lords are free from those who abuse. Is Parliament and the House of Lords free from child abusers? If so, why is it thought necessary to utilise parliamentary privilege, gagging orders and Official Secrets legislation to suppress investigation into child abuse? It suggests corrupt practices and indeed practices which potentially represent a threat to our National Security. Any child abuser in parliament is a risk, both to children and to national security, given the scope for blackmail. If influence and procedure is being utilised at a governmental level to protect VIP’s from investigation into child abuse, this distorts the original spirit of the legislation and allows for harmful and degrading treatment against children to continue. Safeguarding requires something more than developing robust procedures, it requires ensuring a level of transparency in political operations that cannot be undermined, Official Secrets and Gagging should only be used for matters of National Security. Child abuse will continue to be systemic if those who speak out against it are dismissed and those who perpetuate it protected and supported by the very services and legislation responsible for safeguarding.

As you are aware, I am a Social Worker, whistleblower and campaigner against child abuse, I have raised issues with Police, various local authorities, IICSA, members of parliament and various governmental departments, when they have failed to act in accordance with safeguarding objectives, I have raised further issues. The continual failure to address the matters raised is systemic and lends itself to ongoing failures to safeguard. The justifications offered by various departments for not taking action to safeguard are usually that it is ‘not within their remit’, I am invariably passed to another authority and the circular pattern repeats itself over and over again. Current procedure and associated practice, appears to be seriously limiting safeguarding. Safeguarding requires partnership working, communication and a commitment to take professional responsibility to safeguard seriously, it is this professional responsibility that appears to be lacking, particularly when members of parliament use legislation to suppress investigations into child abuse. Safeguarding is every bodies responsibility, it is particularly the responsibility of government.

Children are being exploited in the UK, IIOC are widespread, children are being abused in the most horrific manner possible, they are emotionally, physically and psychologically terrorised and with all due respect the procedures are not proving effective, in some circumstances they are contrary to safeguarding being achieved (i.e.; gagging orders, imposed by Parliament on police investigations). It appears that procedures are being utilised by those in political office to prevent full and thorough investigation, this in itself poses a serious and significant threat to the safeguarding of children in the UK. May I suggest that such practices could constitute a very serious misconduct in Public Office and they need to be addressed. Whilst I recognise that some members of government have been investigated for child abuse and brought to justice, the scope for allowing full and thorough investigation has not always extended to their wider networks. May I again suggest that the use of gagging and OSA is a corrupt use of powers that has undermined investigation, justice and safeguarding, as well as the principle of Police independence.

Whilst Police, social workers, teachers, health workers and various other statutory bodies may have been complicit in the levels of child abuse that have evolved nationally, this was not necessarily because they did not follow procedure. Professionals utilise government supported, specialist assessment tools, these tools are designed to assess need and risk and inform intervention. Professionals follow procedural guidelines and the legislation developed by Parliament. It needs to be recognised that Ofsted Inspections of various authorities failed to detect the levels of abuse and exploitation that were taking place, it was, in some instances, professionals that brought matters to attention and eventually triggered investigation and review (Oxford – Bullfinch). Hence the extent to which procedures and legislative frameworks safeguarded, either at practice or inspection level, is highly questionable. Furthermore, statutory powers, if utilised in a corrupt manner, can be highly damaging to individuals, families and society, as referenced in my submission to the IICSA.

I am in general agreement with the governments Children and Social Work Bill as it seeks to roll back some of the bureaucracy that has consistently failed to safeguard children and allows for more creative and community led responses. I am also aware of some of the changes recommended for policing and in agreement with the IPCC having greater independence and powers to oversee Police complaints, however, whilst this may be useful in the future, it is not helpful in the present context. Police are failing to investigate, Professional Standards take complaints out of all context, IPCC can’t do anything about it. This is not acceptable and people are being placed at immediate and direct risk of harm as a result. Children and whistleblowers are not being Safeguarded, which leads one to wonder what the Home Office Safeguarding role actually is? It appears Politicians intervene when it suits them, i.e. to terminate or avoid investigation, but don’t intervene when peoples lives are being placed in immediate danger. What is the point of having a home office safeguarding department if they fail to actually safeguard?

I have come to suspect that the personal and professional matters I have brought to the attention of authorities over the years (decades now) have not been investigated because there has indeed been political intervention. Inappropriate and corrupted political intervention, combined with use of procedures that are contrary to safeguarding.

On a final note, may I respectfully point out that you appear to have overlooked signing your name or stating your position within the home office on the letter.

Many thanks and regards

I await the response of the home-office safeguarding department.



Open Letter to Jeremy Corbyn

Sent: 15 January 2017 19:50
To: leader@labour.org.uk
Subject: Rule rigging in Labour

Dear Jeremy,

I write with the hope that I can bring to your attention, issues that became apparent during my recent membership of the Labour Party, which I have now cancelled. Primarily, the decision to leave Labour is a result of continued Lambeth corruptions, a failure to acknowledge the ongoing CSA problems and experiencing ill treatment as a whistleblower. However, I remain with significant concerns regarding wider political operations in the Labour Party, which appear to lend themselves to the continuation of child abuse. I do hope you can consider my reasons and the implications for Labour politics. Interestingly, your recent speech regarding rigging of the political system struck a real chord with me, “The people who run Britain have rigged the economy and business rules to line the pockets of their friends. The truth is the system simply doesn’t work for most people. Labour under my leadership stands for a complete break with this rigged system”.

Many will wish to aspire to these ideals, the ‘rigging’ in the system is not simply an economic issue, it is also a humanitarian one and it really does need to change. Ongoing and significant secrecy when exploring the factors and variables associated with VIP child abuse, is, arguably, an example of a self-serving application of the rules and ‘rigging’. The 100-year gagging order imposed by Tony Blair and Jack Straw in 2003 suppresses information from the biggest child abuse investigation ever undertaken in this country. MP’s and Lord’s (including Labour), hide behind the Official Secret’s Act for offences against children. Transparency in the operations of Parliament takes a back seat when it comes to politicians accused of child abuse, Labour MP Vaz, has, according to reports, utilized parliamentary privilege to avoid investigation or inquiry. Vaz has avoided investigation for some of the most abhorrent crimes known to humanity, any ordinary citizen, indeed, even a child, would likely be imprisoned for less. Are political operations and privileges preventing politicians (of all colours) from being investigated? Is there a rigging of the rules by politicians with a vested interest in covering-up child abuse? Or is it Labour’s Chief Whip that makes it all go away? With all due respect, this issue appears to be an ongoing problem in the Labour Party.

Why is Vaz still in Parliament and evading criminal inquiry? Could it be because the system is ‘rigged’? What are Labour doing about addressing political involvement in child abuse? Does parliamentary privilege enable avoiding investigation for child abuse? There has been systemic failure to address or prevent child exploitation, that systemic failure has thrived under Labour as well as Conservatives and Liberals. However, under Labour, numbers of children in the criminal justice system soared, forced adoptions soared and in the name of protecting children and preventing crime, many children were removed from their homes and simultaneously not protected, as demonstrated by the nationwide problem of child exploitation, grooming and criminality. This is not a legacy for any political party to be proud of. Unfortunately, Labour appear to be taking little visible action to address the problem in their own ranks. Cover-up appears the priority.

I am a long term resident of Lambeth, I am a registered social worker, turned whistleblower, Lambeth have demonstrated a particularly persistent problem with child exploitation and grooming (although Labour Lambeth appear to believe the corruptions are historical, I would suggest there is significant grounds to believe it is ongoing). Lambeth Labour corruptions, not unlike Vaz, evade full and proper investigation, local Labour politicians consistently fail to answer relevant questions about systemic operations. Police fail to investigate serious crimes, the Local Authority are inadequate in caring for children, the DWP suspend benefit of whistleblowers, we have the highest inequality rates in the UK, massive use of foodbanks, controversial ‘regeneration’ decisions and consistent and persistent abuses of power. Much of this is justified by pointing the finger of blame at the Tories and it doesn’t make sense. These combined operations, alongside failure to take responsibility, or to be held accountable, lend themselves to a significant problem of exploitation and abuse, which continues to thrive in this area. Any system only has the integrity of those implementing it, unfortunately I see little integrity in Lambeth Labour or in allowing child abuse allegations to go without full and proper investigation. Labour Lambeth are proving themselves complicit in supporting the very operations that lend themselves to the CSA problem. Vaz demonstrates a wider Party problem and a level of political acceptance to this type of insidious abuse.

The problem needs to be properly addressed, whilst the IICSA maybe going someway to explore the historical problem, examples like Vaz serve to prove the problem is current and ongoing. It’s not a ‘personal matter’ when MP’s adorn newspapers frolicking with prostitutes, when they demonstrate shady financial affairs and are accused of child abuse. Such examples of self-entitlement, exhibited by prominent Labour MPs, speak volumes, Vaz is an embarrassment to the Party, he shames not only parliament but the whole country. Until Labour can ensure the powerful in their party stop evading criminal investigation for the most degrading, demeaning and violating of crimes against our children, it is not feasible for those who campaign against child abuse, to remain. Crimes against children need to be effectively tackled, secrecy and cover-up is a failure to tackle the problem and colludes with its continuance.

Exploitation of children continues to be a problem in Lambeth, abuses of whistleblowers are also ongoing. Although the political rhetoric is warm, inclusive and convincing, the practice is far removed from this. I, like many, am deeply saddened by what has happened to children under a Labour leadership in Lambeth, but even more saddened by the reality that it continues to the current day without effective response from either Politicians, Police or the Labour Local Authority. Some Lambeth Labour politicians have expressed profound lack of confidence in the IICSA, whilst presenting themselves as saviours to the cause by offering compensation to historical victims. The Lambeth problem had a far wider reach than children in care and given the ongoing and persistent nature of the problem, the willingness of local politicians to point fingers of blame beggars belief. Compensating some of the historical victims is insufficient to address the current problem, compensation is an insult to those children who are currently being abused and exploited in Lambeth. Furthermore, political corruptions and abuses should not be paid for by the tax-payer. Warm words and platitudes from Labour leaders are not enough, we need to see proper investigation of the current problem. It is the lack of effective action and attempts to silence myself as a whistleblower, that have placed me in conflict with the Labour administration. It is not feasible to remain in the Party whilst subject to ongoing harassment. My life has been placed at risk, as has that of my family members, because I dared to speak out against the corruptions that allow for child abuse. This is profoundly wrong, whilst I recognise that the majority of people in the Labour Party do not believe that child abuse is acceptable, there is a sufficient level of corrupted bureaucracy as to facilitate unwitting collusion, much of it introduced under a Labour administration. It is difficult not to conclude, that the Labour leadership, doesn’t have a vested interest in maintaining this problem? The rules are indeed rigged!

I wish you luck in addressing the political rule rigging and hope this extends to the humanitarian issues as well as the economic ones and includes the child abusers in the Labour Party. Indeed I hope that Labour can work towards abolishing this type of abuse from and by individuals and networks operational within the party. In the meantime, it continues to create living hell for many and is a national embarrassment. Labour will bleed support from child abuse campaigners unless it takes real and effective action soon.

Many kind regards