Prime Minister,
Today we learn that the Dickens Dossier was circulated widely, according to Labour’s John Mann, and that there are bound to be copies out there just waiting for the holders to come forward and give their evidence. As he says, the Official Secrets Act is preventing them from doing so, so while you’re pushing your snooping law through an empty Parliament, you could also set up a mechanism to provide an exemption from the provisions of that Act in the case of this important document (https://www.aol.co.uk/article/2014/07/09/abuse-dossier-widely-circulated/20927565/)
Meanwhile, a Labour peer has escaped prosecution for his participation in paederasty, on the grounds that he suffers from dementia. We say to that, that if he is not fit to face enquiry under the law, then he is equally unfit to sit in the place where laws are made, and we demand that Parliament expels him forthwith. (https://uk.news.yahoo.com/were-paedophiles-heart-british-political-establishment-165221869.html)
Peter Wanless, head of the NSPCC has prevailed upon you to alter the law to make it a criminal offence for anyone in public employ to cover up cases or suspicions about child abuse. Interestingly, in the list of institutions that he mentions, he does not include Parliament. Do we take this to mean that he doesn’t want to rock the boat which is the enquiry in which he may soon be an officer, or is he saying that Parliament is ALREADY duty bound to make such reports? (https://uk.news.yahoo.com/westminster-child-abuse-nspcc-says-concealing-abuse-must-101111131.html) If the latter, why is Parliament still trying to cover up as much as it can of the issue, with shadowy figures attempting (and failing) to put the frighteners on a rightfully crusading MP, appointing retired judges whose own past is less than glossy, and sending a suspiciously ill-briefed Home Office official to face the Home Affairs Select Committee?
The whole thing stinks to high Heaven of a further cover up attempt, Prime Minister. Stop it. Now.
We’re hearing much, as a result of the ructions that have already occurred over the paedophile issue, about the police apparently working to protect the Establishment. It seems that those accusations might not be without foundation. The United Nations has just published a report which echoes what plenty of UK citizens have been saying for over three years now – that Iain Duncan Smith has been operating outside international laws that are entirely binding upon this nation’s government. (https://www.facebook.com/Grumblywuth/posts/1414151352059626) That means that he has been acting illegally and has brought Parliament’s reputation into disrepute. Add to that the recent internal judgement declaring Smith’s retrospective law changing as illegal and the picture drawn for the entire public to see is that of a criminal operating, out of of the Prime Minister’s control, at the very highest levels of government. So, perhaps the LMPS can explain to us – or maybe you can – why they have failed to arrest him and charge him according to the provisions of the valid laws? They are laws of which the senior ranks, at least, must be aware. Or is it the case that if you’re not a paedophile at the upper levels of the Establishment, including the police (according to Dr Jon Bird) then you’re either a cripple-basher or a collaborator in that equally vile activity? From what we’ve seen of the treatment by the police – notably at Westminster Abbey most recently – of vulnerable people, it’s far from difficult to believe the latter.
As usual, Smith has reacted in a manner indicating that he believes he can bury his illegal activities under a public rant, accusing the UN of being unelected and of getting their facts wrong. Considering Smith is a Minister in a government that was not elected, and that he has been repeatedly exposed for lying about statistics himself, it would seem that he is very much a pot calling a kettle black, yes? Given that the UN’s information was given to them by parties both concerned and adversely affected by the consequences of Smith’s flawed policies, it is reasonable to claim that the UN’s dissertation is far more reliable than anything that is ever likely to emerge from Smith’s mouth.
And finally, once again, I have to emphasise the unsuitability of Dame Elizabeth Butler Sloss for the role she has been given as the head of the enquiry into Parliamentary paedophilia/paederasty. I see in a news report today that she is refusing to quit as head of the enquiry. If that is the line she intends to stick to, the the Home Secretary must compel her to step down, and to blazes with the embarrassment factor. Labour needs to commit to not turning such a move into a political football – it is way more important than that. The woman failed in her duty as a judge when she neglected to corroborate evidence that she was given during a case. That’s not a minor error; that is the kind of major failing that can lead to miscarriages of justice. If that is the kind of ability that your office claims it can have faith in, then we would be right to wash our hands of the Parliamentary process and boycott all future elections, thereby denying you the percentage turnout that would, under Francis Maude’s way of thinking, make an election valid. Those rules work both ways, you see.
Sincerely,
Darren Lynch
