TIL Westminster was actively shielding pedophiles, and suspicious choices during the investigation may imply they still were as late as 2015.

Since the title sounds bold I will open with a quote from the official Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (found [here] (https://www.iicsa.org.uk/reports-recommendations/publications/investigation/westminster/part-k-conclusions-and-recommendations/k1-conclusions) )

>It is clear that there have been significant failures by Westminster institutions in their dealing with, and confrontation of, allegations of child sexual abuse. This has included not recognising it, turning a blind eye to it, **actively shielding and protecting perpetrators**, and covering up allegations of child sexual abuse.

I know it can be hard to keep up with long drawn out scandals that are barely mentioned in news cycles. When I looked into this I was horrified, and promptly began writing notes that I am regurgitating here.

>There is ample evidence that individual perpetrators of child sexual abuse have been linked to Westminster. There is no evidence to suggest an organised network of abusers in Westminster, or that individuals with a Westminster connection who sexually abused children were part of a coordinated, organised group.

There is most certainly ample evidence multiple child predators occupied high ranking political posts all suspiciously at the same time (to name a few [Cyril Smith] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_Smith#Allegations_of_child_sexual_abuse) an MP, [Greville Janner] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greville_Janner#Child_sexual_abuse_allegations) also an MP, [Peter Morrison] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Morrison#Allegations_of_child_abuse) a third MP, and [Peter Hayman] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hayman_(diplomat)) who was a diplomat and then according to the guardian deputy director of MI6). What troubles me is the suggestion there was no collusion between them, individual pedophiles who just happened to all be treated in the exact same way by senior police/prosecutors. What is worse, segments of their own evidence seem to clearly point to widespread knowledge of these acts among politicians and yet nothing was done. You would expect members of parliament (who claim to be honourable) to report rumours of crimes to the police, and in doing so perhaps sway them from their inaction, however they did not.

For the next piece of evidence, a 50 second clip (from the official inquiries evidence) of former Conservative Party whip, Trevor Fortescue, who was MP for Liverpool Garston from 1966 to 1974. He said this in a BBC interview in 1995 (more than fifteen years before Saville). [Here] (https://www.iicsa.org.uk/video/inq004083) is the official website and [here] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD70dxDuPyk) is a direct youtube link on the inquiries public channel. Here is also a transcript:

>Anyone with any sense, who was in trouble, would come to the whips and tell them the truth, and say, ‘Now, I’m in a jam, can you help?’ It might be debt, it might be … **a scandal involving small boys**, or any kind of scandal in which a member seemed likely to be mixed up in. They’d come and ask if we could help, and if we could, we did. And **we would do everything we can because** we would store up brownie points … and if I mean, that sounds a pretty, pretty nasty reason, but it’s one of the reasons because **if we could get a chap out of trouble then, he will do as we ask forever more** … ”

"Scandals involving small boys" effectively being swept under the rug and then used as blackmail to ensure political loyalty. I feel like this alone is a huge admission of guilt, they knowingly did "everything they [could]" to protect pedophiles.

The IICSA (the inquiry) did investigate this, but no one they spoke among other people who served as party whips "recalled" any reference to child sexual abuse. I say recalled because the investigation is suspiciously littered with legally safe memory based denials.

> Kenneth Clarke MP said that during his time in the whips’ office he “can’t remember any gossip or anything about small boys”

>Lord Jopling said that he had “no recollection from the period of the Pym Whips’ Office of any sort of scandal suggestion with regard to the abuse of children"

>Lord Arbuthnot "could not remember any criminal allegations that were made when he was chief whip or junior whip."

What irks me about these statements is that both Jopling and Clarke were MPs over the same time period as Peter Morrison (his wiki link is above) and while Arbuthnot became an MP later in Morrisons career there was still 4 years of overlap. The Inquiry has a lot of testimony around his child abuse and people close to parliament clearly stated Morrisons taste for small boys was well known, here are some examples:

>There had been rumours in Chester about Peter Morrison’s sexuality for many years. According to Grahame Nicholls, who was a lifelong trade unionist and Labour Party member, in the 1970s and 1980s the rumours that Peter Morrison liked “little boys” had been “rife”, and not only had he heard it but also “the political elite of Chester” knew the rumours. The political elite included the Conservatives.[2] By “little boys”, Mr Nicholls was talking about 11 to 17-year-olds. Mr Nicholls continued “Nobody did anything but everybody knew he had a way for young children”.[3] Mr Nicholls had also heard a particular rumour about an incident at Crewe railway station with a 15-year-old boy.[4]

> Christine Russell was the Labour Party election agent for Chester between 1986 and 1992 [...] She heard about an incident at Crewe railway station which, depending on who was telling the story, involved him being taken off a train for having **molested a boy** on the train or being arrested in the men’s toilets at the station, having indulged in some sexual activity with **young men**.

The use of the term "molested a boy" followed "sexual activity with young men" implies a distinction. Even if not everyone was saying it was pedophilia, some were and hearing the story multiple times implies wide discussion.

A letter to Sir Robert Armstrong, then Cabinet Secretary:

>Sir Antony wrote that a member of staff had heard from Donald Stewart, the Conservative agent for Westminster, that Peter Morrison had “a penchant for small boys”, which Mr Stewart had heard from two sources.

---

>Gyles Brandreth, who succeeded Morrison to become Conservative MP for Chester in 1992 [...] Mr Brandreth was told in no uncertain terms that Peter Morrison was “a monster who interfered with children”

---

> Patricia Green’s late husband, Ralph Green, was selected to stand for the Liberal Party in Chester in 1974 [...] they became aware that Peter Morrison had been involved in an incident on a train involving a boy. The allegation was that he had sexually assaulted the boy. [...] both Labour and the Liberal Party “were talking about the information, which was so strongly believed that a by-election was going to be proposed”. She thought news of the Crewe incident “was suppressed due to his privileged background”. Mrs Green added that rumours circulated about Peter Morrison’s behaviour during his time as an MP, suggesting that he took an unhealthy interest in young people.

More fuel on the fire that this was widely discussed. I won't post any more but the Inquiry confirmed that Margaret Thatcher (PM at the time) was informed by multiple sources BEFORE she appointed him as Deputy Chairman of the Party.

>that the Prime Minister was aware of the matter and she was supporting him. There is evidence to support his assertion that this was indeed the Prime Minister’s position. The statement and evidence before us of Lord Armstrong confirmed the Prime Minister had been aware of the continuing rumours since 1983

We also have a statement from Lord Armstrong:

>Lord Armstrong was asked by Counsel about the fact that neither MI5, the Cabinet Office, the Prime Minister nor the Conservative Party had reported Peter Morrison to the police, and was asked to consider, whether in retrospect, that had been the correct decision. His response was:

>“I thought that was correct at the time. I thought that the police had been aware … we knew from … what the Chief Whip had said in November 1983 that the police were aware of the affairs then and that they would presumably be following up that information if they needed to do so.”

Googling who the chief whip was in 1983 comes up with Jopling (one of the above with no recollection), but looking into it more closely, he was switched to agriculture minister a handful of months before this. Lord Wakeman was the conservative chief whip at the time and:

>In [a] written witness statement [...] Lord Wakeham [..] similarly denied knowledge of allegations of child sexual abuse.

So Lord Armstrong says the chief whip knew, and the chief whip denied it. This feels like a huge contradiction. What I find interesting is that when dealing with another pedophile Peter Hayman (wiki above; he was caught with child pornography but not charged) Lord Armstrong said:

> Clearly, I was aware of it at the time but I was not concerned with the personal aspect of it.

You can find this quote on his wiki [here] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Armstrong,_Baron_Armstrong_of_Ilminster#Allegations_of_child_abuse_'coverup') or [this] (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/call-for-inquiry-into-links-between-senior-civil-servant-sir-peter-hayman-and-paedophile-network-in-the-1980-s-10016125.html) independent article.

Finally to this I will add Lord Tebbit, who was the chairman of the party, with Morrison as his deputy at the in 1986/87, and whom Armstrong claims was aware of the rumours.

>at that time [I felt] it was more important to protect the system than to delve too far into them [Allegations of child abuse]. That view, I think, was wrong then and it is spectacularly shown to have been wrong because the abuses have grown”. He added “**there may well have been a big political cover-up**” related to child sexual abuse in the 1980s.

He said this on a TV interview [here] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mrmg6ICt-t0) discussing the very Inquiry that the interview is now evidence for, and how "the Home Office could not locate 114 potentially relevant files". To clarify, those are files relevant to child abuse. Now we are working towards modern cover ups of the child abuse.

In that video they mention how an MP named Geoffrey Dickens raised this at the time. He named Peter Hayman as a pedophile publicly in parliament, and stated (correctly) that Hayman had already been caught with child porn and yet hadn't been charged. He then compiled a dossier that detailed:

>a paedophile network involving "big, big names – people in positions of power, influence and responsibility" Dickens said in a speech to the Commons that paedophiles were "evil and dangerous" and that child pornography generated "vast sums".

[This] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_paedophile_dossier) wikipedia page is explicitly about a dossier he wrote and handed to an the Home secretary of the time Lord Brittan (as well as a second copy to the Director of Public Prosecutions, Thomas Hetherington).

>It was subsequently suggested by Brittan in a letter to Dickens that **his file would be given to police**; however, the police later stated they had no record of any investigation into the allegations. The Home Office confirmed that no correspondence from Dickens had been retained and that they had found "**no record of specific allegations by Mr Dickens of child sex abuse by prominent public figures**".

This dossier was just one of the 114 missing documents. It is also very much worth noting this dossier didn't disappear years later lost in some archive, **it disappeared before they were able to act on it**. That alone implies more than an accident, someone wanted it gone. Lord Brittain was a suspect in the dossiers disappearance, and while he isn't the only one, his name does crop up a lot and is worth keeping in mind.

Now I need to establish some context. Peter Hayman (wiki at the start, "long time deputy director of MI6") was a member of an extremist group known as the pedophile information exchange. There wiki is [here] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedophile_Information_Exchange). There is a much lengthier breakdown of the organisation inside the main published inquiry. To put it simply:

> For almost 10 years between 1974 and 1984, an organisation known as the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) operated across the UK. It openly campaigned for the lowering of the age of consent and made concerted efforts to normalise and justify sexual relationships between adults and children.

>In May 1978, PIE published a booklet entitled Paedophilia – Some Questions and Answers,[9] and distributed copies to every MP and peer in Parliament

Many of this groups members were found with child pornography and arrested. Dickens (mentioned above) had not yet compiled his dossier but instead went to the home secretary Lord Brittain to try to get this group banned. An official summary of the meeting was written up, where Brittain seemed open to the idea of a ban but wanted to effectively "wait and see" if current laws would handle it.

Here there is a VERY interesting absence in the official inquiry that becomes even more interesting later. [This] (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32992155) BBC article discusses a freedom of information request made by the BBC that had the official meeting documents made public.

>The BBC submitted the FOI request for these documents to be made public last summer, when the story of the "Dickens' dossier" made national headlines.

>Mr Dickens also reiterated calls for the law to be toughened up on dealing with pornographic material involving children.

>According to the meeting notes, Lord Brittan is said to have considered the **law on incitement of sexual activities with children to be "not so clear"** and a matter he would "want to look at" in the future.

That statement irks me. It could be innocent, but it could also easily be read as uncertainty on the matter.

Cut to 2014 Simon Danczuk is an MP and was doing an investigation into the child abuse of the MP Cyril Smith (his wiki was linked at the start). First he spoke out about the missing dossiers saying: