Saturday, 12 July 2014

FUQQ.EU: Keith Vaz MP Why did Keith Vaz try to change the Law to conceal allegations of child abuse?

At the time of writing this post Keith Vaz MP is Chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee of the House of Commons.

On Monday 14th July the Home Affairs Select Committee is due to take evidence from the Home Secretary Theresa May.

A few days ago the Home Affairs Select Committee gave Home Office Permanent Secretary, Mark Sedwill an easy ride, not least in failing to establish the identity or organisational affiliation(s) of the man who conducted an "investigation" into 114 missing Home Office files relating to alleged child abuse.

However, there are unanswered questions about Keith Vaz's past actions with respect to alleged child abuse.

1. Keith Vaz was a solicitor employed by Richmond Council. A Richmond Council children's home allegedly supplied boys to the Elm Guest House. What, if anything, did Keith Vaz know or do with respect to alleged child abuse while employed by Richmond Council?

2. Keith Vaz then went on to be a solicitor for Islington Council. Unresolved allegations of child abuse remain with respect to Islington Council children's homes. What, if anything, did Keith Vaz know or do with respect to alleged child abuse while employed by Islington Council?

3. In 1991 Keith Vaz sought to change the Law to prevent the public knowing about allegations of child abuse made in open court? Why did Keith Vaz do so?

See Contempt of Court
for the Hansard record of what Keith Vaz said in 1991.

It seems to me to be likely that a predictable effect of a change in the Law of a kind such as proposed by Keith Vaz would not only "protect the innocent" but also protect the guilty from any public scrutiny.

Friday, 11 July 2014

Child abuse: Was the Home Office-commissioned "investigator" a member of the Security Services?

On 7th July 2014 the Home Secretary promised "maximum transparency" with respect to investigation of allegations of child abuse.

Mark Sedwill, Permanent Secretary at the Home Office, then proceeded to refuse to disclose to the Home Affairs Select Committee of the House of Commons the identity of the "investigator" who carried out a supposed investigation into missing Home Office files.

Worryingly the Home Affairs Select Committee didn't insist that Sedwill disclose the information.

Was the "investigator" a member of the Security Services?

Did the Home Affairs Select Committee tacitly agree that the public shouldn't be made aware of the answer to that question?

It is obvious that Mark Sedwill's interpretation of "maximum transparency" has little or no credibility.

Was the Sedwill-commissioned "investigation" any more than the Security Services covering up issues it wished to remain hidden?

These and other questions about the arguably willfully feeble Sedwill-commissioned "investigation" won't go away.

These and other aspects of Sedwill's evidence make me think it would be better if Mark Sedwill proved to be Temporary Secretary at the Home Office, rather than Permanent Secretary.

Sedwill's secretive and obstructive approach undermines any supposed credibility that the Home Office has in this serious matter.

Tuesday, 8 July 2014

What does "unimpeachable" mean with respect to the Chair of inquiries?

Yesterday at the Home Affairs Select Committee Mark Sedwill, Permanent Secretary at the Home Office, stated this in response to a question about the appropriateness of the appointment of Lady Butler-Sloss as Chair of the inquiry into Child Abuse:
She is a woman of unimpeachable integrity.
See, for example, Questions over choice of Butler-Sloss as head of child abuse allegations inquiry

On the surface, at least, this could be reassuring.

At least it could be reassuring if one wasn't aware that Lord Falconer stated that Lord Hutton was
a senior judge of unimpeachable standing
See, for example, Lord Chancellor under inquiry

Many of us realise that a judge of "unimpeachable standing", such as Lord Hutton, is entirely capable of conducting an inquiry that is a whitewash.

I would go further.

I believe that the "unimpeachable" Lord Hutton perverted the course of justice with respect to the true cause of Dr. David Kelly.

See, for example, The Death of Dr. David Kelly - Did Lord Hutton deliberately conceal the murder of Dr. David Kelly?

Whether you accept that or view Lord Hutton's report as merely a "whitewash" or having criminal intent it seems to me that a claim of an individual being "unimpeachable" is no guarantee of an honest inquiry being conducted.

I wrote to the Home Secretary yesterday asking her to require Lady Butler-Sloss to resign due to visible conflicts of interest.

See Is Lady Butler-Sloss an appropriate person to head the Child Abuse Inquiry?

I stand by the view that if the Child Abuse Inquiry is to have any credibility then Lady Butler-Sloss must resign as its Chair.

The conflicts of interest are too serious for her to have any credible role as Chair of the Inquiry.

Is Lady Butler-Sloss an appropriate person to head the Child Abuse Inquiry?

Below is the text of a letter sent by email a short time ago to the Home Secretary, Theresa May MP, requesting that Lady Butler-Sloss be required to resign as Chair of the Child Abuse Inquiry.



8th July 2014

Theresa May MP,
Home Secretary (by email)

Dear Home Secretary,


Request that Lady Butler-Sloss be required to resign as Chair of the Child Abuse Inquiry due to obvious conflict of interests


Today the Home Office announced that Lady Butler-Sloss was to be appointed as Chair of the Child Abuse Inquiry that you announced in the House of Commons on 7th July 2014.


I write to ask that you require Lady Butler-Sloss to resign as Chair of the Inquiry.


I make that request since Lady Butler-Sloss cannot credibly continue as Chair of the Inquiry due to obvious conflicts of interests:


  1. Lady Buttler-Sloss is, I understand, sister of Lord Havers who while Attorney General defended the non-prosecution of disgraced diplomat Sir Peter Hayman. Lord Havers was, so I understand, also the target of severe criticism by the late Geoffrey Dickens MP with respect to issues relating to paedophilia. The potential conflict of interest of Lady Butler-Sloss playing any part in the Child Abuse Inquiry is so obvious as not to require any elaboration by me.
  2. One allegation is that the judiciary was party to child abuse and/or its concealment. It is, in my view, wholly perverse to appoint a retired member of the judiciary to have any involvement in the Inquiry Panel
  3. A further allegation is that politicians were party to child abuse and/or its cover-up. It is therefore, in my view, wholly perverse to appoint a member of the House of Lords to have any involvement in the Inquiry Panel
I ask that you give this important matter your urgent attention.


Yours sincerely


(Dr) Andrew Watt

Cc Keith Vaz, Home Affairs Select Committee