Today: making money and missing kids, Cyril Smith investigation Risen from the Dead, and how the MoD ignores the abuse of army-heroes’ children
This edition looks at just three of the many different motives behind the under-reporting and otherwise covering-up of child sex exploitation. Sometimes it’s money – big money. Sometimes it’s Establishment fear of where the trail might lead. And at other times, it may be nothing more than callous idleness. The Slog investigates.
Every year, many thousands of children are taken into care. In the vast majority of cases, this happens because their home life is hopelessly dysfunctional. But in some cases – a disturbing number of cases – it happens as part of a monied process of trafficking vulnerable children into a care system that has been compromised by paedophile penetration. If you drill into the numbers here, apply that to the money involved – and then relate it all in turn to the dozens of recorded cases of organised systemic child molestation – it’s not hard to deduce what’s going on. Conspiracy invention has nothing to do with it.
The Secret Family Courts and the Court of Protection are in camera areas of the law from which serious media coverage is barred. On five separate occasions since 2004, government Ministers and agents of the judiciary have promised to reverse that situation, and reform the system. None of it has come to pass. No sane observer of the system can any longer deny that it has and still is being used as a supply source for sadistic perverts. To my mind it is the biggest unrevealed scandal in Britain. But the bubbles in Westminster and the national media continue to throw ageing minor-league celeb gropers and cadavers to the wolves.
Slough Council recently installed a new Fostering Allowance Scheme. It gives foster parents £400 a week to do the job. Every year, 10,000 children disappear from the care system. That latter figure comes from the June 2012 All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Runaway and Missing Children and Adults and the APPG for Looked-after Children and Care Leavers report of their joint inquiry into children who go missing from care.
Yet the previous year, the official figure for 2011 was 930 children missing. That’s a 90% understatement of the problem. It’s a cover-up, isn’t it? No? Administrative error? What, like all the administrative errors to do with forty years of quietly closed police enquiries, shredded council reports in Wrexham of Welsh care home abuse, and four false starts in the Richmond/Elm House scandal you mean? The banishment of a senior Cabinet Minister to Brussels in the 1980s was a coincidence, was it? Thatcher’s close aide being a known paedophile? Cyril Smith’s fun and games being widely known but ignored? This is all being blown out of proportion by paranoid sex-crime obsessives is it?
OK, let’s continue. In March 2011, the Department of Education said that just 0ver 27,000 children had been taken into care that year – and it was a slight fall. But the BBC’s Katherin Sellgren discovered six months later that the total figure was 65,520 – and on the increase. So each year – if that intake was average, as it seems to have been – there’s a 45% turnover of kids going in and then coming out. That seems like a remarkable success story.
Well, bear this in mind. The majority (48,530) of children looked after in 2011 were in a foster placement: only 7,910 were cared for in residential accommodation such as secure units, children’s homes, hostels and residential schools. But 10,000 kids disappear every year. That is 35% of all kids going in. There is obviously something odd going on here, is there not?
Let me write it out again. 27,000 kids go in, 10,000 disappear, there’s a 45% turnover – and 84% wind up in foster care. Now take that thought, and hold it in the context of government under-reporting the disappearances by 90%. Then add all that to the context below.
As we saw earlier, foster carers get £400 per week per child. But in another piece, Sellgren reports that, based on figures submitted by Family Information Services, average weekly costs of private care for children of all ages rose from £85.93 per child in 2011 to £90.97 in 2012. I recognise that the two costs – £400 and £90 – aren’t directly comparable. But £400 a week for a foster parent is £57 a day. That’s a lot. Is there money in this for other people too? There certainly is.
The National Fostering Agency may sound like a quango, but it is an entirely private company. The second biggest UK fostering company, it has 13 offices monitoring the foster-carers of 178 local authorities. It has 200 staff. The Chief Executive is a man called Iain Anderson. Since his arrival in 2008, profits have risen by 35% every year. That’s some track record. So good, in fact, that it attracted a takeover by Graphite Capital in January 2012. For just over £130m.
And now, back to the numbers. 200 staff monitoring the foster carers of 178 local authorities….from just 13 offices. Slightly over 1 staff member per Council. 50,000 fostering homes in the UK. 10,000 kids a year in care go missing. Right then. This is beginning to look more like a very good motive indeed for lying about how many kids went missing. If you follow.
I’m still investigating this case, in which it is perfectly possible that there is nothing amiss. Either way, if you have any substantive information to offer, the usual email applies, jawslog@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Things seem to be settling into a familiar pattern between Plod and powerful paedophiles. It goes like this: Plod reluctantly reopens the last cover-up they quietly stuck away in a files 20 years ago. They f**k about for a bit half-heartedly, and after a short time (when the media have gone back to sleep) stop doing anything active. Then the Exaro team accuse the police of closing the investigation, and the Bluebottles issue a denial and do something new to take the heat off their backs.
At last in Rochdale, some results are emerging. But we are living in a State where the media wind the police up, and the Establishment wind them down as soon as they start accusing anyone powerful. It is not the most healthy state of affairs for a Parliamentary democracy to tolerate. This feeling is only made more intense by the filth that does emerge, as it’s clear that Plod obviously knew about it all along.
In just the week since the Rochdale Rozzers were hoofed up the rear by Exaro et al, new abuse suspects have emerged, many of whom seem to have been known to Cyril, the LibDem who has turned out to have been anything but a Nice One. The Manchester Evening News reports today that three sexually abused boys formerly at Knowl View school have given police the names of ten alleged perpetrators, and remarkably not all of them are dead.
Only eight days ago, Detective Chief Superintendent Mary Doyle of the GMP issued a statement saying “Since last year, we have only had a very small number of people come forward to report any abuse by Sir Cyril Smith”. The assumption being, presumably, that Big Cyril was the only paedophile in the Manchester approved school and care home system.
On 14th May, The Slog was emailed by an anonymous abuse victim claiming that higher authorities has told the civilian police to “call off their dogs” in relation to Smith.
Knowl View was shut down in 1994 after a dossier detailing abuse was handed to police. Smith was a major name in the dossier, but no action was ever taken against him. At the time, the Liberal leadership dismissed it as “harmless bottom-smacking”. However, those now getting their hopes up should note this rather significant wording in the MEN piece: ‘Officers are actively investigating the whereabouts of the others, although no arrests have been made.’ Alors, plus ça change et plus reste la même chose.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yesterday, Labour MP Madeleine Moon and others were described as ‘stunned’ by the Exaro team as the MoD admitted it had forced some children of services personnel to stay at schools despite well-documented complaints of sexual abuse. Although Exaro says this raises ‘further questions’ as to how the authorities treat accusations of child sex exploitation, my only question remains, “What on earth would the motive be for someone in authority to do that?” The options available are:
1. The MoD are the worst examples in Whitehall of self-serving bastards who would rather see Britain defenceless than reduce their staff headcount. In short, they can’t be arsed.
2. They ignored the complaints because that might cause the media to get involved and then a cover-up might be discovered.
If that seems simplistic, then either I or you are disconnected from reality. While I realise that seeing the media as The Real Enemy is endemic in British government today, that attitude surely cannot be blamed for a secret report being ignored. Can it? To use ‘framing’ in the modern American sense, the British Establishment has done a remarkable job of persuading the vast majority of ‘ordinary’ people that rumour, innuendo, and anti-social elements are being used to pin guilt upon entirely innocent people in authority. In which case, what is this shadowy terrorist group doing the using? Answer comes there none. Yet almost everyone believed McAlpine was just a harmless old bloke in a flat cap with no intention of spinning anything in a desired direction.
I tried to argue in my previous Paedofile post that a huge factor in all this is the unwillingness of Mr and Mrs Ordinary to face up to the depravity in our midst. We don’t like talking about child-buggery. Thus, child-buggery flourishes. I have said from the outset that the hooking of just one big fish beyond show business would start to make a difference. I still think that. I’m sure that a great many dedicated Plods want that. The trouble is, not many security agencies and politicians want it.
Last night at The Slog: Britain gripped by terrorist terror as two nutters terrorise Woolwich
