Despite claims from some of our politicians that they are in favour of the introduction of a Freedom of Information Act there is little evidence of any fervent enthusiasm for this. Would it really make a difference in any case? There will undoubtedly be exclusions – commercial confidentiality, national securtiy and no doubt “protection” for various groups will surely all play a part in restricting our access to information.

There may indeed be a few cases where secrecy is necessary. However, minutes should be kept of all government meetings. Yet we discover from a UK MP, no less, that high level meetings between the UK Justice Department and their island “counterparts” were not always recorded in the past

There are regular meetings between officials in the Ministry of Justice and their counterparts in the Isle of Man and it would not be possible to list each one. Some of these meetings have taken place in the Isle of Man, some in the Ministry of Justice and some in other Government Departments. In general no formal or permanent record of these meetings is kept and most often action points are agreed between the respective officials.

Full post:

This sounds very much like the Chatham House Rule so valued by Common Purpose. Why the secrecy? Do Common Purpose practices play a part in our government? Do we have Common Purpose graduates within government? This is essential information and should be openly available to the public. If a secret society is operating within the civil service then this cannot be ignored.

Blanket secrecy is merely one step beyond jargon. And the entire point of jargon is to baffle the bright inquisitor into believing that something quite simple is in reality unfeasibly complex. The recurring bleat of the security services when they have screwed up bigtime is that something must be kept secret “because the ordinary citizen cannot possibly comprehend what’s at stake”. About 10% of the time, I am persuaded to accept that. In the remaining 90% of cases, the only thing at stake is some incompetent bureaucrat’s pension.

Whether it was the original intention or not, secrecy breeds injustice: that ill-defined 10% of secrecy is necessary to protect the fluffy tendency from its own gullibility. But nine times out of ten, secrecy is a cloak to hide mediocrity, depravity, corruption, perversion, and every other form of moral weakness.

The article linked above is well worth reading.

(Taking the secrecy issue a step further the writer goes on to quote instances of cover-ups linked to paedophilia –  a topic that isn’t going away ):

I offer the following to you as facts, although a combination of gagging orders and libel laws mean I cannot type those facts which prove my claims beyond all reasonable doubt:

* In the south-west of England, Masonic influence in the judiciary has enabled serial paedophiles to get away with, literally, murder.

* In the West Midlands and North Yorkshire, endemic paedophilia hidden with the connivance of Common Purpose has kept many a Labour Party local government disgrace secret.

* In the Principality of Wales and the English Home Counties, both Common Purpose and the Masons have been implicated in the illegal protection of paedophiles from justice. In one case, some of the most powerful legislators and administrators in the Land have found themselves the helpless victims of blackmail in this regard

The bottom line is that only we can put a stop to unncessary secrecy. If we don’t demand it then our MHKs will assume that they and their pensions are safe for another term.



Is it too much to expect ministers to be in charge and accountable? This is the question posed by a letter writer in The Examiner. At last this is being questioned publicly within mainstream. Of course, I doubt that IOM Newspapers will be clamouring to investigate the matter but it is encouraging to see that this issue is receiving attention.

The lengthy letter (I would include the writer’s name but he might not appreciate forever appearing on Google searches) lays out the writer’s insights into child protection on the island. That is to say it happens on the island but:

The island’s child protection guidance and instructions now reach our frontline social workers from a UK website. This website has become the only authentic source for the correct behaviour when dealing with children at risk or perceived to have a welfare concern.

Yes, folks this is democracy today. You vote for a puppet it seems. The writer asks when ministers will seize back control and adds ‘ Is it too much to expect ministers to be in charge and accountable?’.

The letter is well worth reading (not that I particularly wish to boost the sales of an otherwise weak and watery publication). The writer details the extent to which civil servants have taken over and how ministers are left with little influence on affairs.

Prior to Chris Robertshaw’s re-election he spoke out publicly about the state of affairs in government and how he had observed a “copy and paste from UK legislation” method of work. Now it seems his hands are tied. But is he also gagged? It is quite obvious that ministers are ‘advised” by civil servants. (And I have heard it stated that some ministers don’t like to take on the risk of litigation if they ignore advice) Why don’t they speak out and tell the public how things really function in the IOM Government? Could it be because they wish to retain their position and pension?

Please consider this: If our ministers are not in control and if we have imported social workers who follow instructions from a UK website provided by unelected and unanswerable persons in the UK then how far down the road are we? Far too far. Worse still, how many of these are Common Purpose graduates? If ministers are little more than puppets then we need to get our hands on the strings and rein them in. Exactly when and how did we lose control of our right to self-government?


Files containing affidavits and statements from those claiming to have been abused by Cyril Smith disappeared. The Director of Public Prosecutions decided it would not be in the public interest to pursue the complaints.

There’s a pattern to this, isn’t there? The knighted single male who raised money for such things as a Youth Hostel,  to which he retained the keys enabling him to come and go as he pleased, was the subject of investigations and complaints. Yet it seems the Establishment was happy not to press charges. A knighthood seemed more appropriate?

We know that the Establishment has been less than honest in dealings with prominent paedophiles in the past. Looking at present day issues we don’t exactly see David Cameron falling over himself to investigate institutional child abuse  – and abusers. Do you think today’s Establishment is squeaky clean and beyond reproach? Why should things be any different now? Frankly, if politicians were suspected of paedophilia it seems likely that this would be  ignored and covered up today as well. (Going by past form). Prove me wrong! Aside from the negative publicity – and goodness knows where trails might lead – there is the possibility that the manipulated might be exposed. The last remaining taboo is surely the achilles heel of those who abuse children.

many of those involved in the case — police,  victims,  lawyers — believe the orders not to press charges came from the  top, with Harold Wilson and Jim Callaghan, Labour Prime Ministers during  different parts of the police probe, being involved in signing off decisions not  to press ahead with charges so as not to upset their  Liberal  allies.

Recent events prove that such allegations  must be treated with all due caution — which is why the contents of those   police files take on such great significance. So  where are the police  documents now? Nobody knows — yet.

But what is certain is that, if there was an  Establishment cover-up on behalf of Big Cyril, it is slowly but surely starting  to unravel.

Read more: Follow us: @MailO

Edwina Currie — a junior health minister in the Thatcher government — spelled it out, in black and white, in her diaries which were published in 2002.

‘One appointment in the recent reshuffle,’ she wrote, ‘has attracted a lot of gossip and could be very dangerous: Peter Morrison has become the PM’s PPS [Parliamentary Private Secretary].

‘Now he’s what they call a “noted pederast”, with a liking for young boys. He admitted as much . . . when he became deputy chairman of the party  but added: “However, I’m  very discreet” — and he  must be!’

‘She [Thatcher] either knows and is taking a chance, or doesn’t; either way, it’s a really dumb move. It scares me, as all the Press know, and as we get closer to the election, someone is going to make trouble very close to her indeed.

Institutionalised abuse has to be rigourously investigated. Politicians who abuse children must be outed – not protected.


The spotlight briefly hit the issue of children in care but was soon dimmed by BBC and ITV obediently coughing up the money demanded from them for not mentioning a name. Running scared it seems they have conveniently removed themselves from the child care issue. The topic is a minefield that is simply too dangerous to cover. That appears to be the message. Is that how much concern we have for highly vulnerable children?

While there may have been some inept attempts to name those involved in the children in care scandals this cannot be used as a reason to ignore the issue. These children have no lobby. Who gives a fig if they are abused? Not many it seems. While the broadcasters ensure that the topic is successfully killed off the issue remains uninvestigated. Hard cheese – we have to protect ourselves. This seems to be the response from the system.

While Michael Gove is suggesting that the system should intervene earlier and with fewer restrictions in order to remove children from their parents no one appears to be very interested in ensuring that the children are safe in “care”.  With reports that Cyril Smith effectively avoided prosecution despite sworn affidavits from victims etc. we can see that the system is incapable of investigating well-heeled paedophiles.

In 1979, Sir Cyril Smith was accused by Rochdale Alternative Pressof abusing boys at a children’s home.

Smith, who had freemason connections, announced that he was going to sue for libel.
Lord Boothby, Prime Minister John Major and others successfully sued for libel when accused of sexual misbehaviour.
People shut up and Smith was able to continue his political career.
“There is a worrying increase in the number of times children in foster care go missing,” said John Goldup, the Ofsted Deputy Chief Inspector, introducing the report.
It seems that we are in the dark about so much of what goes on in the child care area. Where is the outcry from the broadcasters and other media sources to properly investigate the situation? While the establishment seemingly sweeps things under the carpet because of fears of what might be revealed it is surely the duty of the media to spotlight this. The McAlpine issue is no reason to abandon the focus on institutional child abuse and thereby permit this situation to continue under media silence. Children in care need a voice. Our local experience tells us that children are not necessarily safer in care.


Quick, look over there at those non-white child abusers! Gangs work together. Claims have been made that non-whites see other races as being of lower standing and therefore target white girls. However, these claims are followed by the news that there is no real evidence to substantiate the stories. Some might see the above as racist slurs and in our politically correct climate it is quite astounding that such unproven stories have hit the headlines. However, while the sheeple devour these stories they are obviously not questioning the establishment and prominent personalities and the possibility of paedophiles from the political arena. Smoke and mirrors.

The stories focus on girls and gangs. No mention of boys, care homes and well-heeled abusers. Why is there a reluctance to pursue these investigations? Possibly because no-one is sure how far-reaching the consequences for the establishment:

The reason why our Westminster legislators are running away from the issue yet again is because they have no idea where this trail of slime will lead.

And last but not least, the reason why our security services are heavily involved is because they have no idea whether paedophiles in their midst have been turned on the basis of foreign blackmail.

These are all incredibly powerful reasons for keeping the lid on things. The reason is rarely a conspiracy of evil. The overwhelming motive is terror of the collateral damage that might be done by the unpredictability of the explosion.

But while those protecting the perpetrators may not be evil (if indeed anyone is) their methods will be ruthless. The entire social contract between government and citizen could be blown apart. Or not. The thing is, nobody knows.

What we have here is the equivalent of a 400 megaton nuclear UXB. What we therefore also have is those in charge wishing to bury it elsewhere a long way from them….and shooting anyone who tries to stop them. I’m serious about this:



Yes, there has indeed been a lack of local items on the blog of late. They have taken a back seat to reports of paedophilia amongst politicians (no, I didn’t the mention the “M” word –  I’m referring to politicians in general ) and mainstream reports of Common Purpose’s opaque involvement in UK government affairs. Both of thses items are undoubtedly Isle of Man government related in the sense that we import a large number of civil servants and generally do as requested by Big Brother next door. In other words we are not immune to any matters affecting the UK. Far from it.

Do we have Common Purpose graduates in our government? The question has been asked before. Are we importing ideas from Common Purpose graduates? Following the mainstream attention (a number of nationals picked up on this issue) to this organisation and its influence on UK affairs it is crucial to maintaining any form of democracy that we have an answer to these questions. After all the media reports describe a less than transparent organisation  which sells its courses to the UK government to the tune of thousands of pounds per graduate. Our cash-strapped government would never do things like that though. The government is always careful with our money – as evidenced by the film industry involvement and our getting such a good deal with Atos.

No idea to what extent we are involved, did you say? That’s another reason for the dearth of local news stories. Much of what could be discussed is either subjudice or confidential. It is simply farcical to tell us that we have a democracy when we elect members who seem to be ruled by advisors. Our attempts to gain a glimpse of what goes on behind the scenes are then frequently scuppered owing to secrecy clauses and little will to reveal details, or so it seems.

Freedom of Information? We’ll believe that when we see it. In the meantime it might be worth attempting to receive a response to the Common Purpose question. There again, we frequently hear references to lack of evidence, inferring that the matter is imagined. However, this should not be confused with evidence of lack.


North Yorkshire Police and Jimmy Savile : How much did they know?

From – –

Corruption Buster Tim Hicks blows the whistle on the North Yorkshire SAVILE COVER-UP

In a recent article in the Sunday Express, a senior Officer of the North Yorkshire Police commented that he would be “completely staggered” if the Savile allegations did not spread north.

Inevitably, they have.

Real Whitby has already published three articles on the subject; herehere – and here.  In summary, by collating information from open sources and obtaining information from local people, Real Whitby investigative-journalists have identified eight locations in Scarborough and one in Whitby that were associated with Savile and the paedophile-ring of influential people that he operated there for over forty years.

It would appear that four of these locations are unknown to the police. The single location in Whitby still exists and is alleged to have had a whipping-post in it.

Also, a member of the public has used the ‘comments’ section of one Real Whitby article, to provide information on an alleged male rape by Savile, in which he was assisted by others of his circle.

Given the lack of interest or support from North Yorkshire Police, this information has been passed to Operation Yewtree via the NSPCC

On Wednesday the 14th November, two of Savile’s associates were arrested by Greater Manchester Police for rape; thus supporting the allegation made in Real Whitby that Savile and his entourage were involved in rape.

Since North Yorkshire Police are known to monitor Real Whitby, it seems reasonable to conclude that it is aware of our articles and the evidence we have amassed.

One would think that the existence of a room with torture equipment, in a location known to be frequented by a gang of paedophiles, would have been of interest to Whitby Police – particularly as there is reason to believe that some of the people involved in these matters may still be alive and, if so, could be arrested and prosecuted. Yet North Yorkshire Police has not contacted us for assistance.

According to another Sunday Express article, ace Yorkshire investigative-journalist Mark Branagan (who broke the Scarborough Borough Council corrupt procurement fiasco involving the High-Point-Rendel sea-defence contract in 2005), has confirmed that North Yorkshire Police have not even searched Savile’s apartment in Wessex Court, Scarborough.

Yet Strathclyde Police consider his house in Glencoe is a key crime scene in their investigation into offences committed there! Why can’t the good people of Scarborough rely on the same high standards of investigation as those of Strathclyde?

This lack of any North Yorkshire Police investigation or interest in the Savile case is perplexing and deeply concerning, particularly considering the high profile of the case and the local impact.

On the 10th and 11th of October, two victims came forward to report serious sexual abuses by Savile in the late-’60s and late-80s, respectively.

Yet an article in the Daily Express on the 24th of October states:

  • “Yesterday North Yorkshire Police insisted they had no record of an investigation into the star.”

On the 31st of October, a statement published by North Yorkshire Police on its website read:

  • “When the allegations surrounding Jimmy Savile were publicised, we carried out extensive searches of force records which did not reveal a local connection. However, following the coverage, two women came forward about alleged offences committed by Savile that occurred in Scarborough in the the late 60s and late 80s.”

Clearly, North Yorkshire Police are denying all knowledge of the paedophile-ring that Savile and his high-profile associates (including his worship the Mayor of Scarborough, Councillor Peter Jaconelli) – collectively known as ‘The Club’ – are alleged to have run for over forty years in Scarborough and Whitby.

Curiously, the link to North Yorkshire Police website on which the statement “we carried out extensive searches of force records which did not reveal a local connection”  has been revised and now declares only that two women have now come forward to make allegations.

The denial that North Yorkshire Police were aware of any local connection has been completely removed!

What can be the explanation for this apparent about-face by North Yorkshire Police?

The Real Whitby investigative-journalists have constantly maintained that it must have been impossible for the North Yorkshire Police – in Scarborough or Whitby – to have been ‘unaware’ of Savile’s activities, or those of the other high-profile members of his paedophile-ring.

The Express has arrived at the same conclusion, running not one but two articles alleging that North Yorkshire Police knew that Savile was targetting under-age girls for sex, and stating that during a major paedophile investigation in Scarborough in 2003, members of the public were questioned by Scarborough Police about Jimmy Savile’s involvement in it.

I do not agree with speculation, but it would therefore appear to me that the only conceivable reason the above statement exonerating North Yorkshire Police of any knowledge of the Savile ring (or “club” as it was apparently known in Whitby) has been removed, is because they fear it may no longer be tenable in the light of comments by the Express and Real Whitby, and, in fact, force records did reveal a local connection, which the police ignored.

I have asked North Yorkshire Police for an explanation but they have not responded.

The Daily Mail and The Times have recently run ‘must-read’ articles alleging that Savile had extensive social contacts with the Police and met with them regularly; their social group was also known as a “club”.  Savile is also alleged to have routinely bribed Police Officers and to have used a policeman as his bodyguard, a practice strictly prohibited by Police disciplinary rules, but which was nevertheless permitted.

These allegations concern West Yorkshire Police and other forces, not North Yorkshire Police.  However, it is clearly a concern that this was obviously part of his modus operandii to evade Police action and it is not impossible that he employed it equally successfully wherever he committed offences.

It certainly seems strange that if indeed senior police officers investigating a suspected paedophile ring operating around seafront arcades in Scarborough in the 1980s had concerns that Jimmy Savile may have been involved.  Although his name was repeatedly mentioned to the 2003 investigation team, Savile was never quizzed over targeting under-age girls for sex between 1982 and 1986.

It is also strange that no-one from the North Yorkshire Police said anything two years later, in 2005, when the proposal that Savile should receive the accolade of being appointed Honorary Freedom of the Borough of Scarborough proceeded through Council without impediment – particularly as Councillor Tom Fox had been the Acting Chief Inspector running Scarborough Police until his retirement and in fact actually presided over the awarding of this accolade in his new rôle as Councillor and Leader of Scarborough Borough Council.

Why would that be?

I think we should be told.



John Hemming MP adds his wieght to the argument that we must listen to children. His blog contains revealing detail, links etc. He reminds us to keep focused on the real issues. With references to the Jersey non-investigation as well as other care home scandals, his blog is well worth reading:

I echo what has been said about listening to victims; whoever they are criticising, they must be listened to.

It is unfortunate that the statue of a naked 13-year-old boy on the front of Broadcasting House was carved by someone who abused children. However, this is not about the BBC; it is the children who matter the most. The BBC does not matter, dead celebrities do not matter, mistaken identities do not matter in the same way; what really matters is that children should be expected to be safe in the control of the state. These children are the most vulnerable because they do not have the protection of their parents and depend entirely on the state.
We must remember that the Isle of Man care system doesn’t evidence best protection for those in care – not in the past anyway. Yet the department wishes to continue with new and unknown working practices and a secret database not overseen by the Data Protection Officer.


Have you noticed the smoke and mirrors? It’s only deceased DJs and past-their-sell-by-date celebrities who have indulged in paedo parties? Just look at all these debauched has-beens. Keep looking – while the media quietly slips any references to politicians or blue-bloods out of the headlines.

Hold on there though. There are still so many references to widescale and organised paedophile rings. The claims are that politicians were amongst the abusers. Are the police actively investigating, I wonder?

Don’t worry – the media is already on the trail of Doncaster social services and the appallingly poor record they have earned themselves. This would of course be the perfect moment for Michael Gove to pop up and demand that more children be put into care. Not so quickly! While some children undoubtedly require protection from violent or totally inadequate parenting we need to remember that the state already has more than enough powers in respect of children. Secret courts, D notices, sectioning whistleblowers etc.

These proposals can’t be swept along in a tide of public anger. More transparency and safeguards are ugently needed. Put them in care? That will require even more care homes and fostering and it seems that the state isn’t actually the best parent anyway. How do we know who we are dealing with?

We are programmed to fear the next Ted Bundy, or “lone nut” stalking our
neighborhood, but we would do better to scrutinize more closely those to whom we pay our taxes and falsely look up to as protectors — they are stalking the planet … and they are doing it in packs. These are “people” who have no problem lying their country into war, bombing the innocent on a routine basis, and tanking economies on purpose. It is a matter of policy to starve entire populations into submission without a second thought. And apparently those are the least of their crimes.

However, before we can council our children, as adults we need to grow up ourselves. It is not a type of awakening that should produce fear and paranoia, but rather an admission that we are much better, and more capable of directing the course of our lives and communities than those who have been officially charged with the task. We also must admit to
ourselves that the strangers to whom we have acquiesced our power are being revealed as stranger than we ever could have imagined.

Read more: