Is Lord (Brian) Hutton a paedophile?

Below is the text of a letter sent to the Child Abuse Inquiry today by email relating to long-standing allegations that Lord (Brian) Hutton is a paedophile.

Some months ago I had written to both the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Historical Institutional Abuse Inquiry.

Each of the PSNI and the HIAI has indicated they will investigate.

6^th June 2015

Child Abuse Inquiry

[By email]

Dear Sir/Madam,

Is Lord (Brian) Hutton a paedophile?

I am writing to ask that the Child Abuse Inquiry conduct an investigation of the retired Law Lord, Lord (Brian) Hutton.

The allegations of which I am aware are to the effect that Lord Hutton was a paedophile in Northern Ireland.

In that context I enclose copies of my letter of 5^th November 2014 to Chief Constable Hamilton of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and my letter of the same date to Sir Anthony Hart of the Historical Institutional Abuse Inquiry which explain the background, as I understand it.

You will see from those letters that the allegations of paedophilia relating to Lord Hutton trace back to a former senior BBC executive and were extant at least as far back as 2007.

As stated in my letters I considered it best that any attempt to trace the source of the allegations regarding Lord Hutton to their source should be carried out by PSNI and/or HIAI.

I received acknowledgements from both the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Historical Institutional Abuse Inquiry.

Paedophile activities on the mainland?

The allegations which I reported to PSNI/HIAI relate to alleged paedophile activity by Lord Hutton in Northern Ireland.

Given that Lord Hutton was resident in Great Britain while a student at Oxford and, I assume,  for at least some of the time following his appointment as a Law Lord the possibility exists that he was active as a paedophile within the geographical scope of the Child Abuse Inquiry.

Suspected perversion of the course of justice

In addition, I am concerned that Lord Hutton’s (alleged) paedophilia may have contributed to grave and very possibly deliberate failures in the Hutton Inquiry.

I became aware of the allegations of paedophilia regarding Lord Hutton only shortly before I wrote in November 2014 to Chief Constable Hamilton and Sir Anthony Hart.

However, long before that I had reached the conclusion that Lord Hutton had perverted the course of justice with respect to the subject matter of the Hutton Inquiry, including concealment of the true facts relating to the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly in July 2003.

See, for example, my blog post of 30^th March 2011 here:

http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/death-of-dr-david-kelly-did-lord-hutton.html

Today I would have a different emphasis regarding the evidence suggesting that Lord Hutton perverted the course of justice.

It remains my view that the Hutton Inquiry was not merely a whitewash but was also a fraud.

I believe that Lord Hutton perverted the course of justice in perpetrating that fraud on the British public.

Others party to perverting course of justice

I believe that other public officials were party to the perceived perversion of the course of justice with respect to the death of Dr. Kelly, both during the Hutton Inquiry and subsequently.

I will briefly list them here:

1. Former Assistant Chief Constable Michael Page, who gave false evidence to the Hutton Inquiry about fingerprint evidence
2. Chief officers of Thames Valley Police in 2010 – Sara Thornton (now Chair of the National Police Chiefs Council), Francis Habgood (now Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police) and Helen Ball (now a Deputy Assistant Commissioner with the Metropolitan Police Service).
3. Dominic Grieve QC MP, former Attorney General
4. Kevin McGinty, former legal adviser to the Attorney General (now Chief Inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service)

Given the uncertainty as to whether the Child Abuse Inquiry will wish to follow up Lord Hutton’s alleged paedophile activity into the area of suspected perversion of the course of justice I do not elaborate here on the perceived criminal misconduct by Dominic Grieve and others.

Police Investigation Required

I believe that a thorough Police investigation is required of the conduct of the individuals listed above, whether or not the perceived misconduct is or is not related to Lord Hutton’s (alleged) paedophilia.

Please advise whether or not the Police team supporting the Child Abuse Inquiry will or will not look at the perceived criminal misconduct of Mr. Grieve and the others listed above.

If the Police team do not wish to investigate these serious matters I anticipate I will make a separate report of suspected crime to the relevant Police forces.

Making a statement

I am willing to make a statement to the Police regarding the matters raised in this letter. I am willing to do so, given reasonable notice, at a Police station convenient to my home.

I have a considerable volume of documentation to support my suspicions regarding Mr. Grieve, Mr. McGinty and others which will take a little time to collate in preparation for any interview by the Police.

In this context I have no objection to your sharing my contact information with the Police team associated with the Child Abuse Inquiry.

Distribution

This letter is a public document.

I am placing a copy on my UK Child Abuse Inquiry blog here:

http://ukchildabuseinquiry.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/is-lord-brian-hutton-paedophile.html

Actions requested of you

I ask that you promptly acknowledge receipt of this letter and provide me with an appropriate reference number.

I ask you to give careful consideration as to whether the Child Abuse Inquiry should investigate Lord Hutton with respect to possible child abuse in Great Britain.

You will, no doubt, wish to liaise with the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Historical Institutional Abuse Inquiry with respect to their investigations into the allegations relating to Lord Hutton’s activities in Northern Ireland.

Please confirm that the Child Abuse Inquiry will do so.

I also ask that you make clear whether the Police team will investigate the perceived perversion of the course of justice by Lord Hutton as well as that by Dominic Grieve and others.

Yours sincerely

(Dr) Andrew Watt

Enc.

Letter of 5^th November 2014 to Hart Inquiry

Letter of 5^th November 2014 to PSNI

 

A role for South Yorkshire Police in the Child Abuse Inquiry?

Yesterday I received an email from the Child Abuse Inquiry which appears to indicate that the Inquiry is using South Yorkshire Police to investigate allegations against public figures.

Does anyone have information about whether the Child Abuse Inquiry is using South Yorkshire Police exclusively? Or selectively? If the latter, which criteria are used to decide when South Yorkshire or another force is used?

Given that South Yorkshire Police were responsible for failures at the heart of the Rotherham Child Abuse scandal it seems to me to be perverse for South Yorkshire Police (seemingly) to have been given a significant role by the Child Abuse Inquiry.

If anyone has information on this issue please leave a comment below or contact me on Twitter:
@DrAndrewWatt

Did the Queen know in 1964 that Anthony Blunt was (allegedly) a paedophile?

Imagine the scenario.

It is 1964.

The press and TV are full of a sensational story that Anthony Blunt, longstanding Keeper of the King's Pictures from 1945 and subsequently Keeper of the Queen's Pictures was a paedophile, as well as a spy.

Imagine that the Queen, having been informed of Blunt's (alleged) paedophilia, immediately sacked him as Keeper of the Queen's Pictures and insisted that his disgraceful behaviour be made public and that he be prosecuted in accordance with the Law.

Imagine that many of Blunt's high-ranking (alleged) fellow paedophiles in Northern Ireland and, likely, elsewhere are energetically investigated by British Police forces.

Imagine that the Director of Public Prosecutions deems it to be in the public interest to prosecute these pillars of the Establishment.

Imagine that the judges don't find a legal pretext to throw at least some of the cases out of Court.

Imagine ...

Of course, none of this happened in 1964.

In 1964 it appears that the Queen was informed of Blunt's treason.

The public record is silent on whether or not the Queen was also informed of Anthony Blunt's (alleged) child abuse.

The Queen, it seems, allowed Blunt to continue as Keeper of the Queen's Pictures despite knowing of his crimes in the spying realm.

It seems to me to be a hugely important question as to whether the Queen was informed in 1964 about Blunt's (alleged) abuse of children.

If the Queen was informed of Anthony Blunt's abuse of children in 1964 and chose to say nothing what does that tell us about Britain's Head of State?

This seems to me to be a key question for the Child Abuse Inquiry - Did the Queen know in 1964 that Anthony Blunt was an abuser of children?

Perhaps the Queen knew nothing about Blunt's (alleged) child abuse.

Perhaps MI5 kept from the Queen the child abuse aspect of its (alleged) deal with Blunt.

Perhaps the Director of Public Prosecutions blindsided the Queen regarding Blunt's immunity from prosecution.

Perhaps the allegations that Anthony Blunt was an abuser of children in Northern Ireland and elsewhere are false.

 Perhaps the reports that the Queen was informed in 1964 of Blunt's treason are also false.

Any or all of these are possible.

However the possibility exists that the Queen was told in 1964 of Blunt's child abuse and chose to stay silent.

What are the effects of the Queen's silence on Blunt's child abuse?

Would child abuse in the UK have come to an abrupt halt in 1964 or soon after? Or at least been hugely reduced because it was no longer under protection from on high?

Would children abused in the UK in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and beyond have been spared the destructive effects on their life of abuse in childhood?

Questions of that nature must be asked by the Child Abuse Inquiry, in my view.

Why was Blunt, so it seems, untouchable?

Was it "merely" to conceal his treachery and spare the blushes of Britain's intelligence services?

Was it because Blunt was a relative, albeit a distant one, of the Queen?

Was it because Blunt knew about the Nazi sympathies of the Duke of Windsor? He, it seems, went to Germany in 1945 to retrieve papers on the matter and was made KCVO, an honour then in the personal gift of King George VI.

Was it because Lord Mountbatten was a fellow abuser of children in Northern Ireland?

In my view the Child Abuse Inquiry must grasp the nettle of these questions.

Some of the reports may, on full investigation, prove to be untrue. For example the allegations that Blunt and Lord Mountbatten were paedophiles may be untrue.

Some aspects of the swirling allegations may prove to be worryingly close to the truth.

The citizens of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth should, in my view, know whether for some 50 years the Queen has been a patron and protector of paedophiles.

I believe the Queen must make a full disclosure to the Child Abuse Inquiry of Palace papers dating back at least to 1964 and must also give evidence to the Child Abuse Inquiry about these hugely important questions.

Suspected misconduct in public office by Lowell Goddard

In February I wrote to Justice Lowell Goddard expressing a number of concerns regarding her upcoming appointment as Chair of the Child Abuse Inquiry.

A copy of that letter can be read here:
Request to Justice Lowell Goddard that she withdraw or resign as Chair (Designate) of the Child Abuse Inquiry

On 20th April the Secretariat of the Child Abuse Inquiry responded to my letter and, in my view, wholly dodged the serious issues I had raised with Justice Goddard.

Today I have written to Assistant Commissioner Helen King of the Metropolitan Police Service expressing my concern that Justice Goddard may have committed the common law offence of Misconduct in Public Office.

The text of my letter to Assistant Commissioner King is here:

12^th May 2015

Assistant Commissioner Helen King

Metropolitan Police Service

New Scotland Yard

London

SW1H 0BG

Dear Assistant Commissioner,

Misconduct in public office by Justice Lowell Goddard

I am writing to report to you as a constable suspected misconduct in public office by Lowell Goddard.

The basis of my concern is

1.       that Lowell Goddard has persisted in a post of Chair of the Child Abuse Inquiry when she has cause to know that her occupying that post is unlawful and

2.       that Lowell Goddard made a false statement to the Home Affairs Select Committee and has wilfully allowed the Committee and the public to be deceived

Brief background

On 4^th February 2015 the Home Secretary Theresa May announced that Justice Lowell Goddard was, subject to a pre-appointment hearing by the Home Affairs Select Committee, to be appointed as Chair of the Child Sexual Abuse Inquiry.

Following an irregular and visibly inadequate pre-appointment hearing by the Home Affairs Select Committee, the Home Secretary confirmed Justice Goddard’s appointment.

On 23^rd February 2015 I wrote to Justice Goddard expressing serious concern on a number of points which included the following:

1. That Justice Goddard could not lawfully be appointed as Chair of the Child Abuse Inquiry
2. That Justice Goddard had lied to the Home Affairs Select Committee during the pre-appointment hearing.

A copy of my letter of 23^rd February 2015 to Justice Goddard is available online here:

http://ukchildabuseinquiry.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/request-to-justice-lowell-goddard-that.html

The only response on this matter was a letter dated 20^th April 2015 from the Secretariat of the Child Abuse Inquiry in which I was told that Justice Goddard’s appointment was a matter for the Home Secretary.

In my view it is also a matter for Justice Goddard whether or not her appointment is unlawful.

Further it is a matter for Justice Goddard whether she made a false statement to the Home Affairs Select Committee and left it uncorrected.

Concerns about the Queen

Is the Queen a patron and protector of paedophiles?

That seems to me to be a hugely important question which the Child Abuse Inquiry must address.

There are multiple areas of potential concern regarding the Queen.

None of those has, so far as I’m aware, been transparently investigated in a thorough manner so as to provide reassurance to the public that the Queen is not party to the concealment of sexual offences against children.

There are, for example, persistent allegations that Anthony Blunt was a paedophile active in Northern Ireland, and possibly elsewhere, with a group of other powerful members of the establishment.

It is reported that Blunt’s paedophile activities were part of a deal with MI5 removing any risk of his future prosecution.

Reports indicate that the Queen was aware of Blunt’s espionage as far back as 1964. Was she also made aware of his paedophile activities at that time? Was the Queen also party to concealment of his alleged paedophile activities?

If the Queen hadn’t in 1964 helped cover up Blunt’s espionage would a VIP paedophile ring have been caught then?

Would alleged child abuse and alleged child murder by a VIP paedophile ring have been possible in the 1980s if the Queen had acted to expose Blunt in 1964?

The Wanless Report also found a document relating to paedophilia at the Palace. What did the Queen know about those alleged paedophile activities? Were they ever properly investigated? Did the Queen play any part in any cover-up of those serious allegations?

In addition there are allegations regarding Lord Mountbatten that he may have been a paedophile, possibly including Northern Ireland and Kincora. What, if anything, did the Queen know about Mountbatten’s alleged paedophilia?

Further, there are reports that the Queen Mother turned a blind eye with respect to possible sexual offences by one of her servants. The question arises as to whether multiple members of the Windsor family assisted in concealing sexual offences against underage individuals.

The question of whether or not the Queen has been a patron and protector of paedophiles for decades must, in my view, be addressed comprehensively and transparently by the Child Abuse Inquiry.

An unprecedented situation?

My view, as stated in my letter of 23^rd February to Justice Goddard, is that she cannot lawfully head an inquiry constituted in the context of the Inquiries Act 2005.

Given the response of 20^th April 2015 it seems to me that Justice Goddard is holding a public office knowing, or having cause to know, that her holding that post is unlawful.

It seems to me that Justice Goddard’s actions are a serious breach of public trust and thus may constitute the common law criminal offence of Misconduct in Public Office.

However, I am unable to locate any case law which sheds light on the circumstances of Justice Goddard’s perceived misconduct.

The elements of misconduct in public office

The Crown Prosecution Service sets out guidance for charging with respect to the common law offence of Misconduct in Public Office.

In expressing my concerns I will briefly consider whether the criteria expressed in the Crown Prosecution Service Guidance are satisfied with respect to Justice Goddard’s perceived misconduct.

1. A public officer – Justice Goddard was appointed by the Home Secretary to a position defined by statute, specifically the Inquiries Act 2005. I conclude that Justice Goddard is a Public Officer.
2. Acting as such – The response sent by the Child Abuse Inquiry indicates that Justice Goddard had considered the issue, in all likelihood after her appointment by the Home Secretary. I conclude that Justice Goddard considered the serious concerns that her appointment was unlawful while Chair of the Child Abuse Inquiry.
3. The letter of 20^th April 2015 indicates that my letter of 23^rd February 2015 was considered by Justice Goddard. I conclude that her continuing unlawfully in the post of Chair of the Child Abuse Inquiry shows at a minimum wilful neglect or misconduct.
4. Does Justice Goddard have a reasonable excuse or reason for continuing unlawfully as Chair of the Child Abuse Inquiry. In the letter of 20^th April no rebuttal of my belief was offered. Nor was any explanation provided for Justice Goddard’s actions. Further I can identify no reasonable excuse for Justice Goddard’s failure to resign as Chair of the Child Abuse Inquiry.

Misleading Home Affairs Select Committee

As expressed in my letter of 23^rd February 2015 I believe that Justice Goddard gave a false statement to the Home Affairs Select Committee during her pre-appointment hearing.

I raised that issue with her in the letter of 23^rd February.

She has not corrected her false statement.

I conclude that Justice Goddard has deliberately misled the Home Affairs Select Committee and the public.

Typically, false statements to a Select Committee are dealt with as potential Contempt of Parliament.

In this case it seems to me that a false statement to the Select Committee which Justice Goddard  allowed to lie uncorrected is also a breach of public trust by Justice Goddard of such seriousness that it may constitute another count of misconduct in public office.

I ask that you carefully consider whether Justice Goddard’s perceived false statement to the Home Affairs Select Committee constitutes a further count of Misconduct in Public office.

Making a statement

I am willing to make a statement on these matters at a Police station convenient to myself, given reasonable notice.

Distribution

In view of the public interest in these matters this letter is a public document.

Letter to Justice Goddard

I am also writing to Justice Goddard informing her of this letter and its contents.

Should I be mistaken in my view that Justice Goddard’s appontment is unlawful she may wish to take the opportunity to make a public statement on this matter pointing out any errors in my analysis of this matter.

Alternatively, should she agree I have made out a cogent case that her appointment is, or is likely to be, unlawful then Justice Goddard may wish to take the opportunity to resign as Chair of the Child Abuse Inquiry.

Actions requested of you

I ask that you record a suspected crime of Misconduct of Public Office with respect to the perceived Misconduct in Public Office by Justice Goddard.

There are two perceived counts:

1. That Justice Goddard continues wilfully in a public office knowing, or having cause to know, that her appointment is unlawful
2. That Justice Goddard wilfully misled the Home Affairs Select Committee, having made a false statement to the Committee and failed to correct the false statement

I ask that you provide me with the Crime Reference Number. I have briefly set out what I take to be the “points to prove” with respect to what I understand to be a “state-based crime”.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely

(Dr) Andrew Watt

Enc.

Letter of 23^rd February 2015 to Justice Lowell Goddard

Anthony Blunt - article from Private Eye 20th January 1988

In this post I am simply transcribing a cutting, said to be from the 20th January 1988 edition of Private Eye, which describes events relating to Anthony Blunt, soviet spy, distant relative of the Queen, member of the Royal Household and, for his lifetime, immune from prosecution.

The transcript comes from a cutting posted on the Spotlight on Abuse blog here:
Anthony Blunt and the Kincora cover-up

Whatever the merits, or otherwise, of the Private Eye article Anthony Blunt provides a link between Kincora, child abuse and the Royal Household.

Unanswered questions include the following:

• What did the Queen know about Blunt's peripatetic paedophilia, including child abuse at Kincora?
• Who provided Blunt with immunity from prosecution. The Director of Public Prosecutions of the day? The Attorney General of the day?
• Does a document detailing the scope of Blunt's immunity from prosecution exist? If so, what does that document say about the scope of the officially-sanctioned protection of Blunt for his wrongdoing, including child abuse?

Such fundamental questions won't go away.

I expect that the Queen will, in time, have to make public statements about what she knew and when.

Here is the transcript:

THE JEERS which normally accompany any Parliamentary question from Ken Livingstone, the controversial MP for Brent East, were not in evidence when he asked a supplementary question of the Prime Minister on 13 January. This was because he mentioned a word most Ministers, especially those who have been on duty in Northern Ireland, dread to here: Kincora.

 The packed House was silent as Livingstone asked about "allegations linking Anthony Blunt with several prominent figures in Northern Ireland who escaped prosecution for their crimes because had a prosecution been brought it would have revealed the immunity granted to Anthony Blunt".

 In reply, Mrs Thatcher mumbled some cliches regarding prosecutions not being a matter for her, and that the Honourable Member must take any evidence that he has to the Director of Public Prosecutions. However, she knows enough about the subject to realise that Ken Livingstone is getting some very sensitive information about Kincora. What must have worried her and her supporters in Northern Ireland most of all was the reference, the first ever of its kind, to the associations of the late Sir Anthony Blunt with Northern Ireland.

 At Marlborough and Oxford, Blunt fell in with some Ulstermen who were later to become prominent, chief among those was Peter Montgomery, the son of a Northern Ireland general. Montgomery shared his passion for art and music, and was to remain one of his closest friend's all Blunt's life. Montgomery, who is very ill, is Deputy Lord Lieutenant of Tyrone; and the visiting book of his big house at Blessingbourne was often graced with the name of Anthony Blunt. Blunt was also a close friend of Louis MacNeice, and visited the latter's native Belfast with him. Blunt's former lover, John Gaskin, was once a drummer boy in Northern Ireland, and another Ulsterman, Robin Bryans, who fell out with Blunt in the 1970s, has written several books on Northern Ireland.

 Blunt later became closely involved with the Orange establishment in Northern Ireland, and particularly with the hyperactive and reckless set of gay people who flourished in the Six Counties throughout the period that they themselves and their friends in the Orange Order were mounting campaigns to "Save Ulster from Sodomy".

Especially attractive to this set was the apparently limitless supply of boys of all shapes and sizes. This supply was quite unrivalled anywhere else in the United Kingdom and became legendary in upper-class homosexual circles. It was regarded as a "special treat" to go to Northern Ireland and get yourself invited to one of the "soirees" which would be well attended by not entirely literate or well-adjusted teenage boys. No one ever asked where these boys came from, but some at least were provided through the extremist Orange gang which ran boys' homes for Belfast Corporation, notably the one called by an old Irish royalist folk name, Kincora.

When Blunt was provided with immunity from prosecution in 1964, the immunity did not cover just his treachery. It covered any crime he may have committed , including sodomy, which in Northern Ireland remained a criminal offence after the Sexual Offences Bill of 1967. At the time he negotiated his immunity, Blunt knew quite enough about the behaviour of certain among the English upper classes and the gentlemen who marched at the head of the Orange parades to guarantee him immunity in hundreds of lifetimes as the negotiator from government and intelligence quickly discovered. He agreed to keep quiet in exchange for immunity on all these matters. And when in 1979 he was exposed as a traitor and forced to renounce his knighthood and his honours, he kept his pistol firmly at the head of the authorities. The slightest whiff of concession to the howls for his prosecution or harassment, he made clear, would be to lift the lid off the seamy tank which carried in it far worse pollutions than that uncovered at Kincora.

 The motive for the Kincora cover-up, which took place in 1980, 1981 and 1982, was not just to save the reputations of a few second-rate politicians in Northern Ireland. It was not even to save the chiefs of intelligence, some of whom, as the Eye revealed recently, were making full use of the Kincora boys. (One senior intelligence officer was convicted almost as soon as he got back from Northern Ireland of importuning in a public lavatory at a London railway station.)

The chief reason was to protect the very important people indeed who, as Sir Anthony Blunt knew only too well (and was perfectly prepared to reveal) had been as active in Northern Ireland "gay scene" as he had, and for the same basic reasons: the supply of boys from local authority homes and other similar places who, because of their status in care, were prepared to do anything they were asked.

As one cynic remarked about a similar scandal and its political consequences: "It's not the reds under the bed - it's the blues in it."