MICHAEL .H. MURRIN
21 GOODWOOD AVENUE.
TELE: 0795 – 142 – 6617
15th December 2012.
RE: SUSPECTED USE OF PAEDOPHILIA BY THE BRITISH SECURITY SERVICES TO BLACKMAIL AND CONTROL PUBLIC FIGURES IN THE UNITED KINGDOM.
It is after much thought and with considerable trepidation that I write this letter to you. I write now because I have exhausted every other avenue through which I can raise my concerns. Every approach I have made to the statutory authorities, and elected officials, has been met with stonewalling and a failure to properly respond to my correspondence. I have sought to secure a proper investigation by the statutory authorities of the matters I am raising. It is, in effect, being made clear to me that no such investigation will be allowed to proceed.
During 1982 I established a Ratepayers Association in Preston. In my capacity as chairman of that association allegations of corruption within the council were brought to my attention. I did an analysis of the information I had received and concluded that behind the allegations there was serious criminal activity centred on the bribery of public officials and elected politicians, illegal sexual activity probably involving blackmail, and the trafficking of prohibited drugs. I initiated an investigation into the allegations being made and my analysis of the information proved to be totally correct. The investigation I ran started in Preston but spread to other regions and touched on national politics. The full extent of my investigations, and findings, has never been made public. As a result of the investigations centred on Preston there were three key prosecutions leading to convictions, they were:
1. The conviction of a prominent local/national businessman for the rape of an underage girl.
2. The conviction of his business associate for the serial rape of children.
3. The conviction of another of his business associates on nine charges of laundering money on behalf of a dealer in class A drugs.
During the investigation (1984-85) I was offered a copy of the membership list of the Paedophile Information Exchange. The asking price was £10,000, a sum of money which was not available to me at the time. As a “taster” I was given two names of individuals who were alleged to be on that list. One was a senior Labour politician who is still alive but retired, the other was Jimmy Savile. On October 7th I wrote to Mr Bernard Hogan-Howe, Commissioner – Metropolitan Police. I have had cause to write to Mr Hogan-Howe since and on every occasion I have received a proper acknowledgement of the correspondence. I have also written to Lord Patten, he has failed to acknowledge my correspondence or address the serious matters they raise. I have contacted my MP, Ben Wallace, but he is not practically supportive. On October 21st I wrote to the Prime Minister, I have had a standard letter acknowledging receipt of my letter. On December 3rd I received an email from Marples Demster, Library and Arts Policy Officer, from the Ministerial Support Team. This was a one page letter which failed to address ANY of the points put to the Prime Minister. Copies of the correspondence are attached.
Once the Savile revelations were in the public domain I started to analyse the information as I did in the early 1980’s when I received the information which led to the convictions mentioned above. One point that concerned me was the alleged involvement of the security services in the use of paedophilia for the purposes of blackmail. There were very serious allegations which centred on the Knicora Boys school in Northern Ireland. Eventually, I formulated a working hypothesis in an effort to make some rational judgements as to the veracity of these reports. On October 12th I wrote to Mr Hogan-Howe explaining my initial suspicions based on the working hypothesis, a copy of that letter was sent to Lord Justice Mummery. I stated:
“My analysis of the overall picture building up leads me to consider this WORKING HYPOTHESIS: Is it possible that elements within the security services found that the strategy they used at the Kincora Boys school was so successful in Northern Ireland that they decided to use it nationally? Could it be a possibility that these constant reports of child sex abuse involving influential figures have never been properly investigated, or prosecuted, because the security establishment are using these cases to blackmail and control establishment figures in politics, the media, the arts and other sectors of the establishment elite? Has there been an ongoing subversion of our democracy by rogue elements within the security service establishment? Whilst protecting us from our enemies beyond these shores is the security apparatus harbouring the enemy within? Is democracy being subverted with the intention that the people of this country be firmly tied to the yoke of totalitarianism?”
From my perspective the mere possibility that the security services could be using paedophilia and blackmail to control UK politicians is extremely disturbing. It might explain why the democratic process seems, increasingly, not to be working in this country? I placed this working hypothesis before Lord Justice Mummery, head of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, expecting that I might receive some serious response. On November 21st I received a response from the Assistant Tribunal Secretary, he/she sent me four forms. I have responded to that letter today.
It is my belief that the failure by the authorities to properly respond to my correspondence is indicative of the accuracy of my Working Hypothesis. I do believe that it is now essential that the material related to the Paedophile Information Exchange that is in government archives should be published, this to include any material residing in the archives of the security establishment, the Home Office, 10 Downing Street and Scotland Yard.
I do believe that there is a strong possibility that the security services are or have been operating beyond the control of the democratically elected government. If paedophilia and blackmail are being used to subvert and control elected politicians then there is nothing I can say to express the seriousness of that proposition. No one has yet denied it is a possibility. I have been met with prevarication and stonewalling from all the official avenues through which I have raised this issue and voiced my concern. There appears to be a conspiracy of silence which encompasses all the main political parties. I believe they are at one in their determination to suppress information and maintain the status quo, however prejudicial that might be to the people of this country and the future of our democracy. The creeping totalitarianism represented by the increasing use of secret courts, overly intrusive surveillance, the detachment from any public accountability of institutions like the N.H.S, and now the threat of legislation to inhibit freedom of the press has, I fear, sown the seeds of serious discord in this country. If the democratic will of the people is not represented by their elected representatives then there can only be only one outcome in the long term, revolt.
There also seems to have been significant subversion by MI5 of the role of the police as a law enforcement agency. The case of the late MP, Sir Cyril Smith is a graphic illustration of this. Recently, a press report appeared on the Daily Telegraph web site with the headline: Sir Cyril Smith Abuse Dossier Seized By MI5. The piece was written by Steven Swinford and appeared at 10pm (GMT) on November 14th. The article referred to a former Special Branch officer, Tony Robinson, who worked for Lancashire Police in the 1970’s. Mr Robinson is quoted as claiming that allegations against Cyril Smith were investigated by the police but were not prosecuted because the then Director of Public Prosecutions considered a prosecution not to be in the public interest. Mr Robinson also claimed that Lancashire Police were instructed by MI5 to send the file to them in London. It has not been seen since. I have personal knowledge of the subversion of the police by government ministers who have intervened to quash police investigations which would otherwise have resulted in the criminal prosecution of elected representatives.
I am keenly aware of the need for balance when dealing with this subject, Sir Max Hastings writing in the Financial Times on November 9th 2012 under the headline Child Abuse is not a National Plague eloquently voiced the opposite view to that which claims that paedophilia is a significant problem in the UK. (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/65285bb0-299a-11e2-a5ca-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2E0Bn0m00) Sir Max Hastings is a distinguished journalist but I take issue with his conclusions which have, I believe, been reached after inadequate research and a flawed analysis of the publicly available data. On Tuesday 11th December at 9am BBC Radio 4 broadcast a programme titled Analysing The Child Sex Offender, one contributor stated that approximately 10% of children in this country are sexually abused.
Some have claimed that my campaign to secure the release of the information related to The Paedophile Information Exchange (P.I.E) is misguided as this organisation was closed down during 1985. This viewpoint ignores the fact that there were definite links between members of the security services and P.I.E. This matter is relevant today because there is significant circumstantial evidence to suggest that P.I.E was harbouring an influential membership and support network which is still active in public life. There are also indications that people involved in P.I.E have been protected by the authorities, this quote illustrates the point I am making: “Tom Watson’s (MP) whistleblower was told by a detective that the inquiry into Peter Righton’s alleged ring was closed ‘from on high’. Righton was given a £900 fine for his child porn imports, and a caution for a 30 year old indecent assault. Many similar investigation into paedophile rings have also hit the buffers. Cover-ups have taken place; events and individuals demanding investigation were ignored.” Again there is the allegation of the subversion of the law enforcement role of the police. “Peter Righton was a former leading childcare expert and a founder member of The Paedophile Information Exchange, which campaigned for the age of consent to be reduced to four.”
Recently I was contacted by a journalist from The Daily Mail who said he had been told there was a clear link between Peter Righton and xxxxxxxxxx. There was an alleged link between xxxxxxxx and the security services via his association with the Tory MP, xxxxxxxxxxx. Again this raises the suspicion of the security services being involved in the protection and propagation of paedophiles and paedophilia.
I am not alone in my concerns about the level and nature of child sexual abuse in this country, writing in the Daily Express on Wednesday 12th December 2012 Sonia Poulton said “As a journalist and following the Savile revelations, which opened up this repugnant can of worms, I have interviewed dozens of abuse victims from care homes across the UK and from over a period of 30 years ‘in care’. I am left in no doubt that the abuse of children in the system is neither historic nor limited to the Welsh border. I have been shocked by the extent of abuse I have discovered. Much of it I have corroborated with social services reports and court documents as well as online government records.
Over the past 30 years there has been an increase in children abused, or ‘missing in care’. Some are drafted into sex gangs, others simply vanish. Last year in Kent 25 children aged 12-17 disappeared from care homes. It was suspected they were trafficked across the UK for labour and sexual exploitation. This is a snapshot of a nationwide problem that we are failing to get to grips with. We must.”
The concerns regarding the care of children in the UK goes beyond the concerns associated with sexual abuse. There are now very real concerns centred on the way in which the child protection court system operates. It is also alleged that the social services are becoming involved in what amounts to the state sponsored abduction of children from families for no other reason than to meet adoption targets set by government. The case of Vicky Haigh raises serious questions as to how the child care system is operating.
“In the Family courts, simultaneously, Doncaster county council is trying to maintain its illegally obtained Care Order and Non Molestation order for the daughter of Vicky Haigh, having placed her with her father after he had been accused of sexually assaulting his daughter. The original taped evidence for this molestation was never given to the CPS by the police. There is also a school accident report book which corroborates her injuries. Elizabeth Watson has been representing Vicky Haigh against Doncaster council, and her threatened imprisonment is part of Doncaster attempts to keep their illegal actions secret. Vicky Haigh has said that she wants this hearing in the Family court made Open, so that Doncaster Council can no longer hide behind the secrecy injunction, exposed by John Hemming in Parliament.” I have spoken with Ms Haigh and viewed the documentation related to her case. On it’s own this case might be legitimately dismissed as the mere pursuit of one parent by another who is motivated by malice but the allegations of the suppressing of evidence and other dirty tricks being used by government agencies has the ring of truth about it and I do believe that this case should be subject to a full, independent, review.
On November 28th Jane Moore writing in The Sun said:
“IT can no longer be ignored by those who purport to be in charge of this country that something is deeply rotten at the core of Britain’s social services. Believe me, the case of the three Eastern European children removed from a loving home because their foster parents were members of UKIP is just the tip of the iceberg.
Lurking below, in the murky depths of our ferociously secretive “care” system, will be hundreds if not thousands of similar cases where a gross abuse of power has helped to destroy the lives of the very youngsters it was set up to protect. Hopefully, they will now rise above the surface, expose the ugly, playing-God mindset, and prompt a dramatic overhaul of these tin-pot dictatorships more reminiscent of Stalinist Russia than a modern democracy.
Babies forced into adoption after being taken from mothers on a mere suspicion of “future emotional abuse”, fathers and paternal relatives denied access to children on nothing more than maternal hearsay, and prospective well-meaning fosterers and adopters subjected to the ridiculously stringent political correctness that is making the headlines right now.
All conducted under a cloak of secrecy that claims to be in the interests of the children involved but all too conveniently protects the increasingly warped system itself. But all too many cases will be based on nothing more than an unfounded suspicion, plunging one or both parents into a Kafka-esque nightmare, a punishment without crime.
And worst of all, those who suffer most are the children, emotionally damaged by the actions of self-interested zealots who affect to ‘care’. We are used to case-centric inquiries such as the one surrounding the Baby P scandal, but it’s now time to shine a torch into the dark, secretive corners of the entire system to try to make its work and objectives more transparent while still maintaining anonymity for the vulnerable.”
The concerns as to the workings of the child care system in the UK is also of concern to other governments, on September 12th The Daily Telegraph reported that “The Slovakian government has such ‘serious concern’ over the workings of Britain’s ‘family protection’ system that it plans to challenge the legality of the policy in Strasbourg. In an unprecedented move, a foreign government is threatening to take Britain to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) to challenge the unusual readiness of our social workers and courts to remove children from their parents for ‘no sound reason.’
” I could go on as there are reams of reports some alleging, others confirming, that there is a very serious problem with child sexual abuse and the way in which the child care system operates in this country. The attitude of the executive is a mix of denial, collusion and complicity. I have attached copies of the correspondence I have sent in an effort to secure some response from elected and unelected members of the executive. The responses have been a mix of stonewalling and prevarication. In the case of Lord Patten there was no response at all. The only person who has responded properly is Mr. Bernard Hogan-Howe, Commissioner – Metropolitan Police.
I have the honour to be, Madam, Your Majesty’s humble and obedient servant.
MICHAEL .H. MURRIN
MICHAEL .H. MURRIN
21 GOODWOOD AVENUE.
TELE: 0795 – 142 – 6617