Sunday, April 17, 2011

Pressure on police to release paedophile dossier

From
April 23, 2006

A SECRET dossier said to identify members of a paedophile ring could be published within weeks, after the intervention of the Scottish information commissioner.
 
Kevin Dunion has been asked by the family of Moira Anderson, a schoolgirl who disappeared almost 50 years ago, to review a decision by Strathclyde police not to release the document that may identify her abductors.

The 11-year-old was last seen boarding a bus in Coatbridge, Lanarkshire, in 1957 during a heavy snowstorm. She was on her way to the shops to buy a box of chocolates for her mother’s birthday.

The dossier, written by James Gallogley, a convicted paedophile who died in Peterhead prison in 1999, is said to implicate senior public figures in the abuse of children in Strathclyde during the 1950s and 1960s. It is also believed to list vehicles and safe houses used in Glasgow, Monklands and Paisley where children were hidden before being taken to sex parties.

Strathclyde’s chief constable has refused to release the document, saying its publication could destroy any chance of solving the case.

However, relatives argue it could help to identify those responsible for Anderson’s abduction and recover her remains.

Her sister Janet, 63, who lives in Australia, has appealed to the information commissioner to order its release. A decision is expected in the next few weeks.

Her call is backed by Sandra Brown, the founder of the Moira Anderson Foundation, who believes her late father, Alex Gartshore, was responsible for the crime.


In an interview with The Sunday Times this weekend, Brown said her father, a former bus driver and convicted sex offender from Coatbridge, was part of a paedophile ring whose members she will recognise when she sees Gallogley’s dossier.

She said that Gartshore and Gallogley, who were friends, lived close to Fred West, the notorious serial killer, in Coatbridge during the early 1960s. Both Gartshore and West moved out of the area in late 1965.

However, Gartshore, who was on bail accused of sexually assaulting a teenage girl at the time of Anderson’s disappearance, denied any involvement in the crime. He died earlier this month at the age of 85.

According to Brown, who has spoken to former police officers involved in the investigation, Gallogley’s dossier describes how “wee Moira” was subdued with chloroform, abused by Gartshore and “one other” and placed in the boot of Gartshore’s bus.

It claims her body was dumped in the Tarry Burn in Coatbridge, an area that has never been thoroughly searched.

The dossier was handed to police by a former cell mate four years after Gallogley’s death.

It prompted a review of Anderson’s disappearance but failed to throw up any meaningful leads.

“Pressure needs to be brought to bear on Strathclyde police,” said Brown. “Who is being protected and why is there a problem with transparency? I understand Gallogley’s dossier reveals names in his confession. It indicates Moira was not the sole victim of this ring and gives details of parties where children were abused.

“Those named could help lead us to Moira’s remains. There’s unwillingness by officers to share information.”

However, Strathclyde police said inquiries were ongoing. “We regularly review any investigations and the disappearance of Moira Anderson is no exception,” said a spokesman. “Any new evidence and information will be the subject of further investigation in an effort to resolve her disappearance, ” said a spokesman.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article708514.ece

Anthony Charles Lynton Blair(Tony Blair,former PM of the UK)

Anthony Charles Lynton Blair(Tony Blair,former PM of the UK)

He was charged and appeared in court at Bow Street magistrates court for importunity in a public toilet with another male. He tried to get sexual favour from the other man, little did he know that the toilet was being watched by police. Blair was fined £500, and walked away with nobody knowing who he really was as he used his middle names to cover who he was. Charles Lynton is the name used, and his friends in court got him off with a fine, because he is one of them.

Anthony Charles Lynton Blair....cottaging ?

http://paulmalpas.com/tag/anthony-charles-lynton-blair/

ALLEGED:Tony Blair was nabbed while cruising for action in a public bog, but only gave his name as Lynton Blair when charged.


Its been alleged that among those caught up in Operation Ore were:

Gerald Kaufman, Gordon Brown, Alan Milburn, John Prescott, Peter Mandelson and Paul Mcartney - laughbly citing `National Security' Tony Blair slapping a D-Notice on the press and Panorama, forcing Panorama to drop a programme allegedly linking some or all of the above names with Operation Ore, and the press from publishing any details of the investigation.

Police also discovered links between British Labour government paedophile suspects and the trafficking of children for purposes of prostitution from Belgium and Portugal (including young boys from the Casa Pia orphanage in Portugal).


Then there's Lords-a-leaping Grevill Janner and George Robertson.
http://griffinwatch-nwn.blogspot.com/2011/03/not-nice-story-to-cover-granted-but.html

Paul McCartney and Heather Mills....

First protected name revealed - Jumping Jacks
One of the men who together with his family was almost ruined by being wrongfully raided under Operation Ore has been called Sam in stories about him on other web sites. The UK police admitted their mistake, but he was far from satisfied and went on the war path against them.

So successful was his first TV interview that the Operation Ore action group invited him into an inner circle of researchers. These individuals had in an earlier daring ‘raid’ on the US obtained both the Landslide subscriber database and the FBI Landslide prosecution files, never before shown to the defence. When they began to study these, they were shocked first at the extent of the obvious credit card fraud, in particular as the police and prosecution service had denied there was any and this new evidence became the ammunition for their pending Operation Ore class action against the police. They were also shocked and dismayed at seeing that there were many individuals in high places on the Landslide subscriber database, that is whose credit card details, fraudulently or otherwise, were associated with transactions with web sites that thousands of other ordinary people had been raided and ruined for.

This created a predicament for them. The police had denied that such names existed on the subscriber database, so seeing them suggested that in some way they were individuals already protected from being raided and prosecuted or that they now became protected by the police treating them as ‘above the law’ or individuals worthy of protection, in either case creating the situation where they could be compromised or in the words of a writer on another web site the ‘Jumping Jacks’ of the police or whatever other cartel could now exert influence over them. The researchers had taken on the task of clearing the names of innocent men, not ruining others hitherto unsuspected, which added to their dismay upon seeing the names of the apparently protected ones, whom they did not want to expose.

But Sam thought otherwise. These high profile individuals, unlike he and thousands of others, had not suffered dawn raids and shaming in the media, or having their computers seized, or being convicted in court, in many cases losing their children and spouses and being placed on the sex offender register to be shamed and excluded by their community.

When Sam saw the names, he acted impulsively and, in the opinion of other members of the campaign team, recklessly. But what he did cannot now be undone.

Several names stood out, but one in particular did so, because it was that of a man who was one of the parties in a vicious divorce case that was receiving worldwide publicity. It must be stressed that as in the majority of all the other cases where the unprotected persons were raided and ruined, this person’s credit card transactions were possibly also placed there fraudulently. But we must also repeat that the police denied that there was any fraud and also denied that there were influential names not proceeded against on the Landslide database.

Sam could not resist copying the name and transaction details and sending them to the solicitors acting for the woman in the dispute, Heather Mills, saying where they had come from and offering any further corroboration required.

Those reading about this unseemly case might now want to re-consider it. What value did the information have if any to her in her negotiations? What value does it now have when it is thus revealed?

Readers might also consider some of the Mills’ statements in a new light, especially those made in emotional media outbursts. Such as when she exclaimed that she was the one being treated like a ‘paedophile’ and that she had been ‘protecting’ him, but that such protection might not now continue. In a second interview she claimed to have damaging evidence about ‘a person’ stored in a safe. "I'm protecting that party because I care about that party. But if it's going to carry on, then I'm going to have to tell all the truth," she said.

What a pity that this influential man did not join with the other innocent individuals now fighting a fierce and at times lonely battle with the police and prosecution service to clear their names and restore some meaning and dignity to their lives and the lives of their families.

This high profile individual is not the only protected name that is still sitting on that list waiting to be revealed. The big question for the others is why have they been protected and what has it cost them and their country to be compromised thus by the police or whoever else may now be able to pull their strings.
05 Nov 2007 by OBU
http://obu-investigators.com/news/show_news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1194269895&archive=&template=tester

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/21625552/ns/today-entertainment/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-469658/McCartney-pay-70-million-silence-Heather.html

New breed of gagging order could send journalists to jail, MP claims

Lib Dem MP John Hemmings fears reporters could face imprisonment simply for asking questions, creating a 'recipe for hiding miscarriages of justice'
Magna Carta
The Magna Carta is being contravened by the new breed of gagging orders, claims Lib Dem MP John Hemming. Photograph: Michael Nagle/Getty Images
 
An MP who is launching an inquiry into excessive and possibly unlawful court secrecy says a new type of gagging order is hampering the work of investigative journalists.

John Hemming said the new breed of injunction, which was used in relation to a case in the high court in London last week, meant journalists could face jail simply for asking questions.
"This goes a step further than preventing people speaking out against injustice," said Hemming, the Liberal Democrat MP for Birmingham Yardley and a longtime campaigner against secrecy. "It has the effect of preventing journalists from speaking to people subject to this injunction without a risk of the journalist going to jail. That is a recipe for hiding miscarriages of justice."

Hemming has labelled the new gagging order the "quaero injunction" after the Latin word "to seek".

"It puts any investigative journalist at risk if they ask any questions of a victim of a potential miscarriage of justice … I don't think this should be allowed in English courts."

There has been growing concern over the use of gagging orders in UK courts. It is not known precisely how many superinjunctions have been issued, but an informed legal estimate is that as many as 20 have been granted in the UK over the last 18 months.

In the most notorious case, the oil trader Trafigura last year briefly obtained a superinjunction against the Guardian to suppress a leaked report on its toxic waste dumping, which even prevented reporting proceedings in parliament.

Earlier this month, Hemming highlighted a new type of hyperinjunction which forbids the recipient talking to their MP.

He says he is now launching an inquiry in parliament into excess court secrecy and is planning to collect a range of gagging orders that he will then analyse and present to the justice select committee in a number of "parliamentary petitions" later this year.

"What is clear is that almost all of the superinjunctions and hyperinjunctions have no public judgment," Hemming said. "That means that they are not compliant with the rules for a fair trial.

There is also the question as to whether there should be an automatic time limit on an interim order.

 Many cases have an interim order and no final hearing.

This is clearly wrong.

"We also need to know what the costs are both for the applicant and for the media in defending these orders. It is wrong to have a system whereby people can buy the sort of justice they want. That is a contravention of clause 29 of Magna Carta 1297, which is still in force."

Hemming is asking anyone who is subject to a gagging injunction that they would like to be included in the review to forward the information to him at the House of Commons.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/apr/17/gagging-order-journalists-jail?CMP=twt_gu