Former child-abuse inquiry panellist Sharon Evans has been in the news in the last few days over a radio interview in which she claimed that she was sidelined – and briefed against – in order to prevent any disruption to Theresa May’s procession to Downing Street:
Ms Evans – herself a survivor of child sexual abuse – believes the treatment of the inquiry, which was instituted by May when she was Home Secretary and which has seen several Chairs sacked with little if any progress apparent, has been tightly controlled and has seemed more suited to facilitating a cover-up than to exposing perpetrators.
Ms Evans, who runs a charity to help child-abuse survivors, has not let her departure from the inquiry panel stop her efforts to gain justice for victims. Nor has she let it curtail either her evidence-gathering or her outspokenness.
And the SKWAWKBOX has seen evidence that the Chief Constable of a UK police force has been accused of complicity in child sexual abuse.
The SKWAWKBOX has also spoken to a serving MP who was one of several witnesses present at the time that a positive identification was made by a young adult who had suffered sexual abuse since childhood. The MP told this blog,
We were all in the Strangers’ Bar [in the Houses of Parliament]. The young victim was holding a phone and looking through pictures online, looking for someone else. Suddenly s/he screamed, dropped the phone and stood there shaking and crying, saying ‘it’s him, it’s him!’ The picture on the screen was that of a serving Chief Constable. It was a very real and spontaneous reaction.
A retired Metropolitan Police officer was also among the witnesses.
After they reported the allegations, the MP and Ms Evans were both interviewed at length by the police force – not that of the accused senior officer – to which the accusation was reported, but in the roughly nine months since the report was made, neither have received any word of any action taken.
The Chief Constable is still in post.
The young victim has given around one hundred hours of evidence – not limited to the involvement of the police officer – to police investigators about the abuse suffered, which suggests that officers consider the victim’s claims to be highly credible for them to spend so much time interviewing.
And yet there has still been no apparent action taken, nor any steps or progress communicated. The CPS initially promised a fast response but has made excuses to keep delaying a few more weeks each time and has still not provided any response. In spite of a promise to do so by the end of last month, it also broke that deadline and has so far failed to provide any new timescale.
All of this suggests that Ms Evans’ claims – which are matched by those of the MP and the retired police officer – that the government’s child-abuse inquiry is intended to cover up rather than to expose need to be taken seriously and examined properly.
More to follow.
The SKWAWKBOX needs your support. This blog is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal. Thanks for your solidarity so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.
It sounds like we need another Operation Death Eaters…
NO SURPRISE THERE THEN!
IT WON’T BE LONG BEFORE SOMEONE IN HIGH OFFICE WILL START TO SING LIKE A CANARY!
LEAST WE FORGET THE PROFUMO AFFAIR BROUGHT THE TORY GOVERNMENT DOWN!
MAYBE THIS WILL?
It’s time that politicians represented the public and stopped acting in their own interests.
“All of this suggests that Ms Evans’ claims – which are matched by those of the MP and the retired police officer – that the government’s child-abuse inquiry is intended to cover up rather than to expose need to be taken seriously and examined properly.”
As “all of this” refers to an accusation of criminality on the part of a Chief Constable which is the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation, I can see nothing to support such a conclusion.
Presumably if no charges are brought the conspiracy theorists will have a field day though, whatever the merits of the actual case. (Remember “Nick”?)
@Hindson One should bear in mind the following fact that HIndson wrote in an earlier reply thread,
Graham Hindson 30/07/2017 at 3:44 pm ……
“As a life long Conservative voter it’s unlikely to be my CLP! ”
Thus there you have it , self confessed Tory Troll and hence any and all comments by this troll need to be viewed bearing this fact in mind.
His only intention and purpose is to cover the actions of his Govt paymasters by appearing reasonable on the surface but below is an all out Tory Troll who is as unpleasant as they come .Visit some of the articles surrounding Grenfell tower fire and note his ducking and diving to straight questions (More slippery than an eel in a bowl of snot ) and utter lack of sensitivity and compassion , and then note here again on this topic the same pattern of comment .
His reason is to undermine this blog ,make you think it is unworthy of belief and to question its writers honesty. Whilst providing a blanket of cover for the actions of the establishment and his Govt who he defends every time very subtly . There is a very clear pattern of action that he masquerades as ” debate” but successfully in some cases “pushes all the right buttons ” ,that wind up honest decent people with a moral conscience , something he clearly has none of .
Hindson’s political leanings are irrelevant.
I’ve several times given my perception of hindson’s views on child abuse, and never once has he challenged it.
Says it all for me. I’d be keeping a VERY close eye on him if he were my neighbour…
I’ve just spotted this.
Child abuse is abhorrent. Sorry If I’ve misled you in the past.
Sorry Toffee I have to disagree with you on this one , as one’s politics colours one’s views and thoughts in my opinion and Hindson is a first class example of the archetypal Tory Troll .
Still enough time and effort wasted on that twat , I’ll keep calling him out wherever I find his Trolling .
@rob
Nonces are vermin, whatever their political allegiance – it’s an irrelevance. Sadly (And annoyingly) all parties have them, I’m afraid. They need ‘outing’ as soon as they’re discovered. Not when they’re dead, like will always be the case with the political classes, as long as the likes of hindson continue to blindly defend them
To me, hindson’s ‘three monkeys’ defence, while hiding under a veneer of: ‘But procedures must be adhered to’ speaks more volumes about his character than his allegiances ever could.
Without people speaking out, and being allowed to speak out unfettered, investigations cannot happen; therefore justice will never be done. That’s what hindson would prefer – and bollocks to anyone’s suffering – as long as the boat isn’t rocked.
@hindson.
Oh, well that’s alright then, innit? :/
Jesus wept.
Reblogged this on idontbelieveitagain and commented:
Say no more.
With all Respect to others skwawkbox is jumping on to a media bandwagon.
Creaming underwear in meantime
Hey Skwarkbox,
Personally speaking I would be in favour of reintroducing medieval forms of torture to our laws for all found guilty of serial child sex-abuse – such as impalement – followed by public execution. Their putrefying corpse can then be hung in the PM’s living-room until such time that child sex-abuse is non-existent in the UK.
Namaste
DN
Agreed, wholeheartedly. 😉
That includes abuse by forcing kids to go to foodbanks, too, which in my book is every bit as evil.
Oh yes Her Majesty’s Civil Service. The Queen’s civil service, the queens bureaucracy.
There are currently 3.7 million children living in poverty in the UK. That’s over a quarter of all children. 1.7 million of these children are living in severe poverty. In the UK 63% of children living in poverty are in a family where someone works.
One wonders if Her Majesty’s children eat from food-banks, experience poverty or abuse daily? And yet the queen remains the symbolic figurehead of a Social Security system that appears to exclude vast numbers of children who live in her kingdom and suffer under her reign. The British Monarchy traces its origins from the consolidated ‘petty’ kingdoms of early medieval Scotland and Anglo-Saxon England in the 10th Century. Given the above figures* I can only deduce that even in 2017 the queen’s UK ‘subjects’ remain living in a ‘petty’ kingdom given petty concern by gross privilege and subject to medieval dominion and world view.
Indeed, ‘let them eat cake!’ whilst privilege eat banquets.
Namaste
DN
* Barnardos – https://www.barnardos.org.uk/what_we_do/our_work/child_poverty/child_poverty_what_is_poverty/child_poverty_statistics_facts.htm
Bring back the death penalty for bent politicians.( Cruel and unusual punishments allowed,) on late night television. Last words? no longer than 17 syllables!
The Tory Election Fraud Charges against Craig Mackinlay is following same patten with no trial until May 2018
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/15/date-set-for-conservative-mp-craig-mackinlay-trial-over-election-expenses
@The Toffee
I’m afraid you’re reverting to putting words into my keyboard.
I’ve got no objection whatsoever to people speaking out, and being allowed to do so unfettered (subject to the laws of defamation – Lord McAlpine springs to mind) so long as they’re prepared to have their evidence tested in the proper forum, be that a court or an inquiry for example.
I’m defending nothing, except the principle of due process, and if you don’t believe in due process – what’s your alternative?
You despicable weasel, hindson.
You’re alright saying Rachael Swindon was fair game for investigation by the DWP on spurious evidence – but make a noise about a nonce MP (Or a hundred)…
“I’m defending nothing, except the principle of due process, and if you don’t believe in due process – what’s your alternative?”
And providing that ‘due process’ is decided by those with (perhaps) vested interests at the expense of the WHOLE truth coming out, then nobody can be in any doubt that you’re all for it.
So take your ball and sod off. Go on – get to soddery.
@The Toffee
Once again you resort to name calling; it does get rather tedious.
As I don’t know what evidence the DWP had in the Rachael case, I cannot comment on whether it was spurious or not. You, of course, may be in possession of the evidence and thus able to make that judgement. Are you?
I’ve no idea what you mean when you say I “make a noise about a nonce MP (Or a hundred)…”
What is your alternative to the established due process – who should investigate allegations of this nature and who should decide guilt or innocence?
Graham Hindson 17/08/2017 at 5:49 pm
“As I don’t know what evidence the DWP had in the Rachael case, I cannot comment on whether it was spurious or not.”
The clue was in the link within the article, but you’ve obviously deliberately chose to ignore it. So I’ll ask again like I did on that thread – who makes £3k per annum (After expenses) from writing a small, independent blog?
Oh that’s right – you’ve already admitted you know nothing of the rules on income…In actual fact, you know nothing about very much in general, full-stop.
So, let’s ask @Skwawkbox, because I doubt he gets anywhere near that total through donations or otherwise; and I reckon he has the greater following (Or at least the higher profile of the two (No disrespect @Rachael – although I could well be wrong!). Not that it matters as much if he’s not claiming…
As I said – you’re alright at casting doubt on the validity of people less able to defend themselves – But only too willing to cast doubt on claims against those who DO have the means, as long as YOU find it suits your (And their) self-satisfied, establishment-promoting agenda.
Even if it means bending/warping/changing/perverting the ‘procedures’ you bleat about being adhered to.
You’re a shithouse – and to be honest I couldn’t give a flying one if you find me calling you out as ‘tedious’
I’m having my fun exposing you for the rodent you are, and that’s all that matters.
“https://skwawkbox.org/2017/05/20/emergency-appeal-malicious-attack-on-pro-jc-campaigner/”
is the link to which I think you’re referring.
In It Skwawkbox makes the assumption (unless he has the evidence) that the report was made because of Rachael’s donate button, and that it was malicious in nature. I don’t know whether those assumptions are correct or not – do you? And I’ve got no idea how much is donated through that button, or as a result of appeals here. Have you?
And I’ll ask again – What is your alternative to the established due process – who should investigate allegations of this nature and who should decide guilt or innocence?
No, you’re right – I have no proof of Rachael’s income from the ‘donate’ button.
…And nor do you – but you think it’s ok for her to be investigated based solely on your view.
Knowing a bit about the law (RE: Rachael’s case) as I do, I’m quite sure I wouldn’t waste my time conducting a rigourous investigation to determine the highly dubious claim (An ‘assumption’ if you like) that she ‘earned’ over the £3k threshold writing a small independent blog, though.
And especially if it led to financial hardship to the person being investigated as a result. It’s far too unlikely to be worthy of investigation. As I’ve said, if Rachael had been found guilty of the spurious claim, she wouldn’t have moved into a new home because her benefits would’ve been stopped. ALL of them.
And she may have gone to jail as a result.
However, I would ALWAYS investigate claims of complicity of a serving chief constable in a child sexual abuse complaint…WITHOUT QUESTION, FEAR, NOR FAVOUR, even if it meant the same financial hardship being imposed on that person as it did Rachael. And especially if there were credible witnesses…Even if it meant that plod would get just a suspended sentence as a result.
See the issue there, graham? On second thoughts, probably not…It’s like trying to teach a dog chinese algebra ffs…
There is evidence. It’s not appropriate to put it into the public domain. Give it a rest, Graham
“However, I would ALWAYS investigate claims of complicity of a serving chief constable in a child sexual abuse complaint…WITHOUT QUESTION, FEAR, NOR FAVOUR, even if it meant the same financial hardship being imposed on that person as it did Rachael. And especially if there were credible witnesses…Even if it meant that plod would get just a suspended sentence as a result.”
For once we agree on something!
So far as “..but you think it’s ok for her to be investigated based solely on your view.” – you’re making things up again. I think it’s OK for her to be investigated if someone(and it wasn’t me) presents a complaint to the authorities just as it is OK for the Chief Constable above.
But hindson – it’s YOU questioning whether this complaint (and skwawkbox’s write-up) has any merit while reckoning Rachael_Swindon’s investigation MUST have had merit. Don’t try to weasel out of it now.
I’ll quote you again…
Can’t a report ever be made in good faith?
You made it quite clear that you believe it’s in ‘good faith’ when it’s someone claiming, and the report is made anonymously.
Although when it’s plod (or any member of the establishment) the validity of such claims are highly debatable and must be questioned – That’s despite there being more substantial evidence than an anonymous report. as well as an identifiable complainant.
But you’re too dense to recognise your hypocrisy.
So, again – I could accuse you (anonymously) of downloading & hoarding kiddy porn. You just might not have done – but (to quote you once more) ‘It’s a possibility’ isn’t it?
Newsflash…Pncestigation & prosecutions don’t go anywhere on the basis of possibilities – Else we’d all be hanged.
Maybe I should make an anonymous complaint…But it’s manifestly obvious that you’re far too separated from reality to comprehend the social & mental aspects of being investigated for something you haven’t (Or may not have) done, so there’d be little point.
Again I’m afraid that you misrepresent what I say.
I’m not “questioning whether this complaint (and skwawkbox’s write-up) has any merit “, other than to question the suggestion that this case has anything to do with claims that the abuse inquiry is intended to be a cover up.
This complaint may have merit, or it may not and the much maligned due process will get to the bottom of that.
If the Officer is guilty of an offence which warrants it then he should go to prison. I suspect, though that if he is never charged, or even possibly if he were to be acquitted, some will still be convinced of his guilt.
In summary – the young victim is quite entitled to make her allegation and it is right that the allegation should be investigated, and the (alleged) perpetrator punished if he is guilty.
I don’t think I can be much clearer than that.
@Skwawkbox
To be fair I was trying to discuss the Chief Constable case, but if others introduce Rachael then I’m going to respond, because if I don’t I’m accused of avoiding the issue. (And I’m always a little wary of “secret squirrel” evidence especially as regards someones motivation)
As usual @Hindson you’re more slippery than the eel in a bowl of snot