Showing posts with label cathy fox. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cathy fox. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 21, 2017

Lewisham Council Obstruction of FOI Request.

The FOI request was simple, and it was made on 6 Jun 2016.

Over a year later Lewisham Council have failed to comply with their duty under the FOI Act to supply the information requested.

They have offered a number of exemptions, excuses, numerous broken deadlines, even given unlawful excuses not covered under the FOI Act, and delayed and delayed and delayed and failed to reply a number of times.

Eventually after 8 months I was forced to make a complaint to the Monitoring Officer.  The Monitoring Officer has the specific duty to ensure the county council, its officers, and its elected councillors, maintain the highest standards in all they do [11]

However this monitoring officer failed to do her job, she failed to do her duty, she failed to answer nearly every question I asked her, she even went on holiday when she said she would reply. She failed to ensure the Council answer as required to do so by the FOI Act. She has failed to ensure an internal review of the FOI is carried out as required to do.

Unfortunately regulators such as ICO are slow to act and rogue Councils know this and take advantage of it to delay. I have started upon that route, but that is likely to take another two years and there are many steps on that route and the ICO itself claims to be short of staff and is already slow completing the very first step.

One course accessible to me and one of the most powerful is to name and shame.
  • Kath Nicholson is the monitoring officer. It is her duty to ensure the Council maintain the highest standards in all they do.
  • It is Kath Nicholson who has failed to do her duty as monitoring officer to ensure the Council maintain high standards and reply substantively within a year to a FOI request with the information.
  • It is Kath Nicholson who has failed to even maintain a legal standard, never mind maintain the highest standards for herself and nor ensuring the council’s officers maintain highest standards
  • Kath Nicholson it seems has set a slovenly, illegal standard and been as awkward as possible.
  • Kath Nicholson even actively refused to send the reply to one part of the FOI to the public WDTK website, she maintains she will only send it my personal email, which was given to her in the process of making the complaint and not anything to do with the FOI itself.
The highest standard Kath or the lowest?
                                                                    Kath Nicholson
Kath Nicholson, supposed Monitoring Officer, refuses to answer how Lewisham’s records are filed.

Kath Nicholson, supposed Monitoring Officer, refuses to say whether there is a digitised index.

Kath Nicholson, supposed Monitoring Officer refuses to say whether the records are stored in house or via an external agency where a fee has to be paid.

Kath Nicholson, supposed Monitoring Officer, refuses to explain what was meant by an odd phrase “to retrieve this information would require manual checks on all such individuals”

Kath Nicholson, supposed Monitoring Officer, refuses to do an internal review on the council claim that the 160 page “After Leeways” Report cannot be found in 18 hours despite the fact it is the duty of the Council to do.

Kath Nicholson, supposed Monitoring Officer, refuses to do an internal review on the council claim that they cannot find a Review of the Child Services from 1990 within 18 hours despite the fact it is the duty of the Council to do so.

Kath Nicholson, supposed Monitoring Officer, illegally refuses to send a copy of the Chief Executives report to the WDTK website. This was the same report that the Council unlawfully claimed was Confidential and would not be released. they clearly do not want it available to the public.

Kath Nicholson, supposed Monitoring Officer, refuses to say whether the Elizabeth Lawson “1 year on Report” was not done or it was done but lost, and refuses to do an internal review into this.

Kath Nicholson, supposed Monitoring Officer, refuses to confirm what documents they hold.

Kath Nicholson, supposed Monitoring Officer refuses to answer what the legal reason was to refuse the “Chief Executives Report” or admit that there were no legitimate reasons for refusal.

Kath Nicholson, supposed Monitoring Officer refuses to process a formal complaint about the staff involved in the delay of the FOI request and the failure of the Council to answer my requests for internal reviews and further information.

Kath Nicholson, supposed Monitoring Officer, refuses to internally review the whole request some 5 months after it was requested. It appears as though staff have been told not even to acknowledge my correspondence on this request.

*By “refuses” I mean she has not done so after repeated requests, and therefore this is a de facto refusal.

I have good reason to believe that there was widespread child sexual abuse in Lewisham Council, that was covered up at the time.

The actions of Lewisham Council and Kath Nicholson in particular are without doubt deliberately still delaying and covering up.

Perhaps Lewisham Council are using this time to find and shred or destroy or “lose” documents that will incriminate Lewisham Council. Perhaps they are taking steps to reduce their financial liability. That would explain why they feel they can deliberately and openly flout their public and legal duty yet are supposed to be public servants.

Have Kath Nicholson and Lewisham Council gone rogue? Are corporate interests a higher priority than public duty?

Is Kath Nicholson’s job as head of Law in conflict with her job as Monitoring Officer. Quite clearly she is not carrying out her duties properly as Monitoring Officer. Why? Does the Council support her refusal to carry out her legal duty?

Are the Council refusing to do their public duties and acting on some interpretation of their corporate ones?

Is the Council paying people to cover up child sexual abuse?

That is a reasonable explanation that fits the facts.

How sick are the people involved who actively or passively cover up the rape of children? What are their motives? What do they get in return?

A much abbreviated history of the  FOI correspondence with links follows, the full saga can be checked here [1]

2016 Jun 6 [1]

Please could you send me a copy of
1. The dossier “After Leeways, Challenges, Changes and Achievements” published by the London Borough of Lewisham on March 19th 1987
2. The minutes of the Social Services Committee 23rd July 1985
3. Review of Childrens Residential Services believed to be July 1984
4. Chief Executives Inquiry Report, subsequent to Leeways believed to be February 1986
5. Minutes of the Report to Council on 5 March 1986 (This should contain discussion of Chief Execs Inquiry Report)
6. Report of the Elizabeth Lawsons Independent Panel 1 year on from Leeways Report
2016 Sept 26 Answer (paraphrased)   [1a]

  1. “After Leeways, Challenges, Changes and Achievements”. Refused as it is not recorded in a readily accessible form, too much time and money Section 12(1)  [1a]
  2. Social Services Committee 23rd July 1985 Minutes provided see [1b]
  3. Review of Childrens Residential Services believed to be July 1984  – refused not recorded in a readily accessible form – too much time and money Section 12(1)
  4. Chief Executives Inquiry Report – Refused Confidential [No legal reason given]
  5. Minutes of the Report to Council on 5 March 1986 (This should contain
    discussion of Chief Execs Inquiry Report) There are no records of a meeting on the date you quote.
  6. Elizabeth Lawsons Independent Panel 1 year on from Leeways Report – Information not held
2016 Oct 1 [1c] My reply

1. “After Leeways, Challenges, Changes and Achievements” dossier is apparently approximately 160 pages and was the main Lewisham response to the Inquiry into the horrific situation of Lewisham Council having a child abuser in charge of its childrens home who had abused several children. It should from the size be relatively easy to find within your files.
To help me understand could you explain how are Lewishams records from this time filed or catalogued, whether there is a digitised index and also whether Lewishams records are stored in house or via an external agency where a fee has to be paid for searching?
I do not understand what you mean by “individuals” in this sentence “To retrieve this information would require manual checks on all such individuals. “ Could you explain?
2. Thankyou for those minutes
3. Review of child services not able to be found. This was a major revamp only 30 years ago. Is this not able to be found easily within the time limit?
4. “Chief Executives Inquiry Report, subsequent to Leeways believed to be February 1986 This information is deemed confidential, and will not be released”
Could you give the exemption Lewisham is claiming under the FOI Act? I also enclose a link to a document which gives some more detail as to the Report for your information.
5. Minutes of Report to Council 5 March 1986
This is link to a page 19 that has been supplied to me https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2016/10/0… I believe it to be from the “After Leeways Report” but I could be mistaken. It describes this Report to Council. I wonder whether it would be possible to find it with this help. Is it also possible to identify the other 3 monthly progress reports and the meetings that they were supplied to? I realise this maybe taken as a new request.
6. Report of the Elizabeth Lawsons Independent Panel 1 year on from Leeways Report. Did this Report happen or has it been lost?

2017 Jan 23 [1d] My Reply 

You replied to my request of 1 Oct 2016 “Thank you for your recent request. Your request is being considered and you will receive a response within the statutory timescale of 20 working days, subject to the application of any exemptions/exceptions”
I received a response to part of the request on 4 Oct, but a substantial part has not been replied to.
Nor have I received even a reply to my subsequent emails. If I do not receive a reply I will therefore be forced to put in a complaint against you.
Please tell me who the head of Freedom of Information Department is?
Please could you tell me who the Lewisham Council Monitoring Officer is presently?
Please could you tell me why I have not received a reply to my FOI of 1 Oct 2016 nor subsequent emails?
Please answer my requests as Lewisham Council is required to by law.
I gather that my next stage is to ask for an internal review. If I do not receive reply to my requests by 5pm on 25th Jan 2017, please take this a request for Internal Review [1d]
No further progress has been made on the FOI since Jan 23 despite several requests.

Summary of FOI

The Council
  • provided one set of minutes
  • refused two large reports that they claimed would take over 18  hours each to find
  • refused another report on “confidentiality”,  ie  grounds with no legality in FOI
  • maintained one meeting I requested a report for did not happen to which I gave them  information that it did, i heard nothing more
  • claimed not to hold another report
  • have refused to answer any questions or requests about this since
How would they know they did not hold one report yet they claim it would take them 18 hours to search for another?

Summary of Requests Outstanding

1 “After Leeways, Challenges, Changes and Achievements” dossier is apparently approximately 160 pages and was the main Lewisham response to the Inquiry into the horrific situation of Lewisham Council having a child abuser in charge of its childrens home who had abused several children. It should from the size be relatively easy to find within your files. To help me understand could you explain how are Lewishams records from this time filed or catalogued, whether there is a digitised index and also whether Lewishams records are stored in house or via an external agency where a fee has to be paid for searching?
I do not understand what you mean by “individuals” in this sentence “To retrieve this information would require manual checks on all such individuals. “ Could you explain?
2 Review of child services not able to be found. This was a major revamp only 30 years ago. Is this not able to be found easily within the time limit?
3 “Chief Executives Inquiry Report, subsequent to Leeways believed to be February 1986 This information is deemed confidential, and will not be released”
Could you give the exemption Lewisham is claiming under the FOI Act? I also enclose a link to a document which gives some more detail as to the Report for your information.
[Report still not been provided to this site as requested. Attachments been sent to private email, which I do not wish to open as they may be insecure, whereas on this site it is secure and public and where I requested it and where it is Lewisham’s duty to provide it.]
4 Minutes of Report to Council 5 March 1986
This is link to a page 19 that has been supplied to me https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2016/10/0… I believe it to be from the “After Leeways Report” but I could be mistaken. It describes this Report to Council. I wonder whether it would be possible to find it with this help. Is it also possible to identify the other 3 monthly progress reports and the meetings that they were supplied to? I realise this maybe taken as a new request.
5 Report of the Elizabeth Lawsons Independent Panel 1 year on from Leeways Report. Did this Report happen or has it been lost?
6. Internal review on why all information requested has not been provided or questions even addressed.

Kath Nicholson appears to be the central figure in Lewisham as to why the legitimate FOI request is not being processed lawfully or any information is being released nor given about any aspect of the request including an acknowledgment of questions referring to it [16]
It could be seen as worrying that Kath Nicholson has said –
“as local authority lawyers, we are working with politicians and so have to be politically astute, too. My job is to help them do what they want to do. In more than 30 years [in local government], I’ve only said “You can’t do that” once or twice.” [13]
It is also worrying that she admits that her department is not overseeing child protection cases safely –
“The department has 103 live child protection cases being handled by just eight solicitors. ‘An individual solicitor can safely handle between 10 and 12 cases, except my staff are doing adult protection work too,’ says Nicholson. ‘Cases can be hugely complicated, particularly where there are six or seven children in the family.’” [13]
Most worrying is that Kath Nicholson is not doing her job properly as Monitoring Officer, which has widespread repercussions throughout the Council and Lewisham.
The truth about what is child sexual abuse happened in Lewisham Councils “care” is not being revealed because she is not doing that job properly. Perhaps she is helping politicians do what they want rather than do what her Monitoring Officer job is? Perhaps there is a conflict between being Head of Law and Monitoring Officer?
Kath Nicholson, Lewisham Council – Shame on you
Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. These links are generally UK based.
  • The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers.
  • National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups.
  • One in Four [C]
  • Havoca [D].
  • Useful post on Triggers [E]  from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog.
  • Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G]  and Meditation [H] may be useful.
  • Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma  [J]
  • Survivors UK for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men [K]
  • Voicing CSA group [L] helps arrange survivors meetings in your area
  • A Prescription for me blog Various emotional support links [M]
  • ShatterBoys -“Male Survivors Of Childhood Sexual Abuse Inspiring change, Through Shared Experience Whilst Building Connections…Together We Can Heal” [N]
Links
[1] 2016 Jun 6 WDTK FOI to Lewisham Council Leeways Childs Home, 17 Edward Rd, Bromley https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/leeways_childs_home_17_edward_rd#outgoing-549340

[1a] 2016 Sept 26 answer https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/leeways_childs_home_17_edward_rd#incoming-872834
[1b] 1985 Jul 23 Meeting of Social Services Committee 17 pages https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/338492/response/872834/attach/3/Leeways.pdf
[1c] 2016 Oct 1 Q https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/leeways_childs_home_17_edward_rd#outgoing-584348
[1d] 2017 Jan 23 Q https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/leeways_childs_home_17_edward_rd#outgoing-616147
[1e] 2017 Jun 1 Second request https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/leeways_childs_home_17_edward_rd#outgoing-654591
[2] 2016 Oct 1 Cathy Fox Blog  Lewisham Council Chief Executives Inquiry Leeways Childrens Home https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2016/10/01/lewisham-council-chief-executives-inquiry-leeways-childrens-home/
[3] 2014 Nov 24 cathy fox blog Lewisham Leeways Report and Social Services Minutes July 1985 https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2014/11/24/lewisham-leeways-report-and-social-services-minutes-july-1985/
[4] 2014 Jan 21 cathy fox blog Council Response to Leeways Report https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2014/01/21/council-response-to-leeways-report/
[5] 2013 Nov 12 cathy fox blog The Leeways Inquiry Report into Sexual Abuse https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2013/11/12/the-leeways-inquiry-report-into-sexual-abuse/
[6] 2016 Jan 24 cathy fox blog Paedophilia around Piccadilly Part 5 1980s and Operation Circus https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2016/01/24/paedophilia-around-piccadilly-part-5-1980s-and-operation-circus/
[7] 2014 Sept 16 Cathy Fox Blog Paedophilia around Piccadilly Part 3 -Timeline of a Child Rapist 2 – Roger Gleaves https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2014/09/16/paedophilia-around-piccadilly-part-3-profile-of-a-paedophile-roger-gleaves/
[8] 2015 May 6 cathy fox blog Paedophilia around Piccadilly Part 4 Playland Trial and Cover up https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/05/06/paedophilia-around-piccadilly-part-4-playland-trial-and-cover-up/
[9] pic 2
[11] Local Government and Housing Act Section 5  http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/42/section/5
[12] Lewisham Senior Managers https://www.lewisham.gov.uk/mayorandcouncil/aboutthecouncil/how-council-is-run/council-structure/Pages/senior-managers.aspx
Kath Nicholson Head of Law Kath has overall responsibility for legal advice to and representation of the Council. It also includes the duties of the Council’s statutory monitoring officer and responsibility for the management of European and national parliamentary and local elections. She manages approximately 50 staff.
Kath is a solicitor with over 34 years’ experience in the public and private sector and holds an MBA in Public Sector Management.
[13] 2013 Oct 14 Law Gazette People Kath Nicholson https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/people/kath-nicholson/5038115.articlehttp://archive.is/HhG3L
leader of a team of 27 fee-earners dealing with child protection, governance, employment, property, litigation and all the other issues that a large inner-city local authority generates. She also found time to co-author a book, A Guide to the Local Government Act 1999, with Trowers & Hamlin partner Helen Randall.
‘As lawyers, we all have to be the goalkeeper who can also take penalties,’ Nicholson tells the Gazette. ‘We have to be proactive while getting the balance right – because nobody wants an overly conservative lawyer. The big difference is that as local authority lawyers, we are working with politicians and so have to be politically astute, too. My job is to help them do what they want to do. In more than 30 years [in local government], I’ve only said “You can’t do that” once or twice.
The pressure is certainly intense. The department has 103 live child protection cases being handled by just eight solicitors. ‘An individual solicitor can safely handle between 10 and 12 cases, except my staff are doing adult protection work too,’ says Nicholson. ‘Cases can be hugely complicated, particularly where there are six or seven children in the family.’
The problem is not confined to child protection, Nicholson adds. Lewisham’s education team is now down to one solicitor, yet more than 90 schools need legal advice on how to become academies. The employment team, moreover, comprises just two solicitors to handle the affairs of thousands of staff. Employment claims commonly arise from the downsizing policies of the council and have included a Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) case that went as far as the Court of Justice of the European Union in Luxembourg and this country’s Supreme Court.
[14] Foulston http://archive.is/HKFoQ
[15] 1985 Dec 10 WDTK Special Meeting of Social Services Ctte Minutes  https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/184669/response/473239/attach/3/Leeways%20response%2010%2012%2085.pdf
[16] 2017 Jun 14 WDTK https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/leeways_childs_home_17_edward_rd#outgoing-658043

Saturday, June 17, 2017

British Intelligence bought information about US Child Abusers.

Quality independent media site “Disobedient Media” has received information in response to their Freedom of Information request.

102 pages from the New York State Select Committee On Crime from 1982 have been released [2]

The evidence was given to the New York State Select Committee on Crime, its causes, control and effect on society, in the matter of  “A Public Hearing to consider the Boy Prostitution and Pornography”

Senators Ralph Marino, Abraham Bernstein, Howard Babbush, Owen Johnson, as well as Jeremiah McKenna and Lilli Scott were on the Committee.

Witnesses describe children, probably way in excess of 400, being trafficked round a circuit which encompassed Houston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, New Orleans, New York, D.C., and Florida, spending a few weeks in each location.

The circuit included bars, burlesque houses
, pornographic movie joints where abusers rang up between cities to arrange a child and paid by credit card. This was linked to organised crime or Mafia. One prominent figure mentioned  in connection with pornography was Michael Zaffarano.

Detectives from Washington DC, Carl Shoffler and Anne Fisher gave evidence and described the network. However the part I will concentrate on for this post is evidence given by Dale Smith. He was an investigator for the Select Committee on Crime and research analyst in 1978 and 1979 investigating juvenile prostitution and pornography in New York [p44]

Smith states that there were two 2 male “call service operations” in Washington, called Friendly Models and Stables. Call Service Operations is the euphemistic term they use to describe prostitution arranged over the phone. The prostitution of children was mixed in with this.

Stables was a male homosexual call service linked to another locally and two in New York. Arlington Police raided Friendly Models and obtained a warrant for the search and arrest of Stables operation [p56].

Robert Koehler was an accountant of several call service operations in Washington. Koehler said that details of sexual proclivities of abusers were sold to agents of foreign Intelligence [p58]
Johnathan Christopher Reynolds III, call service operator of Brians Boys and Fantasies Unlimited in Alexandria, Virginia. He admitted that information was sold to to British and Israeli Intelligence [p59]
 “A Public Hearing to consider the Boy Prostitution and Pornography” Report page 59

So British intelligence, presumably MI6, knew of the sexual abuse of children, of the prostitution of children and did nothing to help. In fact, the opposite. They took advantage of children’s suffering and bought information about the sexual habits of the abusers.

Of course that is exactly what their colleagues in the Security services do in the UK. They are steeped in this aberrant behaviour which they see as normal or convince themselves it is somehow in the national interest. Sickos.

They obtain the abusers information, not to bring them to justice, but to control, by blackmail, the child abusers who are often in powerful positions. Blackmail is just another crime to add to the intelligence services long list.

The children and people that the intelligence services are supposed to protect are the very people they abuse. The intelligence services, stuffed full of people with abnormal, psychopathic behaviours however are realistically immune from prosecution and the law due to inadequate safeguards over the behaviour of intelligence services.

If the security services are not actually running the child abuse networks, then they are neck deep in them.

It was noted in this US Report that the “law appears to have had little effect in controlling the traffic in child flesh”. The Justice system was not interested. That I would venture was because the judges are subjected to the same blackmail by the recidivist “intelligence” agencies.

This situation outlined in the report in 1980 has “developed” in the US until there is now a whole criminal swamp comprising the deep state, politicians and organised crime. They run ratlines of sex trafficking, child trafficking, legal drugs, illegal drugs, organ harvesting, money, weapons, oil, information and anything they can make a commodity. See #AwanBrothers

Democracy is an illusion.

The UK is not far behind. In UK Swamp plc are the deep state, intelligence agencies, banks especially HSBC,  police, judges, politicians. Symptoms are weapons sales to terrorists, prostitution and rape of children, corruption, two faced politicians who continue to harm the people they are supposed to represent.
The question is what are we going to do about it and when?

The full article from Disobedient media follows.
2017 Jun 16 Disobedient Media Disobedient Media Releases FOIA On East Coast Trafficking Networks [1] 
Disobedient Media today releases 102 pages from the New York State Select Committee On Crime. The document describes an investigation into child pornography and human trafficking by two detectives from the Washington D.C. Metropolitan Police. The findings were presented to officials on July 26, 1982.

Detectives found that organized crime did play a role in the distribution of child pornography, but that the day-to-day activity in regards to child prostitution appeared to be run by a group of collectors who would, “trade material and trade male prostitutes back and forth.” The investigation revealed that young male and female minors were being transported between California and D.C. along a route known as the “California Connection.” The route was part of a circuit which encompassed Houston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, New Orleans, New York, D.C., and Florida. According to detectives, clients could call a phone number in Houston from Washington and have a young boy delivered directly to their location. These purchases were incredibly streamlined and could even be made with credit cards which were charged to front companies under various guises such as photography studios, book stores, models, and model agencies.

Minors were also prostituted out of bars. In some cases, there would be as many as 50 to 75 minors at a single bar. Detectives found that minors were from different sections of the country and were generally runaways, some leaving from various organizations they had been placed into by the state. The investigation also noted that the younger children would be placed on narcotics in order to keep them under control, and were told not to talk to the police, and that if they did, they would receive bodily harm or be killed.

One of the key figures in the investigation was William Oates, who ran pornographic film and burlesque houses out of D.C., Pittsburgh, and New York which catered to male homosexual clientele and had live stage performances by dancers who doubled as prostitutes. Another subject of the investigation was Paul Abrams, who ran a call service out of New York, which included male prostitutes and children. Abrams was later arrested and pled guilty to prostitution, but received only probation for his involvement in the felony offense.

Detectives also stated that these call services would supplement their income by selling information on the sexual proclivities of their clients to agents of British, Israeli, and Soviet intelligence services. Intelligence agencies have a documented history of seeking sexual blackmail to exert control over public figures and government assets.

According to investigators, anti-human trafficking efforts were hampered by lack of funding and almost no support from the federal government. Additionally, trafficking victims would often be unwilling to return home and face judgmental scrutiny from their local communities.

The investigation’s content sheds new light on the nexus between human trafficking, organized crime and government agencies.

The document can be found in a searchable format here.
Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. These links are generally UK based.
  • The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers.
  • National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups.
  • One in Four [C]
  • Havoca [D].
  • Useful post on Triggers [E]  from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog.
  • Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G]  and Meditation [H] may be useful.
  • Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma  [J]
  • Survivors UK for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men [K]
  • Voicing CSA group [L] helps arrange survivors meetings in your area
  • A Prescription for me blog Various emotional support links [M]
  • ShatterBoys -“Male Survivors Of Childhood Sexual Abuse Inspiring change, Through Shared Experience Whilst Building Connections…Together We Can Heal” [N]
Links
[1] 2017 Jun 16 Disobedient Media Disobedient Media Releases FOIA On East Coast Trafficking Networks http://disobedientmedia.com/2017/06/disobedient-media-releases-foia-on-east-coast-trafficking-networks/
[2] Disobedient Media FOI release  http://live.disobedientmedia.com/documents/ny-sex-trafficking.pdf
[3] http://thegoldwater.com/news/3842-Nationwide-Child-Sex-Trafficking-FOIA-Exposed
Other notes
Smith assisted NYPD in arrest of juvenile call service operator called Paul Abrams. He pleaded guilty to a felony charge of prostitution and received probation.
1982 updates bar on upper EastSide called Dallas 53rd St near 2nd Avenue, and Follies Theatre 48th West side near Minnesota Strip, live sex shows with underage kids
owner William Oates in Pittsburgh also had Best of Both Worlds

Thursday, February 23, 2017

Hollyshaws House Childrens Home and Southwark Child Abuse.

Southwark Council have recently released one 100+ page Report into Hollyshaws House, and some relevant minutes but say that they have been unable to locate another report.
Released are
  • 1986 Oct 24 London Borough of Southwark Minutes of Social Services Meeting [1c] 
  • 1986 Jul London Borough of Southwark Report of an Independent Inquiry [into Hollyshaw House and limited other aspects of Southwark SS] wdtk [1d] wordpress [17]
Not released was another report, which was, I think, the one rewritten as a cover up by John Briggs, Social Services Director.
Hollyshaws House was a childrens home for about 16 children near Tunbridge, Kent but was run by Southwark Council. It was shut in Nov 1984
The Freedom of Information Request is here [1a]
Later in this post are
  • 1986 Oct 24 London Borough of Southwark Minutes of Social Services Meeting [1c] 
  • First 5 pages of the 1986 Jul London Borough of Southwark Report of an Independent Inquiry [into Hollyshaw House and other aspects of Southwark SS] [1d] or on wordpress [17]
  • Times article [14] 1985 May 9 Times Nicholas Timmins Children in care “had sex”
  • Times article [15] 1985 Jun 17 Times Richard Evans Nick Timmins DHSS to investigate “mismanagement” at council homes
Southwark
I do not have time to do an in depth article on Southwark or even on Hollyshaw House.
Survivors, whistleblowers and others need to come together to form a Southwark Survivors group
  • Find other survivors, whistleblowers, social workers, ancillary workers etc
  • Help support each other and find healing
  • Help each other get legal help if necessary
  • Apply for own social care records (Subject access request under Data Protection Act)
  • Tell their own stories and record that in some form
  • Read and become familiar with all the information that is published, and arrange it in a timeline, so that things become clearer as to what happened and when
  • Apply for more information uner FOI that is signposted in the available information
  • Cross reference above information with how the authorities were meant to treat you by their own rules
  • Write a report or get a report written
During this process the authorities will start to have to take notice of you, but it will only be by having strength together that action will occur.
Survivors in other areas are further ahead in the process
  • Shirley Oaks, Lambeth have and they have already produced one report, see summary,  Looking for a Place Called Home – Report of Shirley Oaks Survivors [16] and a website Shirley Oaks Survivors Association [11]
  • Islington survivors have a website, Islington Survivors Network [10]
Information is available about Southwark and child abuse from
Spotlight on Abuse Category Southwark [4] Newspaper articles
Operation Greenlight Southwark – written section  [9]
Operation Greenlight Hollyshaw House – the brain [5]
hollyshawgreen
Operation Greenlight Southwark – the brain  [6]
southwarkCathy Fox Southwark [8]
Other sources not mentioned could be Local Libraries, National Archives, British Museum, Council, specialised newspaper archives, Hansard, House of Commons and house fo Lords Libraries, Social Services Inspectorate
Please feel free to comment below this post. Some peopel also wich to contact others about Hollyshaw or S0uthwark.
Can anyone develop an app for survivors to meet fellow survivors?
1986 Jul London Borough of Southwark Report of an Independent Inquiry [into Hollyshaw House and limited other aspects of Southwark SS] [1d]
  • Chair – Timothy RGF  Ryland (Barrister)
  • Admin – Geoffrey S Dunn (ex Director of Social Services)
  • Brian Blackler (Solicitor)
The first 5 pages are here and the rest of the hundred odd pages are here on a pdf download [1d]
I have not had time to read the whole report properly and any summary would be gratefully received.
It is interesting to note that the terms of reference were changed and it would be interesting to see what the original terms were.
It was certainly thought to be a cover up by the press as
  • the panel members not told about “child on child” sexual abuse that was known about
  • the main report was rewritten by (the by soon ex) Social Services Director John Briggs
It is not wholly clear to me whether this report is the rewritten one or the original, and I will try and read more after publication of this post, but may not have time, so so views welcome in comments.
It should also be noted that abusers in “child on child” sexual abuse have often been sexually abused themselves. This is confirmed by the Shirley Oaks Report  [16]
Redaction
  • The Report is redacted.
  • It appears overly redacted and many names that I judge should be in are redacted.
  • This is in line with an overcautious approach taken about the Data Protection Act even in regard to officers of the council in an official position and in reports already published and / or given to the media.
  • I have not yet seen any explanations of the redaction, which if so would be against the FOI act
  • The redactions are labelled so that at least it can be understood which are the same individuals on each occasion. This should be done under the FOI Act, but often is not
  • I would guess initially that John Briggs is A1
  • I have complained about the redaction after further study, see Appendix 1
The first 5 pages are here and the rest of the hundred odd pages are here on a pdf download [1d]
southwarkreport1 southwarkreport2 southwarkreport3 southwarkreport4 southwarkreport5 southwarkreport6

Minutes of Meeting of Southwark Social Services Committee  24 Oct 1986

Councillors – Tony Goss (Chair) Marjorie Henriques, Anne Matthews, Pat Morgan, Linda Oram, Tony Ritchie, Winston Stafford, Pat Sullivan, Andy Troke
Other -Peter Coast, Fred Haynes, Staffside reps
It appears that a working party was set up of 3 councillors, that was to report back in 8 week – that will be useful information to have
southwarkminutes1 southwarkminutes2 southwarkminutes3 southwarkminutes4
Times articles on Hollyshaw House, Southwark

These, I think have not  published elsewhere recently [HT M]
1985 May 9 Times Nicholas Timmins Children in care “had sex” [14]
hollyshaw01hollyshaw02 hollyshaw03
David Barnes, Social Services Director Southwark
1985 Jun 17 Times Richard Evans Nick Timmins DHSS to investigate “mismanagement” at council homes [15] 

Read left column all the way down, then right column all the way down
hollyshaw20hollyshaw21
Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. These links are generally UK based.
Appendix 1 Redaction
Redaction appears excessive, exemptions not explained, see oservations below that have been made to Southwark
southwarkreport9
  • FOI Complaint re redaction [1f]
  • Thank you for your response to my FOI (ref: 696842)Unfortunately I cannot see any explanation of the redaction as required by the FOI Act. The situation was complicated by the use of Egress switch
    (The owners for the WDTK site had to access the files that you sent by Egress switch as I could not do so, and they consider the use of this method unhelpful see https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/s…. Please do not send any further answers by this method, if there is a technical problem please contact the site)
    If you sent the reasons for redaction and explanations please could you do so again, and if you did not please send them for the first time.
    There appear to be no exemptions given for each redaction and it is not clear what the difference between A B D etc is or what type of person/body the letters differentiate between.
    The ICO guidelines state
    “Give an indication of how much text you have redacted and where from. If possible, indicate which sections you removed using which exemption.
    Provide as much meaningful information as possible. For example, when redacting names you may still be able to give an indication of the person’s role, or which pieces of correspondence came from the same person.
    As far as possible, ensure that what you provide makes sense. If you have redacted so much that the document is unreadable, consider what else you can do to make the information understandable and useful for the requester.”
    https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/gui..

  • The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers.
  • National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups.
  • One in Four [C]
  • Havoca [D].
  • Useful post on Triggers [E]  from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog.
  • Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G]  and Meditation [H] may be useful.
  • Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma  [J]
  • Survivors UK for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men [K]
  • Voicing CSA group [L] helps arrange survivors meetings in your area
  • A Prescription for me blog Various emotional support links [M]
  • ShatterBoys -“Male Survivors Of Childhood Sexual Abuse Inspiring change, Through Shared Experience Whilst Building Connections…Together We Can Heal” [N]

Links
[1a] 2016 Sept 17 FOI request Southwark, Hollyshaw Childrens Homes Reports into Child Sexual Abuse https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/southwark_hollyshaw_childrens_ho#outgoing-580197
[1b] FOI Council Answer https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/southwark_hollyshaw_childrens_ho#incoming-880891
Please could you send me the two reports into mentioned in this article by the South London Press Oct 24 1986 [2a] [2b]
1. The Report into child sexual abuse at Hollyshaw Childrens Home
Please find attached the requested report.
2. The Report censored by Social Services Director John Briggs
Having conducted an initial search of our records, we can confirm that we have been unable to locate this report. Therefore, our response is that this report is no longer held by the authority. Please note that we are in the process of making further enquiries with our archives team and will contact you in due course if any further information is located.
Could you also send me the minutes of the Committee that met on Oct 24 1986 that received the report
attached
2. The Report censored by Social Services Director John Briggs
Having conducted an initial search of our records, we can confirm that we have been unable to locate this report. Therefore, our response is that this report is no longer held by the authority. Please note that we are in the process of making further enquiries with our archives team and will contact you in due course if any further information is located.
[1c]  1986 FOI Answer Oct 24 London Borough of Southwark Minutes of Social Services Meeting http://files.whatdotheyknow.com/request/southwark_hollyshaw_childrens_ho/19861024%20Social%20Services%20Committee%20meeting%20minutes.pdf
[1d] 1986 FOI Answer Jul London Borough of Southwark Report of an Independent Inquiry [into Hollyshaw House and other aspects of Southwark SS] http://files.whatdotheyknow.com/request/southwark_hollyshaw_childrens_ho/HollyShaw%20Report%20of%20an%20Independent%20Inquiry.pdf
[1e] FOI response with documents in https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/southwark_hollyshaw_childrens_ho#comment-73257
[1f] FOI Complaint re redaction https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/southwark_hollyshaw_childrens_ho#outgoing-623122
[2] 1986 Oct 24 South London Press Gerard Sagar Why – did Social Services hide Report? https://spotlightonabuse.wordpress.com/2014/05/02/why-did-social-services-boss-hide-report-24-10-86/
[2a] https://spotlightonabuse.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/slp241086a.jpg
[2b] 1986 Oct 24 South London Press Gerard Sagar Why – did Social Services Hide Report? page 2 Kids Home Sex Scandal https://spotlightonabuse.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/slp241086b.jpg
[4] Spotlight Category Southwark https://spotlightonabuse.wordpress.com/category/southwark/
[5] Operation Greenlight Hollyshaw House  https://webbrain.com/brainpage/brain/0FE31538-2121-8495-33A5-86073BE95DE1/thought/918#-4896
[6] Operation Greenlight Southwark https://webbrain.com/brainpage/brain/0FE31538-2121-8495-33A5-86073BE95DE1/thought/918#-30
[7] 2013 Oct 5 FOI https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/public_inquiry_report_into_grove
[8] Cathy Fox Southwark https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/public_inquiry_report_into_grove
[9] Operation Greenlight Southwark https://theneedleblog.wordpress.com/operation-greenlight/london/southwark/
[10] Islington Survivors Network http://islingtonsurvivors.co.uk/
[11] Shirley Oaks Survivors Association https://www.shirleyoakssurvivorsassociation.co.uk/
[12] Cathy fox Blog Southwark https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/?s=southwark
[13] What Do they Know https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/search/Southwark%20child%20abuse/all
[14] 1985 May 9 Times Nicholas Timmins Children in care “had sex” via [30] 2017 Feb 8 Cathy Fox Blog Hollyshaw House Childrens Home and Southwark Child Abuse  https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/02/08/hollyshaw-house-childrens-home-and-southwark-child-abuse/
[15] 1985 Jun 17 Times Richard Evans Nick Timmins DHSS to investigate “mismanagement” at council homes  via [30] 2017 Feb 8 Cathy Fox Blog Hollyshaw House Childrens Home and Southwark Child Abuse  https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/02/08/hollyshaw-house-childrens-home-and-southwark-child-abuse/

[16] 2017 Feb 6 Cathy Fox Blog Looking for a Place Called Home – Report of Shirley Oaks Survivors  https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/02/06/looking-for-a-place-called-home-report-of-shirley-oaks-survivors/
[17] 1986 FOI Answer Jul London Borough of Southwark Report of an Independent Inquiry [into Hollyshaw House and other aspects of Southwark SS] hollyshaw-report-of-an-independent-inquiry
[30] 2017 Feb 8 Cathy Fox Blog Hollyshaw House Childrens Home and Southwark Child Abuse  https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/02/08/hollyshaw-house-childrens-home-and-southwark-child-abuse/
[A] Sanctuary for the Abused http://abusesanctuary.blogspot.co.uk/2006/07/for-survivors-coping-with-triggers-if.html