If you weren't sure why the banks got themselves, and everyone else, into such a pickle with the Credit Crisis, the 2012 Budget Document is the source of some nice nuggets of information. Civil servants, competent and on the whole moderately paid, have little incentive to avoid the truth and will often slip it in if they can.The financial sector, having burned down the economy, tried to plant the box of used matches in the hands of the public. Ordinary Britons were fingered as a major cause of the crisis due to accepting a rush of cheap credit they couldn't afford.
They glossed over the fact that the banks and building societies were the pushers of the cheap credit. And they also omitted to point out that actually it was overwhelmingly the banks - not the consumers nor the non-financial businesses - that went on a borrowing frenzy.Why did the banks borrow so much? "Casino banking" is intended to be derogatory, but bankers probably don't realise they are supposed to feel insulted - as it couldn't be closer to the truth. Idiot sons for hundreds of years have been gambling away their family fortunes - relying on indulgent parents to bail them out. Cunning bankers have been gambling the nations money in the same way - knowing that indulgent politicians would bail them out using the taxpayer's money.Here is how borrowing boosted bankers bonuses in the good times, and crushed the economy when their bets went wrong:Idiot Son: I have £50.- I bet it on a "six line" (odds 5:1) spin of a roulette wheel.
- If I win. I pocket £300 (my original £50 plus 5 x £50).
- A 500% return on my original money!
- If I lose.
- There goes my £50. Back to daddy for some more cash.
Cunning Banker: I have £50 million. I borrow another £250 million.- I bet it all on bonds, equities, derivatives (odds 5:1) not unlike the spin of a roulette wheel.
- If I win. I get £1,800 million (my original £50+£250 million, plus 5 x £50 million plus 5 x £250 million)
- I pay back the £250 million. I pocket £1,550 million.
- A 3,100% return on my money!
- If I lose.
- The taxpayer bails me out. The taxpayer loses his job, has his benefits cut, has his pension reduced and deferred, the nation is protected by an aircraft carrier with no aircraft.
* MORE DATA FROM McKINSEY report "Debt and deleveraging: The global credit bubble and its economic consequences" added to this post in December 2012*"The United Kingdom and Spain stand out for having the biggest increases in financial sector debt relative to GDP. These figures reflect the rapid growth of the financial sectors in those countries as well as a gradual shift by their banks away from relying on deposits to fund lending towards raising money by borrowing in the wholesale markets."Not our crisis - Austerity isnt working.
#JailTheBankers
Tuesday, August 12, 2014
Monday, August 11, 2014
RICO SORDA: JERSEY CYBER STALKER PART 3 - OUR STORY - FAILURE ...
RICO SORDA: JERSEY CYBER STALKER PART 3 - OUR STORY - FAILURE ...: STATES OF JERSEY POLICE CHIEF MIKE BOWRON DOING WHAT HE DOES BEST. CHATTING IN TOWN. "THE STATES OF JERSEY POLICE&...
A World Still At War.
#StopTheVioence
No profit in peace.
Sunday, August 10, 2014
Sign the letter condemning the Guardian advert branding those opposing Israel in Gaza as 'child killers' - Stop the War Coalition
Sign the letter condemning the Guardian advert branding those opposing Israel in Gaza as 'child killers' - Stop the War Coalition
#InterviewPalestinians
#WarCrimes
#BoycottIsrael
#InterviewPalestinians
#WarCrimes
#BoycottIsrael
UK Government Revising History. (fascism)
From Channel4 News.
The UK Government is engaging in Revisionism of history.
#Orwellian state.
Revisionism is Fascism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism_(negationism)
Saturday, August 09, 2014
Friday, August 08, 2014
Anti-Semitism Attacks On The Increase.
It is clear that Jewish communities are seeing an increase in violence all over the world.
Shops and businesses have been attacked in France.
Hate attacks have been reported in London, Berlin, Boston, Morocco etc.
Anti-semitic and fascist graffiti is appearing all over the world.
Hate attacks have been reported in London, Berlin, Boston, Morocco etc.
Anti-semitic and fascist graffiti is appearing all over the world.
The horrific, one sided violence in Gaza is a PART of the reason.
People are horrified by the indiscriminate massacre of civilians - as am I.
Violence does indeed breed more violence.
People are horrified by the indiscriminate massacre of civilians - as am I.
Violence does indeed breed more violence.
Yet it is western Governments that should take much of the blame for this unrest.
Since the 2001 'attacks' on America we have seen wars that has brutalised people.
It is OUR Governments that have smashed Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.
Our Governments that have caused massive unrest in parts of Africa, Syria, Egypt etc.
Our politicians and media created 'Islamophobia' and the increase in racism.
For nothing more than PROFIT.
Our Governments that have caused massive unrest in parts of Africa, Syria, Egypt etc.
Our politicians and media created 'Islamophobia' and the increase in racism.
For nothing more than PROFIT.
The west is responsible for the rise in fascism across Europe, including that unfolding in Ukraine.
Ordinary Israeli's are just like ordinary every one of us,
Ordinary people do not want war.
Ordinary people just want their children safe.
Ordinary people just want to live a peaceful life free of fear.
Ordinary people do not want war.
Ordinary people just want their children safe.
Ordinary people just want to live a peaceful life free of fear.
There should be NO attacks on ordinary people.
We are all the same.
We are all the same.
We should look instead at working to replace Governments that no longer represent the people.
It is our Governments that are deserving of our anger.
It is our Governments that are deserving of our anger.
#UniteAndFight
Thursday, August 07, 2014
Conservative MP Mark Harper - Twat.
Something chilling happened in the UK in the early hours of this morning (July 31st 2014).
It is doubtful whether most people will remember – or even know – the name Isabella Acevedo. She was the Colombian immigrant employed as a cleaner by the former Minister of State for Immigration Mark Harper. Mr Harper is perhaps best known as the man responsible for the “Go Home” vans targeting illegal immigrants last year. Shortly after that disastrous policy/publicity stunt was scrapped, Mr Harper again hit the headlines when it was revealed he was employing an “illegal” himself. Much was written about the minister at the time, but very little was known about his ex-employee.
Isabella Acevedo arrived in the UK from Colombia – legally – with her 5 year-old daughter in 2000.
It is doubtful whether most people will remember – or even know – the name Isabella Acevedo. She was the Colombian immigrant employed as a cleaner by the former Minister of State for Immigration Mark Harper. Mr Harper is perhaps best known as the man responsible for the “Go Home” vans targeting illegal immigrants last year. Shortly after that disastrous policy/publicity stunt was scrapped, Mr Harper again hit the headlines when it was revealed he was employing an “illegal” himself. Much was written about the minister at the time, but very little was known about his ex-employee.
Isabella Acevedo arrived in the UK from Colombia – legally – with her 5 year-old daughter in 2000.
Hoping but failing to find work in the fashion industry, she started cleaning offices, and in 2007 was employed by Mr Harper. She worked for him for seven years, earning £30 a week. (Naturally Mr Harper claimed back that hefty sum from parliamentary expenses). In 2010, still carefully adhering to the legal requirements set down by the UK immigration authorities (in this case ten years' residence), Isabella applied for indefinite leave to remain, but was turned down because her daughter had returned to Colombia for two and half years as a child. Isabella appealed.
It was at this point, while her appeal was ongoing, that a regular background check revealed that she did not have the correct immigration documentation allowing her to work. This was simply because her appeal was still going through the courts. She was in legal limbo. Of course that didn’t stop every newspaper headline writer referring to her as “illegal”. Even normally sympathetic journalists unquestioningly tagged her as such as a means of accusing Mr Harper of hypocrisy. But in doing so they willingly overlooked a much more complex – and much more human – situation.
When the story broke in the press, Isabella was immediately fired. Immigration officers raided and padlocked her house. Isabella was left homeless, and unable to work. For his part Mark Harper resigned from his ministerial position. Now a mere MP, he was left struggling to survive on his mere MP’s salary (£66,000 a year). David Cameron expressed his sympathy for Mr Harper, writing - "You will be greatly missed, and I hope very much that you will be able to return to service on the frontbench before too long". The prime minister expressed no concerns about Ms Acevedo's well-being.
Two weeks ago, after her appeal was turned down, Isabella was arrested by border officials in order to deport her. With characteristic sensitivity, the officials detained and handcuffed the 47 year-old woman just moments before her daughter’s wedding, while she was waiting at Haringey Town Hall for the ceremony to begin. From there, Isabella was taken to Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centre (currently the focus of claims of sexual abuse of foreign female detainees by British guards – not strictly relevant to this case admittedly, but worth noting to get a sense of the bigger picture here).
The government initially tried to deport Isabella last Thursday (July 24th) but their efforts were halted by protests from a small group of supporters. More protests were planned, and Isabella's case was being watched very closely. And yet somehow, with all this scrutiny, just after midnight this morning, Isabella Acevedo was removed from the UK without warning.
It is starting to appear that the UK government broke its own deportation laws today. These laws state that deportees are to be given notice of a two week “window” during which they will be removed. Isabella was given her notice just yesterday (July 30th), and was forcibly removed all of two minutes into that two week window, while she was still in nightwear. So far, so demeaning. But technically legal.
However, the law also states that during this two week window, deportees must be given 48 hours’ notice of their actual deportation – including the date, time and flight details. And as things stand, it seems the government chose to ignore that particular law. Given the relatively high profile of the case, and the very active campaign supporting Isabella, it is inconceivable that her legal team simply sat back and put their feet up upon receiving notice. All the evidence suggests that it was not given. As for a motive – an unannounced removal in the dead of night would avoid any more protests. All that’s missing from this scenario is a blindfold.
And with that, an inconvenient blot on a politician’s record is swiftly and quietly – and almost certainly illegally – removed from the country.
And with that, an inconvenient blot on a politician’s record is swiftly and quietly – and almost certainly illegally – removed from the country.
But it’s not all bad news. The week before Isabella was detained, her former employer Mark Harper returned to the frontbench of British Government as Minister of State for Disabled People. And in another nifty piece of law-avoidance, he even managed to skip the £20,000 fine for employing an illegal worker (a fine introduced in 2013 by, erm, Mark Harper).
Mr Mark Harper - you are the worst kind of tory.
(and that is saying something)
Pay the fine !
(and that is saying something)
Pay the fine !
And get a conscience - or a heart.
Home Office Review into Missing Documents/Files.
If undertaken properly the review will take 4/5 months providing that there is total co- operation and no delays. This is a lengthy piece of work if done thoroughly and requires dedicated time and a clear diary. A manual check will also be required which must be carried out by the reviewer and is very time consuming.
I am aware that the Terms of Reference (TOR) have been written for the reviewers – but I have not yet seen a copy of these. I am almost certain that my plan as set out below will not be possible – because the TOR will be very restricted. The TOR are the backbone to a review and will ultimately result in an effective review or a restricted review which prevents the reviewers from seeking or obtaining the information required.
It would be very dangerous and show poor investigative skills if the reviewers relied on other people to do the manual checks. This is important because the reviewer knows what they are looking for and will pick up on names and information which someone unfocused or involved in the review would be unable to do.
I have undertaken a significant number of reviews into major crimes and child sexual abuse and have often found large amounts of information that was missed or ignored first time. The first rule I always apply therefore is - read all the material yourself - do not rely on others to interpret it or hope that they will find it.
The starting point for any review is to read up thoroughly on and around the issue - this is made much easier today with the Internet. However such ease of access to material can also present a problem - because sadly some of the material online is speculative and in some cases very inaccurate. However amongst it will be significant and evidentially accurate information. It is important to take references to pages as you do this.
The recent 'Waterhouse ' tribunal into child abuse in care homes in North Wales is a perfect present day example of how TOR can significantly impact on the effectiveness of a review or inquiry. The time period for this review is 20 years - from 1979 through to 1999. The review recently undertaken by Mark Sedwill , Home Office Permanent Secretary - identified - a total of 746,000 files during this time period of which 527 were potentially relevant files which had been retained, and a further 114 files which could not be located.
A starting point would be to meet with Mark Sedwill to establish how he undertook his review. How did he identify the 746,000 files and very importantly what criteria did he use to identify the 641 files (527 plus the missing 114) that he deemed ‘could be relevant’? I would look to replicate his search again and see if this returns the same results.
It would also be useful to use different search methods to see if variations show up. This may be dependent on how Mark Sedwell did his search.
It would also be useful to use different search methods to see if variations show up. This may be dependent on how Mark Sedwell did his search.
My key questions to Mark Sedwill would be:
1. What system was used to identify the 746,000 files?
2. How did he identify 527 relevant files - what were his search terms? This is a very inaccurate way to search for a files information unless you have an exhaustive list of keywords or know the exact file titles.
3. On what basis were 527 files deemed ‘Could be Relevant’?
4. Has a manual search of the 527 files been carried out i.e has a document from one file been put into a different file?
5. Mark Sedwill has been able to identify that 114 of the 746,000 files are missing - how ?
1. What system was used to identify the 746,000 files?
2. How did he identify 527 relevant files - what were his search terms? This is a very inaccurate way to search for a files information unless you have an exhaustive list of keywords or know the exact file titles.
3. On what basis were 527 files deemed ‘Could be Relevant’?
4. Has a manual search of the 527 files been carried out i.e has a document from one file been put into a different file?
5. Mark Sedwill has been able to identify that 114 of the 746,000 files are missing - how ?
The reviewers need to establish how the files were logged at the time - number, name or both. And how they have been re-logged electronically– the recent search to identify the 746,000 files must have been a computer search (why?).
The correct way to log files particularly if they contain confidential or sensitive information or material is by a number system.
The correct way to log files particularly if they contain confidential or sensitive information or material is by a number system.
Prior to electronic records, manual records were kept which tended to be much more thorough. The reviewers need to find the annual registers for each year over the 20 year period - and manually read them thoroughly. I hope that these have been kept - but if they have not I would want to know why and if any correlation exists in dates with the missing files.
The reviewers need to establish 'when' and "who' entered the information onto the computer and how they registered the files. Did they make a manual registry of the documents or work from files?
I would want to speak to the indexer as they should be able to tell you at what point the files went missing. This is significant because if they went missing after the files were computer indexed this may be a retention issue - however if the files went missing before this then a more sinister explanation may be considered.
It would also be necessary to take the 527 files and manually check their titles and contents.
It would also be necessary to take the 527 files and manually check their titles and contents.
A collation of the dates of the missing 114 files would also be important both in terms of when they were initially created and more vitally what was recorded of the files last movement.
If Home Office files are kept anything like police files – they would show a clear audit trail - of who had the files at given times – showing in particular who had the file last.
If Home Office files are kept anything like police files – they would show a clear audit trail - of who had the files at given times – showing in particular who had the file last.
A comparison of the titles of the 527 files against the 114 missing files would indicate if any similar titles or titles which reference child abuse still remain.
This would quickly identify if any files relating to child abuse / paedophilia are missing. I would also make a list of the titles of the missing files to see if a pattern was established.
It is highly possible that more of the 527 files contain information that should be referred to the police.
This would quickly identify if any files relating to child abuse / paedophilia are missing. I would also make a list of the titles of the missing files to see if a pattern was established.
It is highly possible that more of the 527 files contain information that should be referred to the police.
Given that Mark Sedwill has, I believe, no child protection experience – I would be concerned as to how he can decide what should and should not be referred. This re-enforces the need to do a manual search and a thorough read through of all of the identified 527 files.
This is a simple and straight forward approach although time consuming and would involve a lot of manual searching in the Home Officer archives.
This is a simple and straight forward approach although time consuming and would involve a lot of manual searching in the Home Officer archives.
Once the reviewers have established how the files were indexed, what has been done to identify them and what information they contained they then need to establish if anyone else has copies of the file(s). A media appeal asking for those with knowledge of files submitted to the Home Office and regarding child abuse during the 20 year period to contact the reviewers in confidence may be appropriate. This would need to be handled carefully.
In relation to finding the specific ‘Dickens’ dossiers I would consider approaching the following – if they alive – and if not their organisation/authority.
1) Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
2) Sir George Terry, then chief constable of Sussex
3) Where papers for the DPP where held at the time - also CPShttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1984/jan/18/kincora-childrens-home#S6CV0052P0_19840118_HOC_193 This is all relative to Geoffrey Dickens MP specifically passing files to them
4) The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten) - 1988 talks about a further dossier
5) Mrs. Llin Golding (Newcastle-under-Lyme) - a strong campaigner against child sexual abuse - http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/people/mr-john-patten
1) Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
2) Sir George Terry, then chief constable of Sussex
3) Where papers for the DPP where held at the time - also CPShttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1984/jan/18/kincora-childrens-home#S6CV0052P0_19840118_HOC_193 This is all relative to Geoffrey Dickens MP specifically passing files to them
4) The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten) - 1988 talks about a further dossier
5) Mrs. Llin Golding (Newcastle-under-Lyme) - a strong campaigner against child sexual abuse - http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/people/mr-john-patten
The reviewers also need to focus on a number of other specific areas: The Met Police: during the 1980s and until 1990 the Met would have recorded all files received manually into a 'register' (book) allocating a file number and a colour. The colour is important because it identifies its sensitivity and who would be able to see it. I would expect the Dickens files to have gone to a Superintendent and above.
The reviewers need to do a manual yearly registry search for all material that came into the Mets Obscene Publications from the Home Office over the 20 year period.
The reviewers should also see the ‘Register’ held by the National Criminal Intelligence Service ‘Paedophile Desk’ – who I know from my close dealing with them logged everything .
The reviewers should also see the ‘Register’ held by the National Criminal Intelligence Service ‘Paedophile Desk’ – who I know from my close dealing with them logged everything .
This should have been the dissemination point for provisional forces and central intelligence point.
The reviewers should also write to all the police forces and ask them if they could search records for any information they have that has come either been reported to them by the Home Office or has reference to Geoffrey Dickens. This is an administrative exercise but may turn something up.
The reviewers should also write to all the police forces and ask them if they could search records for any information they have that has come either been reported to them by the Home Office or has reference to Geoffrey Dickens. This is an administrative exercise but may turn something up.
This is certainly not an exhaustive list or action plan – but does give an overview of just how thorough the review needs to be.
Mark Williams-Thomas MA PgDip
1st August 2014
1st August 2014
Labels:
#MI5,
home office,
mark sedwill,
missing files,
not destroyed
Church Island, Menai Bridge.
I visited church island in menai bridge earlier in the week.
A beautiful spot on a lovely day.
A beautiful spot on a lovely day.
The highest point on church island has a war memorial.
Glorious views spoilt by this lady moaning about her life on her mobile phone.
Glorious views spoilt by this lady moaning about her life on her mobile phone.
Was I such a twat when i was her age ?
Oh I so hope not.
Oh I so hope not.
Wednesday, August 06, 2014
Freedom Of Information Request. Re Lambeth Police Sex Dungeon.
Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2013070000455
Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),
In November 1997 a sex dungeon complete with manacles , chains ,
bedding and a sleazy red light in Lambeth High-Security Police Head
Quarters in South London.Also found was a great quantity of child
pornography. The civilian staff who leaked the story were suspended
and Officers from Scotland Yard’s Criminal Investigation Bureau
were called in.
bedding and a sleazy red light in Lambeth High-Security Police Head
Quarters in South London.Also found was a great quantity of child
pornography. The civilian staff who leaked the story were suspended
and Officers from Scotland Yard’s Criminal Investigation Bureau
were called in.
How many police officers were convicted and what was their rank?
Where are the files stored?
Yours faithfully,
Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2013070000455
I write in response to your request for information that was received by
the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 03 July 2013. I apologise for the
delay in responding to you. I note that you seek access to the following
information:
the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 03 July 2013. I apologise for the
delay in responding to you. I note that you seek access to the following
information:
"In November 1997 a sex dungeon complete with manacles , chains , bedding
and a sleazy red light in Lambeth High-Security Police Head Quarters in
South London. Also found was a great quantity of child pornography. The
civilian staff who leaked the story were suspended and Officers from
Scotland Yard’s Criminal Investigation Bureau were called in.
and a sleazy red light in Lambeth High-Security Police Head Quarters in
South London. Also found was a great quantity of child pornography. The
civilian staff who leaked the story were suspended and Officers from
Scotland Yard’s Criminal Investigation Bureau were called in.
How many police officers were convicted and what was their rank?
Where are the files stored?"
Following receipt of your request searches were conducted at the
Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS), Record Management Branch (the
department responsible for the retention of recorded files within the MPS)
and the Directorate of Media and Communication (DMC). The searches at the
DMC located a number of press lines that are relevant to your request. I
have disclosed this information to you. Please note that the MPS cannot
confirm whether these press lines accurately reflect the conclusion of the
investigation or comment upon the items that were allegedly found within
the police premises you refer to.
Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS), Record Management Branch (the
department responsible for the retention of recorded files within the MPS)
and the Directorate of Media and Communication (DMC). The searches at the
DMC located a number of press lines that are relevant to your request. I
have disclosed this information to you. Please note that the MPS cannot
confirm whether these press lines accurately reflect the conclusion of the
investigation or comment upon the items that were allegedly found within
the police premises you refer to.
MPS Press Lines
Logged on 11 Nov 1997:
"IF ASKED: Approx two weeks ago, a CIB investigation began after certain
items were found in a small space at an MPS building in Lambeth.
items were found in a small space at an MPS building in Lambeth.
The building is mainly used by civil support staff.
There is no suggestion that police officers are involved in this matter,
or that anyone was taken there under duress.
or that anyone was taken there under duress.
There is no evidence that any sexual activity actually took place at the
premises.
premises.
IF ASKED: Can confirm there are no police officers involved."
Logged on 14th Nov 1997:
"IF ASKED: There have been no suspensions icw this enquiry.
IF ASKED: There are no police officers based at Lambeth. The building is
entirely a base for civil staff departments."
entirely a base for civil staff departments."
Please note that the abbreviation 'icw' means 'in connection with'.
The searches at the DPS and Records Management Branch failed to locate
information relevant to your request. Please note that, owing to the time
that has elapsed since the investigation into this incident, any files
relevant to this case would have been destroyed in accordance with the MPS
disposal schedule. Disciplinary investigation files are destroyed 6 years
after the conclusion of the investigation.
information relevant to your request. Please note that, owing to the time
that has elapsed since the investigation into this incident, any files
relevant to this case would have been destroyed in accordance with the MPS
disposal schedule. Disciplinary investigation files are destroyed 6 years
after the conclusion of the investigation.
No mention of the child porn.
I just love our police force
I just love our police force
Send dissidents to 'detention centers,' says Israeli columnist
Send dissidents to 'detention centers,' says Israeli columnist
The rhetoric is becoming quite fascist.
#GazaUnderAttack
#InterviewPalestinians
#StopTheViolence
The rhetoric is becoming quite fascist.
#GazaUnderAttack
#InterviewPalestinians
#StopTheViolence
The Deaths Of Scientists.
Labels:
bae,
dodgy coroners,
killing scientists,
marconi,
mod,
plessey
Tuesday, August 05, 2014
RICO SORDA: JERSEY CYBER STALKER - PART 2 OUR STORY - GUEST PO...
RICO SORDA: JERSEY CYBER STALKER - PART 2 OUR STORY - GUEST PO...: " CYBER STALKING 2" "A GUEST POSTING" "JON S HAWORTH" "THE S...
BBC. Denning Admits 29 Charges Of Child Abuse.
Baljit Ubhey, Chief Crown Prosecutor for CPS London, said: "We have carefully considered the evidence gathered by the Metropolitan Police Service as part of Operation Yewtree in relation to Christopher Denning, who was initially arrested on 3 June 2013 over allegations of sexual offences. A full file of evidence was passed to the CPS on 6 March 2014.
"Having completed our review, we have concluded that there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest for Mr Denning to be charged with 41 offences, including 34 counts of indecent assault. These date from between 1967 and 1985, and relate to 22 male complainants aged between nine and 16 at the time of the alleged offending."
The charges are:
Two offences of indecent assault on a boy aged 12-14 between 1967-70
One offence of indecency with a child and one offence of indecent assault on a boy aged 9-11 between 1969-71
One offence of indecent assault on a boy aged 14-16 between 1971-73
Two offences of indecent assault on a boy aged 14-15 in 1973
One offence of indecent assault on a boy and one offence of buggery on a boy aged 13-14 between 1973-75
One offence of indecency with a child and two offences of indecent assault on a boy aged 12-14 between 1976-77
One offence of indecent assault on a boy aged 14 between 1978-79
One offence of indecent assault on a boy aged 14 between 1978-79
One offence of buggery and two offences of indecent assault on a boy aged 14-15 between 1978-79
One offence of indecent assault on a boy aged 12 between 1978-79
Two offences of indecent assault on a boy aged 13-15 between 1978-80
Two offences of indecent assault on a boy aged 12 between 1979-80
One offence of indecency with child on a boy aged 12-14 between 1981-82
Two offences of indecent assault and one offence of attempted buggery on a boy aged 10-13 between 1980-83
Two offences of indecent assault on a boy aged 10-13 between 1980-83
One offence of indecent assault on a boy aged 12 between 1982-83
Two offences of indecent assault on a boy aged 13-14 between 1982-83
One offence of indecent assault on a boy aged 14 in 1983
One offence of indecent assault and one offence of indecency with a child on a boy aged 11-12 in 1982
Three offences of indecent assault on a boy aged 12-14 between 1983-84
Two offences of indecent assault on a boy aged 12-13 between 1983-84
Two offences of indecent assault on a boy aged 16 between 1984-85
Ms Ubhey said: "The decision to prosecute has been taken in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors and Crown Prosecution Service legal guidance on rape and child sexual abuse. We have determined that there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction and that a prosecution is in the public interest.
One offence of indecency with a child and one offence of indecent assault on a boy aged 9-11 between 1969-71
One offence of indecent assault on a boy aged 14-16 between 1971-73
Two offences of indecent assault on a boy aged 14-15 in 1973
One offence of indecent assault on a boy and one offence of buggery on a boy aged 13-14 between 1973-75
One offence of indecency with a child and two offences of indecent assault on a boy aged 12-14 between 1976-77
One offence of indecent assault on a boy aged 14 between 1978-79
One offence of indecent assault on a boy aged 14 between 1978-79
One offence of buggery and two offences of indecent assault on a boy aged 14-15 between 1978-79
One offence of indecent assault on a boy aged 12 between 1978-79
Two offences of indecent assault on a boy aged 13-15 between 1978-80
Two offences of indecent assault on a boy aged 12 between 1979-80
One offence of indecency with child on a boy aged 12-14 between 1981-82
Two offences of indecent assault and one offence of attempted buggery on a boy aged 10-13 between 1980-83
Two offences of indecent assault on a boy aged 10-13 between 1980-83
One offence of indecent assault on a boy aged 12 between 1982-83
Two offences of indecent assault on a boy aged 13-14 between 1982-83
One offence of indecent assault on a boy aged 14 in 1983
One offence of indecent assault and one offence of indecency with a child on a boy aged 11-12 in 1982
Three offences of indecent assault on a boy aged 12-14 between 1983-84
Two offences of indecent assault on a boy aged 12-13 between 1983-84
Two offences of indecent assault on a boy aged 16 between 1984-85
Ms Ubhey said: "The decision to prosecute has been taken in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors and Crown Prosecution Service legal guidance on rape and child sexual abuse. We have determined that there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction and that a prosecution is in the public interest.
"We have also decided that no further action should be taken in relation to three further allegations against Mr Denning, made by three further complainants, as we determined that there was insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction.
"May I remind all concerned that Mr Denning has a right to a fair trial. It is extremely important that there should be no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings."
Anyone would think you HAD to be an abuser to work at the BBC back then.
Is it still going on today?
Is it still going on today?
Denning pleaded guilty to 29 historic abuse charges.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)