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.

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.

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 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.

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 ?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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 .

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.

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