By JB
Independent Inquiry Child Sex Abuse
From the 2012 investigation
‘Allegations of Child Sexual Abuse Linked to Westminster’.
“This investigation concerns institutional responses to allegations of child sexual abuse and exploitation involving persons of public prominence who were associated with Westminster. Westminster is defined in this report as the centre of the United Kingdom’s government, government ministers and officials, as well as Parliament, its members and the political parties represented there.
Seven topics were covered in evidence. These were: police misconduct, political parties, whips’ offices, the Paedophile Information Exchange, prosecutorial decisions, the honours system, and current safeguarding policies in government, Parliament and the political parties.
Several cross-cutting themes recurred throughout the investigation. One is the theme of ‘deference’ by police, prosecutors and political parties towards politicians and others believed to have some importance in public life. Another concerns differences in treatment accorded to wealthy or well-connected people as opposed to those who were poorer, more deprived, and who had no access to networks of influence. A third relates to the failure by almost every institution to put the needs and safety of children first. The police paid little regard to the welfare of sexually exploited children. Political parties showed themselves, even very recently, to be more concerned about political fallout than safeguarding; and in some cases the honours system prioritised reputation and discretion in making awards, with little or no regard for victims of nominated persons.”
“There is ample evidence that individual perpetrators of child sexual abuse have been linked to Westminster. However, there was no evidence of any kind of organised ‘Westminster paedophile network’ in which persons of prominence conspired to pass children amongst themselves for the purpose of sexual abuse. The source of some of the most lurid claims about a sinister network of abusers in Westminster has now been discredited with the conviction of Carl Beech. Nevertheless, it is clear that there have been significant failures by Westminster institutions in their responses to allegations of child sexual abuse. This included failure to recognise it, turning a blind eye to it, actively shielding and protecting child sexual abusers and covering up allegations.”
“Several highly placed people in the 1970s and 1980s, including Sir Peter Morrison MP and Sir Cyril Smith MP, were known or rumoured to be active in their sexual interest in children and were protected from prosecution in a number of ways, including by the police, the Director of Public Prosecutions and political parties. At that time, nobody seemed to care about the fate of the children involved, with status and political concerns overriding all else. Even though we did not find evidence of a Westminster network, the lasting effect on those who suffered as children from being sexually abused by individuals linked to Westminster has been just as profound. It has been compounded by institutional complacency and indifference to the plight of child victims.”
“A vivid picture of corruption in central London in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s was portrayed by several witnesses. This included the cruising of expensive cars around Piccadilly Circus, by those viewing boys and young men, who would hang around the railings known as the ‘meat rack’ to be picked up by older men and abused. The boys were described as aged between 11 and 22. Many were from damaged backgrounds or were runaways from the care system, and were known as ‘street rats’ by police officers.
Lord Taverne, a Home Office minister in 1966, described a meeting with the then Home Secretary, Roy Jenkins, and the then Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Joe Simpson, at which Sir Joe remarked that there were “several ‘cottages’ in Westminster which we don’t investigate” because “they are frequented by celebrities and MPs”. While not specifically about the sexual abuse of children, it is an example of a policy giving special treatment to persons of prominence and of deference towards those in power at Westminster.”
For more detail you can read the full investigation here…. Executive Summary | IICSA Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse
Shouts of ‘Westminster corruption’, ‘sleaze at the heart of UK Government’, ‘hypocrisy’, ‘moral filth’…………..you get the picture.
It would seem that Westminster MP’s have a preoccupation with sex as opposed to actually doing the job they are actually paid to do.
List of sexual misconduct allegations made against MPs | UK news | The Guardian
Also Keith Vaz Labour MP….the list of sleazy Westminster MP’s is endless, as are each consecutive London Government….Labour/Tory, Labour/Tory etc……
Yvette Cooper ( The Secretary of State for the Home Department) from a debate on 6 January 2025 titled “Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse”
“Child sexual abuse and exploitation are the most vile and horrific of crimes, involving rape, violence, coercive control, intimidation, manipulation and deep long-term harm. The information from the crime survey should be chilling to all of us. It estimates that half a million children every year experience some form of child sexual abuse: violence and sexual violation in the home; repeated rapes or exploitation by grooming or paedophile gangs; threats and intimidation involving intimate images online; or abuse within institutions that should have protected and cared for young people—cruel and sadistic crimes against those who are most vulnerable.”
Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse – Hansard – UK Parliament
Well…..she said it!!!
JB
Talking-up Scotland 
Under Thatchers watch the police mysteriously misplaced or lost 140 pedophiles cases . The files contained files that identified child sex abusers. Brushed under the Big London Parliament carpet.
Sent from Outlook for Androidhttps://aka.ms/AAb9ysg
LikeLiked by 2 people
Exactly.
People wrung their hands in disbelief at Jimmy Saville – how could a predator like that operate in plain site?
The reason he could operate in plain site is because he was a facilitator to these people as well as a predator.
That explains why some dodgy northern DJ was tolerated within the upper circles, who wouldn’t otherwise give the regular proles the steam off their shit.
Everybody knew fine what was going on – comments from John Lydon, Jerry Sadowitz, Frank Skinner amongst the more well known that bear this out.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Starmer v Saville
Labour cover up?
Westminster cover up?
As head of the Crown Prosecution Service how did Starmer avoid scrutiny on the decision not to prosecute Saville on the grounds of “ insufficient evidence”?
Answer:
He passed the blame onto the police and a prosecuting lawyer who was actually working for Starmer, him obviously being the lawyer’s boss at the time.
Our not then Prime Minister, but head of the CPS said:
“These were errors of judgement by experienced and committed police officers and a prosecuting lawyer acting in good faith and attempting to apply the correct principles.”
Oh! Nearly forgot
A spokesperson for the CPS said:
“in line with the established data retention policy”, none of the records for the decision not to charge Savile in 2009 were kept.”
Keir Starmer led the CPS when it did not charge Jimmy Savile, but he wasn’t the reviewing lawyer – Full Fact
If the shoe fits
As the people of Scotland are told to believe every negative we see and read about us I have chosen to believe this, or at least decided there must be some truth in it.
“Starmer’s Sausages”
“Starmer’s sausages”: the British prime minister did not pay the Ukrainians for escort services — EADaily, May 22nd, 2025 — Politics, Ukraine
JB
LikeLiked by 2 people
I read a shocking article, headlined “‘Grave Sexual Abuse’: When the Word Rape Doesn’t Apply To Boys” [by Zahara Dawoodbhoy, 21 Sep 2020], about a South Asian nation/culture in which men have been raping boys with impunity. The boys dare not resist or complain.
There, girls’ vaginal virginity is traditionally/normally verified before an arranged marriage takes place. The ‘virginity’ of boys, however, seems to not be an issue, and therefore they cannot be sexually ‘spoiled’ or considered raped.
The following relevant segment is taken from the extensive article:
_____
“”…. According to the Penal Code of Sri Lanka, the word ‘rape’ is defined as a man having sex with a woman, under specific circumstances that lack consent. The rape of boys — and men — therefore, do not fall under this official legal definition, and the crime instead gets tried as ‘grave sexual abuse’. Although the punishment for the two offences is the same, the euphemism used to describe rape when it occurs to boys points to larger social attitudes of who we consider can be victims.
“I think there is a myth that it only happens to female children, and that has to do with the cultural aspect of people feeling that rape is a female-related issue,” Sonali Gunasekera, Senior Director of Advocacy at the Family Planning Association (FPA) told Roar Media. “That is probably why this archaic law is still in place — because that’s how it was seen from afar.”
Despite this myth, the fact remains that instances where young boys are raped in Sri Lanka are surprisingly frequent. Director of the Child Protection Force, Milani Salpitikorala, says that 90% of her current cases involve young boys, and the idea that the boy child is somehow less susceptible to sexual abuse and rape in this country is completely false.
“Our mindsets are set in a culture of ‘Don’t worry about your child if he is a boy,’ but the boy child is as unsafe in the hands of perpetrators as much as the girl child is, if not more,” she said.
In 1997, a community study was conducted on university students in Sri Lanka, where a questionnaire was administered to two sets of undergraduates — one that had heard a lecture on child abuse prior to completing the survey, and one that had not. In both groups, the percentage of boys that admitted to being sexually abused during their childhood was higher.
Despite these findings, little research has been conducted looking into the demographics of child rape, and prevalent social attitudes around gender continue to erase boys from the demographic of people considered to be rape victims.
Even when the abuse does come to light, it is shrugged off by the idea that ‘ships don’t leave tracks on water’, which is a phrase used to imply that because there is no physical virginity to be lost, no harm has been done.
“In many cases I have seen, families and peers of young boys who are being sexually abused don’t take it seriously because the ‘issue’ of virginity doesn’t come into play,” Thushara Manoj, Senior Manager for advocacy at the FPA told Roar Media.
“When a girl gets raped, this is seen as an issue because it is believed her virginity has been compromised, and she also has the capacity to become pregnant from it. This means that her marriage prospects will suffer, and there is a risk of her abuse becoming apparent.”
But with boys, Manoj explains that this fear does not exist, and as a result, families are unlikely to intervene, especially if the perpetrator is a member of the family or community at large. ….””
Source website: https://roar.media/english/life/features/grave-sexual-abuse-when-rape-does-not-apply-to-boys
___
Even here in the West, male victims of sexual assault or rape are still more hesitant or unlikely than female victims to report their offenders. They refuse to open up and/or ask for help for fear of being perceived by peers and others as weak or non-masculine.
Men can take care of themselves, and boys are basically little men. One might see some of that mentality reflected in, for example, a New York Times feature story (“She Was a Big Hit on TikTok. Then a Fan Showed Up With a Gun”, February 19, 2022).
Written by Times reporter Elizabeth Williamson, the piece at one point states that “Instagram … [has] been accused of causing mental and emotional health problems among teenage female users.” A couple paragraphs down, it is also stated that, “Teen girls have been repeatedly targeted by child predators.”
Why write this when she must have known that teen boys are also targeted by such predators? And if mainstream news-media fail to fully realize this fact in their journalism, why would or should the rest of society?
It could also be the same mindset that may explain why the author of Childhood Disrupted included only one male among her six interviewed subjects, there likely having been such a small pool of ACE-traumatized males willing to formally tell his own story of traumatic childhood adversity, especially that of a sexual nature.
To get anywhere, males need to have the same strong mainstream-media (news, social and entertainment) support that females have had for decades and still do. Males have instead observed thus known that for the most part they haven’t been taken seriously. If anything, the media are generally cynical toward their cause.
It might be yet more evidence of a continuing yet subtle societal take-it-like-a-man attitude, one in which so many men will choose to abstain from ‘complaining’ about their torturous youth, as that is what ‘real men’ do.
LikeLike