View Single Post
Old 06-08-2017, 08:56 AM  
grimstock
Premier Subscribers
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 2,181
Likes: 1,048 (637 Posts)
Default

The 10 Downing Street Connection = Bryn Alyn

Thoughts on the subject as related to the overlap with the Spanner case.

(includes extracts from the "Westminster Paedophile Ring" thread, posting number 522)

"Why had a corrupt senior officer of Manchester Children's Services been allowed to operate for many years as a pimp for John Allen's child prostitution racket?
Why was the officer never questioned or charged after being reported to Downing Street in 1985 for threatening the author of a report on Bryn Alyn in 1983? (Ref: Lost in Care 21.115 / Letter to 10 Downing Street (Reply 4th june 1985)
Why was he never sacked by Manchester Social Services?
Why were he and John Allen given full backing for taking no action on child abuse reported at Bryn Alyn in 1983.
Why had no action been taken over the report which stated there had been no mandatory records available or taken at Blackley House, Bryn
Alyn including fire, health, medications, or general day notes.
Why had there been no follow up interventions of any of the many
Social Services Departments involved, particularly since the report recommended a full investigation, and full monitoring of all Bryn Alyn operations in/from 1983 onwards? (Ref: Lost in Care 21.114)
Why had John Allen been so important to number 10?
Why had there been no request to interview or speak with the author of the report, since he had further information to offer ? (Ref: Lost in Care 21.113)
Were the various Social Services departments still unaware of the abuse after 10 Downing Street and the Home Office had been informed in 1985? (Ref: Lost in Care 21.115)
Why had the Home Office not attempted to communicate with the author after being assigned the matter of corruption at Bryn Alyn by 10 Downing Street in June 1985?
If the matter had been passed to the Welsh Office, why had no actions been undertaken, save for a few visits to John Allen?

Why had it taken until Operation Pallial in 2014 (31 years later) before anybody had spoken to the author about matters in the report of 1983, particularly since it had been reported to 10 Downing Street in 1985?.

Why had a member of John Allen's security been trespassing and was almost caught eavesdropping at the report author's secluded house in the middle of the night in December 1983?

Did John Allen (and the Home Office) wrongly suspect he had been set up, and worried because there was more at stake than just child abuse and child prostitution? (The mature student involved in making the report in October 1983 had only been on site for a total of 24 hours, but listed numerous cases of physical abuse, general malpractice in many circumstances, including preventing children from going home at the weekend, and false accounting/making a false statement to police by John Allen personally).(Ref: Lost in Care 21.113).

Is that why visitors to the whistleblower's house had been raided by the police under Operation Spanner, from 1983/87, in their quest to perhaps find a connection to John Allen, or any of Allen's possibly missing snuff or extreme movies? "

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.g.../dh_134777.pdf

Why had the author of the report not been invited to give evidence at the Waterhouse Inquiry?
Why had the Waterhouse Inquiry, whilst yet believing the report contents, (Ref: Lost In Care 21.133) not enquired as to why the report had never been investigated? (First investigated by Operation Pallial National Crime Agency in 2014.)



Why had the Waterhouse Inquiry underplayed and reduced statistical data of the number of funded children affected/handled and accomodated by John Allen by some (estimated) 90%?

Were the missing statistics representative of missing children?

Last edited by grimstock; 07-08-2017 at 08:42 AM.
grimstock is offline   Reply With Quote