Downing Street seems very reluctant to even investigate claims of an elitist paedophile ring that many claims runs through the Houses of Commons and the House of Lords. In fact 3 of the last four Prime Ministers have been reported as either covering up the scandal or in David Cameron’s case completely dismissing it as a “conspiracy theory.” David Cameron once stated that he was worried that an investigation in to these claims could potentially turn to a witch hunt against gay Politicians, like there isn’t a difference, if they was unwilling and forced or under 16 its illegal. The only Prime Minister of late not to be accused of covering up child abuse by the mainstream media is Gordon Brown but Gordon Brown also has Internet rumours circulating from somebody that claims to be a victim.
In October 2016 The Independent reported
Theresa May faces claims of a cover-up after she admitted knowing about concerns over how the child abuse inquiry was being run weeks before any official action was taken to address them.
The Prime Minister accepted there had been “stories around” about the troubled probe when she was Home Secretary, but that it had been impossible for her to act on hearsay.
It follows a string of resignations from the inquiry into historic child abuse allegations, including that of former chair Dame Lowell Goddard who quit earlier this year amid concerns about her professionalism and competence.
Ex abuse inquiry chair was difficult to work with, colleagues tell MPs
Downing Street had said the first Ms May officially knew about concerns was in late July, but inquiry staff revealed issues were raised with the Home Office months earlier.
After being confronted with the new information, No 10 officials admitted Ms May knew about concerns when she was still Home Secretary, some weeks before the end of July.
Following the revelation, Labour MP Lisa Nandy said: “For far too many child abuse survivors, cover-ups, secrecy, institutions that act in denial will be far too familiar.
“And I’m not the first person to say that this feels like a cover-up. In fact there are a number of child abuse survivors who have been involved in the inquiry who are voicing those concerns as well.”
Speaking to Sky News, she added: “If Theresa May is serious about allowing the truth to emerge, and for people to have confidence in this inquiry, then she needs to come clean about what she knew and when.”
One November day in 1998, a group of officials from Lambeth Council found themselves in an upstairs meeting room at Mary Seacole House, a concrete office block in South London.
It was the end of a lengthy business meeting. And they were sitting in stunned silence.
The reason? A few moments earlier, a local police inspector had just delivered several pieces of earth-shattering news.
First, he revealed that detectives working on Operation Trawler, an investigation into a paedophile ring suspected of operating in the London borough’s children’s homes, were focusing their inquiries on 12 potential abusers.
Second, he was prepared to name these people. Third, it contained the names of several high-profile members of the Establishment.
On condition of confidentiality, the policeman read out a list of the people his team was pursuing.
One was a Lambeth councillor. Another was a household-name celebrity. A third, perhaps most explosively, was a minister in Tony Blair’s government.
‘These are all only suspects at this stage,’ the policeman said, bullishly. ‘But I have reason to believe that further investigation will produce evidence that I can use to pursue court cases.’
In the room in Clapham High Street there was a sharp intake of breath. Labour-run Lambeth was no stranger to ugly headlines. For almost two decades, its name had been a byword for corruption, incompetence, and loony-Left political dysfunction.
Since the Eighties — when, under the Trotskyite leadership of ‘Red’ Ted Knight, it was dubbed Britain’s worst-run local authority — the Town Hall had spawned a series of criminal investigations and public inquiries, involving everything from fraud and blackmail to Mafia-style racketeering.
More recent years had seen Lambeth’s social services department rocked by a string of appalling sex scandals, some of which remained ongoing.
Yet even by those standards, the allegation that its premises were home to an Establishment paedophile ring, which included a member of the government, must have seemed so extraordinary, and so utterly unprecedented, as to be in a class of its own.
That, presumably, will have been the verdict at Mary Seacole House that day, where the gobsmacked council officials included several of Lambeth’s most senior social workers and executives, along with two of the borough’s solicitors.
But in the weeks that followed, something very strange occurred. Far from leading to arrests and court cases, the policeman’s comments triggered events that saw him moved out of Lambeth and Operation Trawler brought to a halt.
In the process, those 12 suspected abusers, including the minister, were kept out of the firing line for more than 15 years. Things had started to unravel roughly three weeks after the meeting on November 26, 1998, when the police inspector, Clive Driscoll, was summoned to a meeting by his superintendent.
There, he learned he was being moved off the investigation, and transferred out of Lambeth, with immediate effect, due to what the superintendent opaquely called ‘orders from on high’.
Shortly afterwards, Operation Trawler was unceremoniously shut down, and its remaining staff transferred to other duties, again due to apparent ‘orders on high’.
Records of its existence, including paperwork identifying the 12 suspects, were transferred to police and council archives, where many crucial documents would subsequently disappear. Finally, that December, Driscoll, a highly-regarded police officer with two decades of service, found himself being disciplined for alleged misconduct, for having shared the high-profile men’s names in that original, supposed confidential meeting.
The formal complaint was eventually dropped, but not before he’d been forced to undergo a highly unpleasant disciplinary hearing. By the time he learned he was in the clear, all hope of continuing to pursue the investigation had vanished.
