The BBC and Labour have been making hay whilst the sun shines and headlining serious allegations of child abuse against a ‘leading Thatcher era politician’.
Not having any proof what so ever they have had to refrain from naming him…..and now it seems the victim may not have named him at the time either (and he still refuses now claiming he is too afraid of being sued) One website from 1997 does claim to know the names….having said that, reading the articles the claims are either genuine and horrific or entirely mad and include just about every Tory they could think of as well as…..MI5, arms dealers, high finance, blackmail, assassinations, spy rings and Tory big wigs burying children on their country estates….David Icke wrote some of the material.
Still that hasn’t stopped the BBC from making the wildest and most damaging allegations that they can themselves….and they keep slipping in the thought that there was, and there still is, a cover up going on to protect any accused high profile offenders…..a cover up by whom?…they leave that thought hanging….is Cameron involved????? are they trying to suggest very subtly?
And what do they mean by Thatcher era politician?….do they mean the abuse happened during Thatcher’s term as PM, or just that the man worked with Thatcher at some time?
The accuser, Steve Messham, said he first made his allegation to police in 1977, then again in 1979 and then in the 1990’s….which presumably led to the Waterhouse Inquiry.
Now that suggests the abuse took place before 1977…..Thatcher was only voted into government in 1979…..so the particular accusation of abuse was not ‘Thatcher era’…..there was no ‘paedo ring in No10’ as the Mirror likes to portray it.
One question…..how did a young teen recognise any politican at that time…..how many teens could recognise many today other than say Cameron and Miliband?…and even then get the wrong Miliband….and it seems that confusion over identity is possible…‘A man who bears the same surname as a prominent Conservative supporter. Two witnesses have told the tribunal of a rich and powerful man who belonged to the alleged ring.’
Interesting interview with another ‘victim’ on Victoria Derbyshire the other day…..asked if he was abused he said he couldn’t remember…..apparently ‘it’ was so traumatic he’d put it to the back of his mind….he couldn’t remember a single detail…..not saying people are making stuff up and the BBC are falling over themselves to give airtime to anyone with a ‘damning story’ but it does give that impression.
Let’s look at the instigator of all these rehashed allegations…….Tom Watson….but first a question….yesterday Evan Davis was questioning Theresa May about why she had set up an inquiry into these allegations in Wales.
Davis wanted to know why she had done that….because he stated….there is absolutely no new evidence….so my question might be why have the BBC decided to headline the allegations if they were found to be without any merit by Waterhouse and there is no new evidence?
Back to Watson….look at his biography and you might notice that Tom Watson is mainly concerned with…Tom Watson…and his self promotion. I don’t believe for one minute that he has the interest of the victims on his mind….he sees a political opportunity and a chance to grandstand yet again. No doubt the book will be out soon.
Why do I not think he has the interests of the victims at heart? Because if that was the case he would have raised the fiasco that was Operation Ore…..conducted under Labour’s regime and which named two Labour MPs as possible paedophiles.
Two Labour MPs join rock star Townshend in child porn inquiry
Former ministers reported to be on list of suspects who accessed site
or this:
In the 19th of January edition of The Sunday Herald, Neil Mackay sensationally reported that senior members of Tony Blair’s government were being investigated for paedophilia and the “enjoyment” of child-sex pornography:
and don’t forget this from The Sun:
By MIKE SULLIVAN
Crime Editor
A TOP aide to MPs at the House of Commons was yesterday charged with
having child porn on his computer.
Senior clerk Phillip Lyon, who arranges the weekly Prime Minister’s question Time for Tony Blair, was arrested after vice cops raided his commons office.
Lyon, 37, is accused of making indecent images of children.
Lyon is a highly trusted senior clerk to the Commons select committees.
His main duties are arranging Question Time on Wednesday afternoons. He has daily contact with senior backbench MPs and sits in on private sessions of the select committees as they cross-examine witnesses.
Lyon has a pass to the Commons guaranteeing him full access to the building after being vetted. A Commons source said: “He was a highly respected member of the civil staff who was implicitly trusted by colleagues and MPs.”He was in a position of great responsibility. The allegations against him are shocking.”
I haven’t heard the BBC mention any of these allegations and yet they are happy to rehash the Tory claims.
Operation Ore was a total failure by the police……but there are still 3000 people on the investigation’s list who haven’t been questioned by police. Given that, and Watson’s concern about getting to the truth and bringing injustices to light and offenders to book….shouldn’t he be pressing for that Operation to be included in any inquiry?
And as he hasn’t so far, shouldn’t the BBC be questioning his impartiality and whether he is merely conducting a highly partisan and politicised smear campaign regardless of the thinness of ‘evidence’?
The BBC might ask that question of themselves…..it looks merely that the BBC are keen to deflect the barrage of criticism they have received over Savile and are ‘delighted’ to find a Tory in their sights, and one who has a connection to Thatcher so they can put her in the frame as well, smearing her by association.
Angus Stickler, the BBC Newsnight reporter said: “My view is that these are allegations that weren’t investigated by Waterhouse.” He said they needed to be investigated “in the light of the new public mood” after the Jimmy Savile revelations.
Where are all the BBC staff, Jonathan Dimbleby included, rushing to say this is all nonsense…the victims are being forgotten…there is a ‘disturbing relish in the witch hunt of Tory politicians‘?
There may turn out to be truth in the allegations….but….it seems there one set of rules for the BBC and Labour politicians and another set for Tory politicians when it comes to making explosive claims based on flimsy evidence.
If it comes to Labour then what about the widely-suspected link between the Dunblane massacre and a possible paedophile in the Blair administration?
Given the connections between party bigwigs and BBC staff I wonder if the corporation is hiding anything? I mean, of course, hiding anything else – we know it puts up with in-house paedophilia until it is exposed.
Perhaps Lord Leveson should investigate – that is, if it doesn’t upset his cosy relationship with the rather censorious Guardian. (Oddly the Labour Party favours censorship too.)
The Dunblane story was very effectively buried.
and its links with NATO and a recent PM
There’s some papers about George Robertson buried under the hundred years rule so I believe. Nothing to do with any of this of course – must be a national security thing.
What happened to the thirty year rule?
…it became the 75, then the 100 year rule…selectively applied, apparently.
Suspect Blair, always suspect Blair.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/uk/2000/uk_confidential/1081675.stm
Or Charles Lynton as he is known is some circles (including the City of London peelers).
…I’ve heard that one too!
PS: Interesting link.
Particularly the bit about Tallulah Bankhead and the Eton schoolboys. I’m surprised Tom Watson hasn’t tried to make something out of it…
Phillip Lyons was an official of the House, not connected with Labour.
“Phillip Lyons was an official of the House, not connected with Labour.”
“Senior clerk Phillip Lyon, who arranges the weekly Prime Minister’s question Time for Tony Blair, was arrested after vice cops raided his commons office”.
Now stay in after school and write 100 times: “I must read things properly
‘not connected with Labour’
I think things do get read.
Then what happens is they are passed through the filter.
It just falls apart when others with access beyond the archive notice.
Jim is correct and Teacher is wrong, so stop sneering. Clerks are politically impartial, so this man worked for the House and not for any party. He would have had the same responsibilities whatever party was in power.
No.
He was a Clerk in the House of Commons. Not employed by Tony Blair, but by the House. Civil Servants help prepare the PM for Questions. They are not Labour Party employees and nor was this man.
The Labour link was puffed up by conspiracy sites like David Icke’s. it is not true.
You’re right here, I think. He’s probably in the same category as Cabinet Secretary Gus O’Donnell.
…employment wise – not accusation wise, that is !!!!!
Neither of you is quite right. Clerks don’t prepare anybody for anything – they’re there basically to ensure the smooth running of the House. They advise MPs on protocol and procedure. There are three clerks sitting immediately in front of the Speaker and you’ll occasionally see him lean forward to them for advice (for instance, if he’s unsure whether an MP has just said or done something worthy of censure). This man would have had nothing to do with preparing Blair for QTs – he may have had some responsibility for the organisational aspects of PMQs, but nothing more than that.
Unlike, say, the Cabinet Secretary, clerks are employed specifically by Parliament rather than by the Civil Service, and are avowedly apolitical. So it’s definitely unfair to associate him with Labour.
More here: http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199798/grads/clerkscl.htm
Thanks for the info – although I meant ‘in the same category’ in the general sense of not being an operative of a particular political party.
Clerks to select committees provide policy advice I think. But the broad issue is that Lyon was a public officer.
So teacher: you can blow that out your mule.
Sorry for being snide.
The BBC will push the issue of Child Abuse in North Wales, it helps distract attention from them. As for the attention seeking Tom Watson, one of the BBC’s favoured MPs and an avid attacker of their competitors, enough said. As for the person making the complaint, the only comment I have heard from him wasw that it was a TORY government in who set up the first enquiry with it’s alleged cover up and it is a TORY government again setting up this one. No mention of the fact that his original complaint in the 1970s was under a Labour Government.
Of course, crying Cover Up when there is nothing to find is a wonderful technique for getting people to chase their tails because not finding what is not there means you can cry Cover up and Conspiracy for as long as you want, all you need is for somebody to take notice to keep it going.
What ever happened to the “big name” arrests that were expected?
The police are still gathering evidence in what they call, “the biggest paedophile ring investigation on record”
Do you still think that they will get everyone arrested in a matter of weeks?
Perhaps the biggest ever investigation into child abuse should address the weeping sore of sex abuse of young girls by groups of ‘men’ (has it stopped? I wouldn’t bet on it). Isn’t it a pity that the police couldn’t muster the energy to do much during 15 years of allegations against Grooming rings in the North – mind you I think that they did manage to arrest one of the victims/parents because she was making ‘racist’ allegations. Seems that the fact that, initially, fascists made the allegations rendered them null an void (the famous MacShane defence).
I remember the BBC giving plenty of air time to outraged and ‘offended’ community leaders demanding whatever it is they demand – and the meme that the BNP had manufactured totally untrue racist lies of the worst possible kind up to foment racial unrest for their own twisted political agenda. This grossest of gross scandals should have a Cabinet level investigation: why during the late 90’s and 2000’s did the police and social services systematically and universally fail the girls and reject the allegations with little or no investigation.
While we are at it, perhaps someone should work out the statistically glaring peak in deaths/suicides of asian women of marriage age
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2777567/
“[suicide] Rates among South Asian young women, especially the 15–19-year-old group, are particularly high.”
Someone needs to find out why – and prevent it.
Having said that, if there is a perv ring it needs to be crushed but not because it provides political capital. I am sick of public administration policies driven by a political agenda.
I fond this only this morning I think it is both relevant and interesting
Does this site lead to some other right wing site?
I don’t know,but I.m sure there the resident expert on such things will let me know
The real question is it true it its wider sense
http://the-alternative.co.uk/news/labour-25-labour-councillor-paedophile-rapes-minor-for-3-weeks-jailed/
don’t you mean “resident idiot”? 😉
No no.As my old mum used to say
“never mock the afflicted,you might be struck comical yourself one day” Resident witch-finder will do
“and now it seems the victim may not have named him at the time either ”
That would be because many victims told the original investigators exactly who had been visiting and abusing them, but the investigation was limited to the care home staff ONLY. Anyone’s named who was not employed by the home was crossed out of the investigation.
There were senior members of both political parties and members of the judiciary and even royalty all named by the victims at the time. None of these names made it into the original report for obvious reasons.
It was a cover up.
It is typical of the BBC to try to pin this all on the tories though to smear them as a threat to not allow these multiple investigations get to the truth.
If the truth of the full scale of the abuse of children from hundreds of care homes all over the country came out, According to the people who have been the victims of ongoing abuse, then the entire establishment would collapse. The church, Members of the Royalty, Judiciary, The house of Lords, the Commons, the police, Social Services, ALL were involved.
However, I would be amazed if the truth does come out. The systematic and satanic abuse of children goes to the the very top of the establishment.
Indeed.
So many abuse investigations and so few paedophiles arrested: Kincora Boys Home, Haute de le Garenne, Islington, Hollie Grieg, the list goes on.
I think you’re confusing two things here. The Waterhouse inquiry was limited in the way you have explained. Was the Jillings Report, the subject of Alan’s link, subject to the same limitations? Jillings and Tunstill suggest not.
2 words
Hollie Greig
google it if you’ve never heard of her
Good Call.
The only person arrested in coonection with that case was Hollie’s lawyer for breach of the peace. He was on his way to hand out leaflets.
If tribune of the people Tom Watson was really interested in child abuse and various cover ups perhaps he should also be talking about Hollie Grieg, Islington, Leicester, Haute de le Garenne, Operation Ore, etc..
Of course Watson wants to deflect attention away from the BBC and put the Conservative Party on the back foot.
If one wishes to search through the muck there are senior Labour MPs that have questions to answer about what they have been up to both here and in EU land. Perhaps they may like to consider the number of D notices issued that relate to reporting the activities of well known the Blair circle and other Labour politicians.
Do police files still exist regarding Charles Lynton and his actvities in the early 1980s? Or were these shredded as well.
Small correction, the Man arrested, Mr Robert Green, was their legal advisor and family advocate, he was not their lawyer.
That said, he was arrested for breach of the peace and treated discgracefully by the Scottish Establishment.
But in court an interesting fact was established.
Hollies family was awarded £13,000 from the criminal injuries compensation board through the police. Which means that the allegations that Hollie made were considered real and serious enough to investigate. However, the police admitted in court, under oath and on and for the record that NONE of the people who were alleged to have abused Holly over a period of years, were ever questioned by the police.
The police took the allegation, paid out compensation but REFUSED to investigate those allegations AT ALL!!!
This is yet another example of the establishment covering up child abuse.
Thank you for the correction.
I believe that the BBC also conducted an investigation into the Hollie Grieg allegations and found her a reliable witness. However, their report was never broadcast.
Sounds familiar.
There is also the case of the Cosham Children’s Cottage Homes in Portsmouth. Alegations were made of serial abuse. The police investigation went nowhere fast but the Council paid out an undisclosed sum to victims on condition they signed agreements not to take matters further.
Watson is the most political of political animals. His agenda is glaringly obvious to all but the BBC and its droids.
I expect they know very well his agenda – they’re fully on board already.
‘Angus Stickler, the BBC Newsnight reporter said: “My view is’
A version of reporting that explains much and excuses little.
The latest Guido has an interesting comparison between Conservatives in the news and ‘reaction’ (Nadine D) and comparable Labour performances on a basis of actual contribution (Gordon B) vs. headline sound bites.
How the BBC ‘handles’ the issue on behalf of their PR clients will be educational, if possibly 50% informative.
Alan, I had the same concerns about Operation Ore – despite an attempt in 2010 to get the forensic evidence re-examined (the seized hard-disk drives from Landslide, the web company at the centre of the original US investigation) for evidence of widespread credit card fraud. This attempt was unsuccessful as the judge for some strange, unexplained reason refused to consider any new evidence of widespread credit card fraud implicating thousands of innocent men. This travesty of justice has lain ignored for almost twenty years. It remains a ticking time-bomb for UK police services.
Official police figures suggest up to 33 men (possibly more) committed suicide as a result of investigations connected to Operation Ore. At Ore’s sickening height, Squads of riot police, complete with shields and crash helmets, were smashing in windows and kicking down front doors in suburban streets in the early hours up and down this country in a frenzied, tabloid-fueled witchunt.
UK police boasted they had 7,200 ‘names’ on their ‘list’ (given to them by US Postal Services – absolutely no detection work on the part of British plods was required) and they vowed – in a series of well-organised TV press calls – that they would investigate every single one of them, that ‘nobody could hide’ if their name was on the list. Conversely, and for reasons never fully explained, US police, who had their own list of names – 35,000 of them – only arrested 144 suspects, of which just 100 were ever prosecuted.
It was long rumored that UK police kept a separate list of ‘protected names’ which came out of the Operation Ore fiasco. These were alleged to be the names of wealthy, famous and political individuals in the UK. These names were allegedly never prosecuted, but instead their owners were, it is claimed, made aware of their existence and the police merely kept them on file. An independent examination of the seized Landslide database appears to confirm the existence of these ‘protected names’, although they have never been made public.
In 2007 Charles Arthur of the Guardian asked if Operation Ore was the UK’s worst-ever policing scandal?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/apr/26/comment.society
The BBC pulled a News Night program because they claimed they couldn’t substantiate their evidence (I’m sure that was one of the many excuses) so is it they seem quick to imply a whole political party without evidence….
Odd that. They pull the item and the next day the main news item on every BBC show is the very item they couldn’t substantiate.
I’m yet to see Tom Watsons name linked with any of this on the BBC other than as a commentator. No mention of his past and present role of smearer-in-chief.
The BBC. Passing on Labour’s smears. It’s what they do.
Oh just for the record. I was in care during the 70s.
At NO time was I ever abused. In fact, I was placed in care to get me away from a child beating father and an ostracising Islamic community which believed my sister and I had brought shame on them.
Just a small but important correctoin. In your introduction you write:
“and now it seems the victim may not have named him at the time either”.
All these ‘victims’ are ‘alleged victims’ until there has been an investigation or trial. Call me old-fashioned, but I rather like the idea that someone is innocent until proved guilty. That hasn’t stopped the media, the police and MPs totally ignoring this basic tenet of English law, since Savile.
‘That hasn’t stopped the media’
Including one, which should know better, but clearly doesn’t… and worse, by selective choice.
The bBBC NorthWest local news last night named a Conservative MP who had supposedly been accused of the Bryn Estyn abuse, and showed a film clip of him.
I wonder what evidence they have.
That would be Peter Morrison, who is safely deceased, and not the man Tom Watson is making allegations about.
So the evidence is that he is dead?
The evidence is that former Conservative MP and junior Welsh Secretary Rod Richards says he saw police files relating to the children’s home in which Morrison’s name appears. He was not asked any further questions by the BBC reporter..
Stomach turning stuff.
This story must be bull because it’s a Tory, the alleged victims are lying, now what about the Labout kiddy fiddlers.
Excuse me, I need to go throw up.
Where does it say that and who said that, or are you just making it up?
The latter is what I expect, you left-wing extremists always judge others by your own low standards.
Well as one whole line of enquiry is being dodged when it come to suspects in the Labour party then you should feel sick !
If there is so much filth out there about Labour why aren’t the Conservatives hammering away at it? Is it that both sides think that sleeping dogs are best left and Watson has mistakenly trodden in the pooh in his haste to create cover for the BBC?
But if there are allegations out there that bear initial scrutiny, then they must be followed up no matter who may be involved, or when or where the alleged abuse took place.
My hunch is that Cameron is such an establishment man he will gladly go along with the decades long cover ups that protect the paedophile chains at Kincora, Islington, etc etc.
Both parties feel uncomfortable with opening this toxic can of worms. Both will find old MPs in the firing line.
Watson is taking a chance that Cameron and the Government will be “seen to do the right thing”, back a limited investigation and not turn it into a wider party political scrap. That might backfire.
In addition Cameron has no spine and as his line on the BBC show, has no clue that the Progressive left are out to destroy his government.
Three men were convicted of crimes against their charges in the Kincora Boys Home in Belfast in the 1980s, one of them a Unionist political figure.
Action was taken at the time, if belatedly.
Newsnight’s resurrection of the Welsh homes’ cases via Angus Stickler, a freelance journalist, was transparently opportunistic and a desperate effort to prove that their Savile failure was a one-off aberration.
It has proved expensive not least in more police time given that two further state enquiries have since been spawned.
Cameron seems now to have realised naming names, or indeed not naming names, has become witch hunt material with Tom Watson as Witchfinder General.
There is little more nauseating on the BBC at the moment than the glee with which it covers the naked political manipulation and blimpish outrage of Watson and Bryant.
But a close second is the string of opportunities the BBC affords the vile Margaret Hodge to preen herself on the airwaves..
Hodge was once the leader of Islington Council, under the auspices of which some very nasty goings on took place in a council run care home. Hodge tried to prevent the (clearly less supine in those days) BBC from running a story saying she had failed to properly investigate the abuse.. In the course of her squirming, she libelled the victim of that abuse. The High Court wasn’t very impressed, forcing Hodge to pay £30,000 in damages and offer a formal apology.
How strange that the BBC never seems to ask the Stalinist witch about her role in Islington, nor how it was that Blair made her Childrens Minister (ha!) shorty after, in one of the most cynical actions of even his foul reign.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1446760/Hodge-child-abuse-apology-not-genuine.html
Perhaps our BBC stooges, Nicked and Jim would like to explain this journalistic lapse? Why it is acceptable to smear ‘Thatcher era’ Tories as a genre, when a piece of work like Hodge, who has been caught bang to rights, is treated like Mother Theresa.
It couldn’t be down to naked political bias, could it?
You have Margaret Hodge well summed up. The full story of Islington has never come out. Will Cameron get a soine and investigate other child abuse allegations.
Will Watson pipe up about other scandals?
Watson was very interested in finding dirt on Murdoch but not in investigating phone hacking at the Mirror Group.
Similarly he peels an onion over children possibly abused by Tory ministers but shows no interest in those possibly abused by Labour MPs and peers in Islington, Leicester, Aberdeen and the attendant cover up.
Sorry, it should have read “get a spine”
Its amazing the amount of attention the Beeb is paying to the rumours concerning what they see as a nasty right wing Tory. But are paying no attention at all to what is appearing online about one of their favourite Tories.
Odd that isn’t it !
Do you mean the former Defence secretary and former right wing darling of the tory right, who people expected to take over from Maggie, but who upon losing his seat to a homosexual labour MP, ‘came out’ and has been one of the most liberal left wing “tories” ever since and thus manages to appear on the BBC without the other staff reflexively shouting “Thatcher” at him every few seconds.
Do you mean that favourite tory?
Has anyone looked to see if there is any connection between Steve Messham and Tom Watson?
How do we know Steve Messham is genuine until hard evidence has been produced in a court of law? On the Vine show the other day he claimed that much of the widespread abuse took place over a period of time at a nearby Wrexham hotel. The lady standing in for Vine gently challenged him on this and asked how they could do it without staff noticing. His reply was a garbled explanation about being taken in through the back door, and that’s where the challenging finished. So presumably it’s taken as read that staff would never use the back door and there would be a special back corridor leading to special back doors to whatever rooms were used.
As I say, he may be genuine, but if he comes on the radio making serious allegations he’s got to be prepared to expect some robust questioning when one part of his story sounds a bit thin. Perhaps he knew he’d been assured he wouldn’t get any.
This whole thing stinks to high heaven. The phone hacking scandal saw a cosy trio of campaigners, Tom Watson, the Guardian and the BBC leading with the story and trying to focus it solely on News International and the Tories when the problems actually went much wider. Now we have the same three people/organisations doing very similar over the North Wales abuse scandal.
It looks less like an investigation into child abuse and more an outright attack on the Tories. Tom Watson tries to portray himself as a saintly figure, but does anyone really believe he would have raised the topic if senior Labour figures were involved?
Every BBC headline story for a week contained the phrase “senior Tory politician of the Thatcher era” — usually spat out with contempt. And yet they are usually at such great lengths to diverts from the identity if they are gangs of child abusers in Rochdale, for example. A very convenient diversion from the BBC and the Savile scandal.
Leaked BBC e-mails [1] show that they embarked on a concerted effort to “manage” the savile story. It also reveals that their policy of “doublechecking” sources was to be used by them as an excuse for not investigating earlier. A policy abandoned in their Wales abuse reporting.
There was no new information came to the BBC about North Wales. The information had been in the possession for over 10 years.
It was one person’s uncorroborated claim. And despite it being a Tory government had commissioned the initial Wales abuse report, the victim [Mesham?] clearly has a thing about Tories. “It was a Tory government then, it’s a Tory government again. We’ll see what they do”.
Suddenly this uncorroborated allegation that the Beeb has ignored for 10 years is relevant to the BBC, and it leads every news bulletin for a week, the Savile story goes away, and the spotlight is placed firmly on the Tories. How very convenient for the BBC – and the Guardian and Labour must be laughing their heads off.
1.
A leaked BBC email from a senior press officer to Newsnight journalists today reveals how close the BBC was to broadcasting its investigation into Jimmy Savile child abuse claims last December….
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/leaked-email-reveals-pr-questions-newsnight-managing-savile-expose
“Aside from any promotional efforts, we may well need to do a bit of managing around this – despite such rumours circulating in the media for years.”
[suggested answer to poss qs]
How did you corroborate the validity of your sources? As the country’s most trusted news provider the BBC has strict guidelines to ensure accuracy in our output, contributors’ stories are checked and double checked as is any relevant documentary evidence.
Thanks Bodo, a brilliant contribution. The Guardian has just printed a good piece on this – see other thread
Good news for BBC, establishment and imams looking to exploit children in care –
“More children at risk should be put into care, says a committee of MPs examining child protection in England….”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-20226345