Governments protecting paedophiles

Written By: - Date published: 11:03 am, April 8th, 2015 - 22 comments
Categories: child welfare, law, national, winston peters - Tags: , ,

One of the ugliest possible facts about the Thatcher government emerged recently:

A ‘big political cover-up’ of 1980s pedophile-ring in U.K. Parliament?

… Most everyone remembers Cyril Smith. The member of Parliament had a personal touch. He sang. He went on pal Jimmy Savile’s BBC show.

He also, according to hundreds of allegations since his 2010 death, was a pedophile of historic proportions.

That fact was one of many in a dossier prepared 30 years ago by a crusading member of Parliament who warned of a powerful pedophile ring of “big, big names.” At the time, the man told his family the allegations were “explosive,” according to the BBC. It would, he told his son, “blow the lid off” of the pedophile ring and perhaps take down powerful, famous sex abusers who had infiltrated the highest reaches of British life.

Despite the purported power of the allegations, they weren’t aggressively pursued and no arrests or prosecutions followed. “My father [Geoffrey Dickens] thought that the dossier at the time was the most powerful thing that had ever been produced, with the names that were involved and the power that they had,” son Barry told the BBC late last week after it emerged that the document has since gone missing. “It just seems so suspicious that something so important could just go missing.”

Over the weekend, as its disappearance ballooned into a national scandal, the Guardian reported it may be worse than that. An additional 114 documents relevant to allegations involving the ring are also missing — a revelation sparking suspicion that Margaret Thatcher’s government orchestrated a cover-up of child abuse by politicians.

Norman Tebbit, a former cabinet minister who served under Thatcher, told the BBC on Sunday the inclination at the time may have been to protect “the system” rather than delving “too far” into the claims. Asked if there had been a “big political cover-up,” Tebbit conceded “there may well have been. But it was almost unconscious. It was the thing that people did at that time. You didn’t talk about those sorts of things. It is not the sort of thing that people did.”  …

Horrific.

I don’t believe that any NZ government would engage in such a coverup. I don’t believe that the current government is engaging in such a coverup (surely Slater’s mutterings are wrong). But in the context of the Thatcher revelations National’s actions last week were risky:

Govt Spikes Removal of Paedophile Name Suppression Bill

Parliament today refused leave for the Member for Northland Rt Hon Winston Peters to introduce a Bill to remove the right of paedophile’s to name suppression when the victim wants their attacker named. A host of National MPs objected to the Bill being introduced.

Name suppression to protect victims makes perfect sense. But if the victim wants their attacker named that’s a different matter, and surely worth debating a Bill. National’s excuse was that Peters’ Bill was a “knee-jerk reaction“. Knee-jerk reaction to what? That’s no kind of answer to anything, in fact it is beyond pathetic, see Peter’s press release in reply.

Presumably National shut down the Peters’ Bill out of petty spite at his Northland victory (there’s no way that they could be dumb enough to leave themselves open to accusations of covering for paedophillia, that would surely be the end of them). But petty politics as usual isn’t good enough, in the context of the Thatcher revelations this was surely an issue that would have been worth debating.

22 comments on “Governments protecting paedophiles ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Wairua 1
    8 April 2015 at 11:43 am

    Would it be constructive to ask the Minister responsible for her reasons in doing do ?

  2. Puckish Rogue 2
    8 April 2015 at 1:12 pm

    This is disapointing, the only thing I can hope for is that National are developing their own bill around this very subject

    But I doubt it

  3. mary_a 3
    8 April 2015 at 2:25 pm

    Wonder why the Natsies so hastily rejected Winston’s sensible Bill on this topic? I couldn’t believe the haste in which it was shut down in Parliament, when Winston raised it!

    Could be there is some raw sensitivity in the Natsy govt, on the issue perhaps.

    • Puckish Rogue 3.1
      8 April 2015 at 2:40 pm

      Probably more designed to try to starve Winston of oxygen

    • alwyn 3.2
      8 April 2015 at 4:59 pm

      The “bill”, as it exists, would just have been a blank sheet of paper.
      You don’t think he really has such a thing written do you?
      If so he could have put it in the private members ballot. Don’t see anything of this name do you?

    • rhinocrates 3.3
      9 April 2015 at 2:12 pm

      I suspect that he knew that it was going to be stomped on and wanted it to happen. He’s laying a trap so that when a certain high profile person who shall remain nameless for the time being has name suppression lifted, he can point to that and say that they were deliberately protecting him for political purposes.

    • alwyn 3.4
      9 April 2015 at 2:18 pm

      mary_a says ” Winston’s sensible Bill on this topic”.
      Please tell us mary. What did the bill say?
      If you can tell us we too will be in a position to decide whether it I “sensible”.
      Just a little link to the wording of the bill will be sufficient.

      • The Murphey 3.4.1
        9 April 2015 at 2:36 pm

        Q. Why not offer an explanation as to why it was immediately knocked back ?

        • alwyn 3.4.1.1
          9 April 2015 at 5:38 pm

          “Q. Why not offer an explanation as to why it was immediately knocked back”

          What a wonderful question. How can it possibly receive any answer without knowing what this hypothetical “bill” was supposed to say?
          You seem to think that I should be able to answer your question. In that case presumably you can tell me, or point me to a place where the bill is able to be read? If you do that I may be able to comment. If you can’t I will find it quite impossible to do so.
          Now then. Where are the details of the bill documented?

  4. ianmac 4
    8 April 2015 at 3:21 pm

    There are perverse results from paedophile registers. Sounds simple like harsher sentences sounds like a simple solution. But great caution really.

  5. Dorothy Bulling 5
    8 April 2015 at 4:15 pm

    Two words, [r0b: We can’t say those two words].

  6. reason 6
    8 April 2015 at 5:47 pm

    Cover Up ?

  7. The Murphey 7
    8 April 2015 at 6:44 pm

    Human misery and suffering of all distinctions has been the currency of choice amongst the upper echelons throughout human history

    To believe that it is no longer so or that it is ring fenced in certain locations of the world would be hard to fathom

    The Roman Catholic church has distributed its rotting elements around the globe while covering up for activity with a number of claims that many of the abusers were moved to NZ

    It would require the complicity of government and departments to facilitate such movements should it be factual that abusers were moved to NZ

    Paula Bennett said in recent times there was no need for an Australian style investigation into the historical and ongoing abuses because it was not an issue in NZ

    This government and those before it will be up to their necks in it either directly or by providing cover for those institutions and ‘privileged individuals’ who are

    If it is going on in the UK USA and Australia then it is reasonable to assume it has been going on in NZ

    • Robert Atack 7.1
      9 April 2015 at 9:39 pm

      I just watched a BBC doco on this, they said the % of peds to pop worked out the same across the globe, so NZ should (?) be about the same, didn’t get the % sorry (

  8. The Murphey 8
    8 April 2015 at 9:53 pm

    http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/2014/07/pedophilia_and.html

    On April 23, 2014 the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and Reproduction was granted special consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations (ECOSOC)

  9. Craig H 9
    8 April 2015 at 10:33 pm

    Removing the partial defence to murder of provocation was a kneejerk reaction – when did this government stop with the kneejerk reactions?

  10. And thenthere'sme 10
    9 April 2015 at 9:23 am

    “Knock, knock”

    “Who’s there?”

    “Peter”

    “Peter Who?”

    “Peter Files”

    “Welcome to the National Party, Peter Files!”

    • humPrac 10.1
      10 April 2015 at 5:12 pm

      But no part of his name rhymes with “files” so the joke is on you for stretching so far just so you could joke about pedophilia and also put a bad stigma on Peters.
      Joking about pedophilia and rape causes such issues to be taken lightly, which is a VERY strong indication that one is dealing with a sick individual, or in a lot of cases, a sick group.
      We already have rape culture as evidenced with the “Roast Busters” and rap (rape) music.
      We do NOT want a Pedophile culture to follow. It already exists in the upper echelons of society, lets hope it doesn’t trickle down to the youth just like the rape culture. Those roast busters are, after all, messing with younger girls!

  11. humPrac 11
    10 April 2015 at 5:00 pm

    This issue is far larger than what people realize. By “far larger” I mean millions of times larger.
    But you people don’t really care enough to do something about it. The reason you people let it go is because you don’t want to think about something so disgusting.
    This issue is the most important issue in the history of human existence. The affect it has on society is huge because perfectly good/normal kids are being turned into Neurotic/psychotic people through it and then passing it onto the next generation in the same way.
    The thing which causes such a thing to even be possible is hierarchy.
    Yes it happens in NZ.