Friday, 21 December 2012

  • RE: Allegations of Abuse : Operation Fairbank‏

Dear Paul,

As I said I was very suspicious about being contacted by the police from the same area that Carol was. In the info I have over 25 police were involved. I have since found out too that the operation you are conducting is only a scoping exercise.

My position remains the same as I said before I wish to speak with the Government and hand over the file. The last contact I had with your offices were some time ago now 6th Dec 2012. That in itself showed a lack of interest in terms of standards even if you are very busy. Again there has been no formal response to my request to meet with the PM or his cabinet officials and I am no victim I am the Director of NN/YP so my job is to help expose abuse and not cover it up. It is a matter of trust and public reassurances from the top I need.

I am very worried you are asking for information that you say will be treated in the strictest confidence or for people to give information to crime stoppers. There are two flaws to this approach. Firstly what action has been taken to ensure that potential witnesses are given any protection at all. Have you deployed any resources to this or do you just think people with the information about Carol will come forward to the very people who were heavily involved, the police.

Secondly lets put this in an example term; 10 former young people who have been abused come to you with the same name. You arrest the person for questioning. He is entitled to a lawyer/solicitor etc and a certain set of people are recommended (perhaps through a powerful QC who was also involved), the same approach then is recommended to the suspect person being questioned and in fact they are being guided by a legal team. So the police end up with the victims spilling the beans with firstly no protection, whereas in law the abusers are being afforded legal help as it is a criminal offense still afforded legal aid even with all the cuts to other's who should be entitled to legal aid like women in domestic violence situations and people with mental health issues etc.. call me paranoid but it is quite obviously then managed... but for whom.

You are carrying out the work of others on behalf of whom? Am I right in thinking this is going to be available to the Government etc? What about the public?

What I have should be public knowledge and needs to be approached like you would on one of your programmes where you chase criminals publicly without worrying about the legal ramifications or powerful legal representatives. You have the power through the CPS to prosecute and I am sure the whole the police and the great British public will be behind you if you take a more powerful and public approach. The cat is out of the bag for the abusers and the more time that is spent gathering info the more people like myself and others can be hurt as we experienced in 1993.

Finally I have for many years built a social economy for this type of crime to be exposed (business plan through the legal channels and still wish as stated on the website to set up the children's law center 'IMPOSSIBLE' with the help of good volunteer lawyers who will only be allowed to take on one case of historic abuse ever and to push that case with fierce means and legal knowhow through the courts. The organization NN/YP then have an independent and safe overview and can work in co-operation with the police as will be in the near future for the benefit of society to stop child abuse once and for all.

Suspiciously I to date and NN/YP have been effectively disabled in a court case of unequal arms for 4 years. So IMPOSIBLE is only something that can be done when the case concludes. Why the insurers won't settle the 2.6 million pounds claim remains a mystery to me when they know the good work the NN/YP were doing. But that is our problem and not yours.

NAYPIC attained lots of information in the past because victims could 'IDENTIFY' with our very real and caring workers who had often been through abuse themselves. A consumer organization like ours had a very powerful effect and needs to be re-instated. We would want a membership scheme as a statutory budget, like you have. But it would be a right not a grant or empowerment as the time has come when children who are in danger can finally be given a vote through a youth parliament and statutory money as a duty for their rights so there voices can be heard. 1950's women got rights, they were not 'empowered' they got the vote!!

Although we would not do case work again and would not put our workers in danger as happened before, we have now followed a better way and have had a better plan. An independent Youth Economy and thus an independent Youth Parliament.. as advocated on my website..

By paying lawyers through IMPOSSIBLE to do the case work for us and gather the required evidence to convict.

The only way of doing that work is continuing the youth economy through our businesses (Scarlet Maguire, spaceshift.. and One Percent 4 Art currently disabled by court proceeding rendering us unable to trade or have resources to grow) which give us our money and our independence to do what we like and not be at the mercy of funding.

I have still not heard from the Government and find the fact that you responded so late (after I was talking to the Daily Mirror yesterday as I gave up on you and the Government after more than two weeks silence) yesterday respectfully wrong!

Without you explaining your approach and why it is secret, I can only be forced to now go as public as I can as I am worried about having this information now especially with too many people knowing it is me that has it. If journalists can find me and the victims too we may as well all go public and hope that they all scurry around after the abusers and not us. Turning the tables effectively. I still don't see why you don't go public with this as you would do if it were a lesser crime.

So I will try to do this today and am very unhappy about this as I too have no protection but unlike the media I don't fear anymore.



  • Enquiry‏

To see messages related to this one, group messages by conversation.
To James n.Townly
Dear Detective Sergeant Townly,

We were approached by a Mrs Carol Cazier in connection with her children Eric and Natalie who were in care whilst I worked as a London Development Officer for NAYPIC.

Carol died in suspicious circumstances and the police were highly involved at the time of her death, so that will be on record and transcripts of the inquest may serve you better than my memory.

I have recently been approached by a number of press organizations obviously in the light of the recent BBC scandal. This is simply because I was involved then as it was my job.

As you will appreciate this information was handed over to us in confidence and is protected under confidentiality law. It was also a highly sensitive time for myself as a worker to have such knowledge that put me in danger personally. I do not want to revive this again as I have moved on now to work in the arts.

I put the info into the public domain for our safety.

However since David Cameron seems to want to tackle the latest scandals perhaps in a different way it may be better to meet with Government as an ex-worker in an official capacity to hand over the file or to be questioned.

An approach from the police especially Hammersmith who were involved at the time seems to me with respect a little worrying.

Do you think the Government could approach the NAYPIC orgainization (what's left of it) in a more official capacity?
Perhaps they would understand that we are not funded and therefore there is no paid worker to assist in the complex data.

I personally am tied up in litigation but since my name keeps getting mentioned I do not mind meeting up with a Senior Cabinet Government Minister to discuss ways forward.

That I am very happy to do as a matter of urgency.


No comments:

Post a Comment