Child Sexual Abuse · childrens homes · Church · Corruption · Elm Guest House · Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse · Investigations · London · Police Operations · Politicians · Uncategorized

IICSA: WITNESS STATEMENT: WESTMINSTER STRAND: OP WINTER KEY/OP MILESHOGUE/OP HATTON

INDEPENDENT INQUIRY INTO CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE

WITNESS STATEMENT

WESTMINSTER STRAND

OPERATION WINTER KEY / OPERATION MILESHOGUE / OPERATION HATTON

OHY0055776

 

On the final day of the three weeks of hearings of the Westminster strand of the inquiry, a number of documents were quietly uploaded to the iiCSA site.  No mention had been made about them previously, and no announcement was made about their inclusion.  It was independent journalist Mark Watts who alerted people to the fact these documents had appeared.  Interestingly, they were far more revealing than documents that had been referred to in hearings and raised questions as to who and why at iiCSA had decided not to openly discuss the contents during the public hearings.

A number of these documents were very revealing and I have decided to transcribe as many as I can in case it helps people’s research.

(The following is part two of two statements made by GB.  You can find part one here.)  Interestingly it refers to the Paedophile Information Exchange being infiltrated by an undercover police officer in 1997, and so PIE was still very much active at that time.

The contents of this statement will be referred to in a future blog post concerning a matter I have coincidentally been working on for some time.  Please note: TRIGGER WARNING – some of the contents of this statement are very candid and some may find it upsetting.


METROPOLITAN POLICE

OPERATION WINTER KEY

DPA – GB

  • Time/date/location – 20/12/2016 – this is a follow up interview from 05/07/2016
  • Persons Present – DC DRUMMOND/TDC HAYES
  • Explanation of OPERATION WINTER KEY – Investigation of non-recent allegations of child abuse involving prominent persons.  Roles of Professional Standards and IPCC.  Request for statement to be taken from yourself.  IICSA Enquiry.
  • Reason for record the interview is that you had a central position in the enquiry.  The SIO, DETECTIVE INSPECTOR DAN SETTER, has deemed that by recording the information discussed today it will ensure that an accurate account is referred to in making your statement.
  • Reason for taking the statement is record any information that you may have of knowledge you have of an investigation surrounding GREEN LANE CHILDREN’S HOME and MELANIE KLEIN HOUSE CHILDREN’S HOME in Greenwich.
  • An allegation was made in 1988 by an ex councillor, of children from the homes taken to parties where prominent people was present and that no meaningful police investigation was conducted on this allegation.
  • We are obtaining a statement from you today in order to assist the investigation with any information that you may have.  This is in agreement with the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
  • DPA
  • Email from DI SETTER (15/12/2016) in which he explains that he has spoken to GB and reassured him that he does not breach the Official Secrets Act 1989 by speaking to us.  As he is no longer a Crown Servant, he qualifies as ‘any other person’.  We are Crown Servants, so he is specifically protected.  Section 7(3) states:

7(3) For the purposes of this Act a disclosure made by any other person is made with lawful authority if, and only if, it is made –

(a) to a Crown servant for the purposes of his functions as such; or

(b) in accordance with an official authorisation.

  • DPA
  • Explain what Op Mileshogue was? What year did it start? Clarify whether it started at Eltham CPT then moved to Paedophile Unit?  When did he start there?  How many people worked on Mileshogue? Where based?  Who was the SIO for Mileshogue?

OP MILESHOGUE (MH)

  • A – (00:00:00) MH was shown as an intelligence gathering operation originally it revolved around a guy called [NAME REDACTED]  I can’t recall his surname but that should be in the MH files.  He had been a rent boy himself, living in Greenwich at that time.  He had a series of young boys.  One was WM-A118 another was WM-A119 and another 5 or 6.  Those boys I interviewed on tape several times.  They claimed another had been abused by other people, were taken to parties and things by [NAME REDACTED] himself, he was like a modern day Fagan.  He also had them doing robberies and burglaries but he was also an informant for the police, inform on them and then turn up as their appropriate adult.  These were kids all from local Children’s Home.  He would befriend them and take them out.  There were several named people involved, one was a former Head Teacher who lived in Surrey they were taken to, to abuse.  He ran gay/child photography, he was a photographer and Head Teacher.  He had been mentioned in Johnny Go Home films years ago and exposed by a newspaper.  He was involved in that, he was a named suspect.  Several other people were involved.  One, a guy who lived in Orpington with another fella.  During the investigation we found out he worked for the government in some role.  What we do know is he was at a conference for arms sales.  We followed him around.
  • Q – He was living with someone who was involved in the Government.  Do you know anymore?
  • A – No, he was something to do with Government arms sales.  Can’t remember his name or partner’s name.  The pair of them were named people by the children as abusers.  The problem was, the kids would never say anything about their own abuse, only ever talk about others abuse.  There was never any direct evidence.
  • Q – You said the children came from a children’s home, which one?
  • A – Green Lanes, it was called Green Lanes and it was in different locations.  It was called Green Lanes Children Home.  One was in Deptford.
  • Q – In Deptford?
  • A – Yeah Deptford way – can’t remember where.
  • Q – Were you based in Rotherhithe?
  • A – Rotherhithe is something different.  Same children involved in another thing from Rotherhithe involving an MP.  Same Children’s Home.  These children – WM-A118 and WM-A119 – never spoke about this man, it was the other kids from within their group.  They lived in Southwark and frequented his surgery.
  • Q – Whose surgery?
  • A – Forgotten his name.  He was the DPA
  • Q – Is it to do with the recording found in the safe?
  • A – Yes.
  • Q – Was it WM-F7?
  • A – Yes WM-F7
  • Q – When did MH start?
  • A – I was a CPT in Shooters Hill and took it with me to the Paedophile Unit, so about 1996, to work on.  (09:14)  Going back to [NAME REDACTED] he would take kids round to various addresses.  There was a core group of about 5 people’s homes – 5 suspects that were named.  There were others, the boys were taken to what they call the Dolphin Place – we thought that was Dolphin Square.  They used to talk about a ‘big dolphin’ there.  Also that they were taken out on a boat, a little gin palace.  They were abused there.  They knew of a network of other children who were abused.  We were told that one of [NAME REDACTED] boys had been beaten up in Trafalgar Square – had serious brain injuries.  From what the boys say, this lad was going to inform police, tell them everything.  [NAME REDACTED] got hold of him, beat him up.  He was left brain dead.
  • Q – We did cover this last time.  How many people were on MH?
  • A – Just one – me.  It was difficult to get help, get anything started and in the end Surrey took over the one aspect which related to the guy who was a former Head Master.  They put him under surveillance.  They did come into London to have a look at other people’s habits, but it was really just me.
  • Q – Where were you based?
  • A – At NSY.  There was a guy who used to help me with interviews, we used to help each other.  His name was Andy Murray, DC, Professor.  He had a degree in Child Protection.
  • Q – Who was your SIO for MH period?
  • A – Me.
  • Q – Who was your line manager?
  • A – DI Bob McCloughlin.  He would sign the paperwork.  Everything had to be perfect, you would submit it and the bosses would change it so by the time it went through it was totally different.  It had to be signed by the DI.
  • Q – There should be a GR file for MH?
  • A – Yes, around that time we were just going computerised for crimint, it was just within SO1 and covered the Flying Squad and things like that, things at the yard.  I got help from the intelligence analysis, they didn’t have much to do as the thing was just starting up.  They put all of MH on crimint, it was the first thing to go on so it was recorded on crimint.  They did a lot of work on telephone communication.
  • Q – Was WM-F172 involved in MH?
  • A – No it was totally separate.  It was from when I was at Rotherhithe.
  • Q – Can you remember the names of the analysts?
  • A – Jo.  No memory of the other one – both female civilian staff.  Their names will be in the file for loading it on.  (Can’t work out word sounds like Basket) was the first job that went on the system.
  • Q – So MH was 1996? (15:02)
  • A – Yes it went to Surrey, they got what I could never get – they got telephone intercept for the main suspects.  The core group of 5 would talk to each other virtually every other day.  We put the intercept on and from that day for the two months they were on, I think, the guy that lived with the man who worked for the Government in Orpington never phoned anyone during that whole period.  He didn’t receive phone calls from anyone during that period, all of a sudden he didn’t exist.
  • Q – This was MH?
  • A – Yeah.  It went over to Surrey.
  • Q – What Surrey Operation name did it have?
  • A – Don’t know it went on Holmes.
  • Q – Surrey Holmes?
  • A – Yes.
  • Q – Did it go in its entirety of MH to Surrey, or just parts?
  • A – Just dealt with the one person on their ground, a person of interest to them.  For years there had been lots of rumours.
  • Q – The name of the person?
  • A – Can’t remember.  He was Surrey person of interest.  Surrey took that part of the MH investigation.
  • Q – MH how many suspects?
  • A – Can’t remember.  They will be on the docket.
  • Q – MH – You took that from CPT into Paedophile Unit.  There were a couple of boys WM-A118 and WM-A119 and possibly 5 or 6 other boys giving you information?
  • A – 5 suspects, there were other boys on the periphery that I couldn’t get to talk to. They were in the wind – one minute here, one gone.  There were a few other names, but I never got to talk to the other kids.
  • Q – Green Lanes was a collection of Children’s Homes?
  • A – Yes.
  • Q – Located in different areas?
  • A – Yes, the main dealings were with Deptford, the main children.  It was called Deptford but was Greenwich, on Greenwich’s ground but that part was called Deptford, down near the Cutty Sark.  Those boys were out of the Children’s Home, in care.
  • Q – One boy was going to the police?
  • A – Yes.
  • Q – Name suspects?
  • A – Yes.
  • Q – The name of that boy?
  • A – No, but its in the MH file.
  • Q – Before he could give any information he was attacked in Trafalgar Square (20:29) and left brain damaged and all in MH file?
  • A – Yes.
  • Q – What info was he going to give?
  • A – Around people [NAME REDACTED] was taking them to see.   More Dolphin Square, it was to do with Dolphin Square.
  • Q – Any other details of the boy?
  • A – No.
  • Q – Where was he living at the time?
  • A – I went t see him in a secure [unit] in North London somewhere.  His name is definitely in the file and Intel file.
  • Q – Any other information or information in the file?
  • A – He was a young DPA lad at the time, about 14.  He started young.  He was about 10 when he started to be abused.  He had moments of clarity talking about being abused, talked about [NAME REDACTED] taking him places, talked about a dolphin, the dolphin place and going on a boat.  I never got the whole conversation.  I interviewed him and took a day to get to know him so he would speak to me.  Then a couple of days trying to interview him.  I tried it on tape but he was not having that.  If he saw cameras he would freak.
  • Q – In front of Social Workers as appropriate adults?
  • A – Yes.
  • Q – Who was the social worker?
  • A – Don’t know but it was in the secure unit.  He had difficulties.  One minute you were talking to him, the next he was masturbating in the corner.  It was totally sexualised behaviour.  He would try and rape other boys in the secure unit.
  • Q – This is the same boy who was brain damaged?
  • A – Yes.  I only ever saw him in the secure unit.  I didn’t speak to him before he was attacked.  He was in the secure unit for his mental health after being beaten up.  WM-A118 and WM-A119 told me about their friend who was going to tell and this was what happened to him and this why WM-118 and WM-119 were afraid to talk about anything to do with the guy who was running it. (24:20)
  • Q – Did the boy (in secure unit) give you any other information?
  • A – Nothing that would give me anything to go on or for any prosecution, purely intel, where he had been, some new names and some already mentioned by WM-A118 and WM-A119.  He was part of that group and from the Children’s Home.
  • Q – What nationality?
  • A – WM-A119 was DPA, WM-A118 I can’t remember but he was an DPA lad.  These kids were refugees, kids from the Children’s Home.
  • Q – WM-A119 and WM-A118 gave you info about Dolphin Square?
  • A – Yes.
  • Q – What did they say?
  • A – There was someone in the Navy that they had met there.  Supposed to be a politician involved that they had met, but no name.  Things were told by [NAME REDACTED].  Half the time they when they were taken to these places they were drunk out of their brains.  They would top them up with more alcohol and they would be abused.  (27:20)  There was no one specific person from the meetings or on the boat they named.  They said a politician, someone in the Navy.
  • Q – Any politicians names given?
  • A – No, no names of prominent people.  Any prominent people I would have remembered, noted it.  There were nicknames and bits and pieces.  It will all be in the intelligence files.  I meticulously recorded everything.  The interviews with the boys were videoed so it will all be there.
  • Q – How did you identify the venue as Dolphin Square?
  • A – Didn’t particularly, they said there were dolphins and it was near Westminster Bridge.  They used to call it ‘the place with dolphins.’
  • Q – Ever take them for a drive round to identify the place?
  • A – No, they mentioned dolphins and Westminster Bridge.  I went to see a guy (can’t recall name, he uses four different names), he was running the boys.  He had been a rent boy and got the lads to work for him.  He also mentioned Dolphin Square – he had been there as a child himself, been abused.  He had worked on a programme with Channel 4 to expose people.  I saw him in prison.  [NAME REDACTED] the Fagan type.
  • Q – The two boys WM-A118 and WM-A119 mentioned dolphins?
  • A – Not specifically Dolphin Square, just dolphins. Dolphins on a building.
  • Q – They described it to you?
  • A – Made the jump from dolphins to Dolphin Square.  There was a person in the office called GRAHAM PASSINGHAM (now deceased) in the Paedophile Unit.  He always chased anything to do with politicians, Houses of Parliament, any other problems.  He would never tell you what he knew.  If he heard something, he would say ‘I know something about that but I can’t tell you.’  He was the longest serving person on the West End.  He came from the dirty book squad.  He spoke to TOM WATSON MP a lot, I think they were friends.  He was a DC in name.  He worked on Child Porn as there was no Paedophile Unit.  He had his own files locked away in a bottom drawer, he was into everything.  He spoke to the guy they based a lot of allegations on.  The job the Met has just done that turned to poo said he was abused, lived in West London.  The credible evidence bit.  GRAHAM interviewed him years ago.  He would talk about it but Graham was one of those who would not share things with you.  He left the Paedophile Unit and went to work for a security services as a vetting agent.  Died about ten years ago.  (33:40Graham would say there was a mass conspiracy of child abuse.  Often if you delved into some of it, if you did get anything out of him, it was crap.  There was no substance to it.  He was just a vacuum of tiny bits of information – he would suck it up and write it down in his little books.  He was convinced there was this enormous conspiracy in Parliament and Government.
  • Q – Who else in the office knew about Dolphin Square?
  • A – Everyone I suppose.  We had briefings.  Every now and again we get an operation.  It was there that GP would tell me that he had interviewed before and there was a load of prominent people living in Dolphin Square that was all part of his enquiry.  When I mentioned that the boys mentioned dolphins, it moved onto Dolphin Square.
  • Q – Who was in the office?
  • A – Same people who had been there for 15/20 years – the core group of them.  Transferred over from the dirty book squad.
  • Q – Names?
  • A – No (thinks about it) BRIAN FRANCE####. I took over HATTON from him when he retired from the Paedophile Unit on top of (Not sure of name of Op).  It was an office of about 10.  ANDY RYDON after me, ANDY MURRAY – we were the late additions.  We had dealings with child abuse, they had dealt with Child Pornography.  I went there to get the Met to have a response to child abuse.  (Discussion on lack of ability of Met to deal with child abuse).  They idn’t want to know about a mass operation with loads of kids to interview.  They didn’t know how to deal with it.
  • Q – Did you put requests in for more resources help to assist you?  Who did you send that to?
  • A – Yes to Commander C1.
  • Q – It went to Comdr. C1?
  • A – Yes.
  • Q – It was bounced back as in refused?
  • A – Yes, we thought a good hit on these people would have been telephone intercepts because we could see they were talking to each other every two or three days.  I put in a request for the intercepts and it goes on a first come, first served basis, no priorities.  We weren’t regarded as a priority so that’s why I went to Surrey and Surrey decided it was a priority.
  • Q – Going back to WM-119 and WM-118 they’ve given you a description of a building with dolphins?
  • A – Yes.
  • Q – But they didn’t mention Dolphin Square?
  • A – No it was [NAME REDACTED] the word (can’t understand word) he named DOLPHIN SQUARE.
  • Q – There was no drive around to identify the building?
  • A – No.
  • Q – And these were videoed interviews?
  • A – Yes.
  • Q – There should be a record of them somewhere?
  • A – Yes.
  • Q – You mentioned when you interviewed them they would only give information about other boys and not themselves, evidentially they were useless?
  • A – Yes, I couldn’t take it further.  It was just intelligence.  I hoped at some stage to find the other boys.
  • Q – Did they name other names of boys as well?
  • A – Yes, it would be in the docket.
  • Q – From the home?
  • A – From the home again trying to get hold of them they were in the wind if they thought a policeman was looking for them they were gone.
  • Q – What age range were they for WM-A119 what age was he?
  • A – I think they started around, WM-A118 I think was about 8, with him aged 8 through to about 14.  He was just 13 or 14 when I was interviewing him.
  • Q – You knew him when he was about 8?
  • A – No, the abuse started when he was about 8.  When I was interviewing him he was about 13 or 14.
  • Q – And this is WM-A118 and WM-119 they were explaining to you about being taken to a building with dolphins?
  • A – Yes
  • Q – Gin palace?
  • A – Yes.
  • Q – A boat was mentioned as well?
  • A – The boat is a Gin Palace.
  • Q – What did they say I have not heard that before?
  • A – Gin Palace is a boat, certain type of boat.  They described it.  They used to go off shore. People they met on the boat, it was basically an orgy on the boat.  The boat would sail outside of British territorial waters because there were people on there that wouldn’t do it in the UK/didn’t want to be seen in the UK, so the boat used to round and float off and they used to go on the boat.
  • Q – Did they ever disclose where it was moored?
  • A – No too young, no concept of distance or time.
  • Q – Who was taking them there?
  • A – [NAME REDACTED] or any of the 5 main core people.  [NAME REDACTED] would take them to them and they would take them on, the kids would stop with him for the weekend and do whatever he told them.  That person would take them somewhere else and swapsies of boys when they got there.  Basically the way the paedophiles were working meet up, meet up in a hotel in a room or something like that, each would bring their own boy, swap boys and be there for the weekend or the night.  (44:51)
  • Q – Were the boys ever medically examined?
  • A – Yes.
  • Q – By a police medical examiner?
  • A – Yes.
  • Q – Was it ever proved?
  • A – Yes, according to them they never have been.  WM-A118 Dr described him as having the bottom of a 60/16 (can’t make out if 60 or 16) gay man who has been at it for most of his life, at the point where he was going to have to use a tampon just to keep his bum closed.
  • Q – Gin Palace, a boat?
  • A – Yes.
  • Q – Name of boat or expression used?
  • A – Expression used by them.  They called it a Gin Palace, a floating Gin Palace the boat. They would say to the boys “we are going on the Gin Palace.”  We searched names in case it was called the Gin Palace, anything like that, went through insurance records trying to find a boat with that name/description, but the Marine people never identified a boat in particular.  There was someone – came from GP – who used Dolphin Square, had a boat which could be described as a Gin Palace but I never got the name or anything like that.
  • Q – Were they ever driven round to see if they could locate it?
  • A – They had no concept of anything like that.  When they went out to Surrey, they would say they were in the car for four or five hours but it was only an hour from where they lived. No concept.  North London to them was up North – too young, no concept of time or distance.
  • Q – [NAME REDACTED] where did he live?
  • A – Deptford part of Greenwich.  Had a girlfriend there.  Two of them used to house the kids.  If any of the kids were ever arrested, him or his girlfriend would turn up as appropriate adults.
  • Q – WM-A119 and WM-A118 were from a Children’s Home.  The other boys abused, were they from Children’s Home?
  • A – Yes, or local lads.
  • Q – Back then, how did they manage to leave the Children’s Home for the weekend?
  • A – Just a bunk – no one chased them.  Kids were wandering around London, used to run away from home.  People would meet them at the station, take them off, just used to find somewhere.
  • Q – Were they reported missing?
  • A – None of the supervision we have now.  If a kid goes missing they inform the local police.  Didn’t happen then.
  • Q – CH wouldn’t inform the police?
  • A – No, they wouldn’t tell anyone.  If they were missing for a certain amount of time – 2 weeks or something like that – they might let the missing person unit at the Yard know (49:01) or Charity for Missing Persons.  The interaction with Police was virtually nothing.  I was trying to get a link with Missing Person, Children’s Charity put together, there was nothing.
  • Q – Does that apply to the appropriate adult, as to why this [NAME REDACTED] was the appropriate adult, not someone from the Home?
  • A – Yes, the kids would say I’m living at the CH.  They were arrested a lot, they were the scourge of Greenwich.  Like 120 burglaries the pair got off with, that [NAME REDACTED] had sent them to do.  He then informed on them, had them arrested and acted as appropriate adult.  Talk them into TICs, they would talk about the other burglaries they had done.  [NAME REDACTED] would tell them they would get a better deal that way, so the kids would spill their guts.  They were both up on about 120 burglaries going to court.  The burglaries, the guy sending them there is the police informant so it ended up going before a judge and the whole lot was quashed.  WM-A118 and WM-A119 were terrors – scourge of that area.  Robbing, stealing everything – whatever they were told.  About 20 boys were involved in ripping Greenwich apart.
  • Q – All the boys?
  • A – Yes.
  • Q – A male lived at Greenwhich down the road from the police station, who was it?
  • A – (Pause)
  • Q – Wasn’t [NAME REDACTED] was it?
  • A – No, [NAME REDACTED] lived close to Greenwich within a mile of the nick (discussion on location of Police Station).  The boys were committing burglaries in Deptford as well. (Short discussion on the police areas and police stations).  All these kids were run by him and he was the police informant.  Ridiculous.
  • Q – How long were you dealing with MH?
  • A – 3 years, all the time, not a 100%.  It sat in the background.  If I got some time, I dealt with it.  We were dealing with the Scout Association and 5 other enquiries, which took up our time.  I went back to it when I could.  Surrey had it about the same time, and they were still working on it when I left the Paedophile Unit.
  • Q – So from you dealing with it, Surrey became involved?
  • A – Yes – one aspect, one person.
  • Q – Shall I deal with that as a separate entity?  What was the state of play when you left?
  • A – The state of play, basically the poo hit the fan.  (54:16)  Surrey were investigating this one person, it was the Crime Squad that did it.  The DI was running it but can’t remember his name.  The Squad that were doing the surveillance and observations, one of their members was getting married, so for that weekend they were not going to work on it.  It was only because I was passing by that I changed the tape.  The guy in Surrey’s house was on a permanent video feed from a house in a back garden opposite.  I was passing by going to relatives nearby and went in and changed the tape.  So the tape went from Friday to Saturday (24 hour tape), so I changed it on Saturday or Sunday – could have been Sunday – anyway, I changed the tape and the guy from Orpington and his partner turned up at the house with a boy aged about 9 or 10 and went into the house.  The kid was in there for about half an hour or so and came out.  There was no one doing a live active surveillance that weekend so all of a sudden you have this child going into the house brought from the other end of our ground.  That was it, they decided all the 5 core suspects would have their houses raided on the same morning, look for stuff and low and behold there wasn’t much there.  The guy in Surrey, there was stuff there that I knew was there anyway as he had taken pictures of kids, they were in lots of gay magazines because he was working for them.  He used to have false passport details, fake names to say he had seen them, they were over age.  I knew who these kids were, I could prove their ages so they charged him and dealt with him on that aspect of those pictures.
  • Q – Whilst you were on MH, Surrey became involved with one aspect, on suspect? They deal with that suspect under a different Operation name?
  • A – Yes.
  • Q – The Operation name you can’t remember?
  • A – No, it was a Holmes based Operation.
  • Q – It’s not a pattern?
  • A – No.
  • Q – The name of the suspect?
  • A – Can’t remember.
  • Q – What year did Surrey do this?
  • A – 1998/99 (check dates) believe it went over Christmas.
  • Q – 88/89?
  • A – Yes, end of 88 into 89 when poo hit the fan when the kid went in and they did the raids.  I left shortly after that.
  • Q – They had taken one suspect and are dealing on a separate Operation where the suspect was based (58:30).  What area?
  • A – Woking.
  • Q – Name of suspect?
  • A – No.
  • Q – Remember anything else about that person?
  • A – He was the guy who had been mentioned in the Johnny Go Home series, fomer Head Teacher of a school.  He was a bit vilified in the press but I don’t think he actually had a conviction.
  • Q – Teacher?
  • A – Yes.
  • Q – When was he in the press?
  • A – 1970, Johnny Go Home was a TV series about kids coming down from up north, being met at the station by men who would say they would look after them, get them, they were abused, rent boy scene in the ’70s.
  • Q – Surrey – how did they follow up their investigation?
  • A – They charged him with possessing photographs, taking photographs.  I could not identify the child who was brought to the house.  I could never work out how he turns up at their home with the kid during the period.  We are listening to his phone and he never talks to any of the others, but on the day it just so happens no one is looking at him or anything like that, he just happens to choose that day to turn up with a child.  It just doesn’t ring right.  What are the chances of that?
  • Q – What kind of resources were they using, Surrey?
  • A – A full Surveillance Team.
  • Q – Surrey’s resources?
  • A – Yes.
  • Q – Not the Mets?
  • A – No, Surrey’s Crime Squad and Surveillance Team fully on it.  The Assistant Commissioner of Surrey, ADRIAN LEPPARD, went on to be Commissioner of the City of London, he authorised everything.  He was appalled the Met were not doing anything re: MH.  He didn’t have the resources to go into the Met.  We would occasionally stray over to see and identify the others to see what they were up to.
  • Q – Can you name the Surrey Officers?
  • A – JOHN BETSON ran the Surrey Crime Squad.  He was the DS in charge of the Surrey Crimes Squad.
  • COMFORT BREAK (13:20-13:25)
  • A – Surrey pushed the boat out, microphone in the house in the living area.  It didn’t pick up anything when the child went there, anything that happened didn’t happen in that room.
  • Q – (Discussion on how he felt not having any resources.)
  • A – Nobody in charge of child abuse.  I wanted to use Social Workers and arranged for NSPCC to work with us and to cover until the social workers could step in.  At a conference this was discussed and the ACPO lead said no, it would be too expensive.  This was on radio.  He said there was only a few cases.
  • Q – Did you put suggestions forward to Senior Officers?
  • A – Yes, lots (01:05:54).  Discussion about training for interviewing and reporting system involving social workers and request to use London wide.  Refused by Assistant Commissioner as Met going to crimint so don’t use that system.  Could not get anyone interested.  It went up on a docket through 4 Area DCI, but they didn’t want to know.
  • Q – What happened with MH?
  • A – We did the raids after the kid was seen going into the house.  They raided all the houses.  I think one house, one of the suspects had child pornography the rest of them had nothing.  The guy in Surrey was charged because we could prove some of the stuff he had although he claimed they were adults through passports etc, we could prove they were only 13 or 14.  These pictures and some of the pictures he used are still out there now in gay magazines.  You buy a magazine called Smooth, smooth boys – people would often say its because they are shaved – it’s not, they are kids.  These magazines are still sold with pictures of kids in, they are still there.  The Met’s attitude was we can’t go removing them because we will be seen to be demonising the homosexual community.  We can’t do it so it was a case of, yeah, we know the magazines are there, they have photos of kids in them but people might think they are shaved so we are not going round to try and remove them, we are not going to put anything out to other police stations.  You could go round most gay guys’ houses and found this picture in there, you could have arrested them for child pornography quite legitimately because it was a legitimate magazine.  This guy was photographing them and putting them in there.  Their answer was this is too much just to let it go.  MH was about homosexual stuff they were petrified of it.  If you had a little girl you could prove it was a little girl, they would do something about it.  Frightened to death of being see as homophobic.  If they had put it out there most decent people would have gotten rid of it.
  • Q – How was MH closed?  What state was it in when you left?
  • A – I was told they were going to carry on as they had been raided, that was it.  I think they used me leaving to shut down HATTON.  They had wanted to shut HATTON down for a long time.  No one was running it.  Just before I joined the Paedophile Unit every 2 weeks they would have a meeting with the likes of REBEKAH BROOKS like that.  On the back of my chair was the name ‘REBEKAH‘ in Tippex, where she used to sit and hold court.  Lots of press came in there.  They were so frustrated they could not get anywhere so they shared the stuff what was going on to the press instead of them actually dealing with it.
  • Q – They were having meetings with journalists?
  • A – Yes.
  • Q – Senior officers?
  • A – Yes, and the team.  They used to come in every couple of weeks, they would bring a bottle in and sit there.  It was only because at the time I got there the Yard went dry – they got rid of the tank downstairs, turned it into a gym.  Before that, the journalists were in there on a regular basis.
  • Q – They would share information?
  • A – They did a lot of good work but it’s not the way it should have been dealt with. There was information shared, there was stuff we would get back, but the Paedophile Unit, it leaked like a sieve.  There was one time – I won’t name names – (There was then a discussion about he and his colleagues finding out about who was leaking information to the press using three nicknames and mention of an enquiry concerning the DPA.) (01:14:52)
  • Q – This [NAME REDACTED] where you said he sold a story to Channel 4?
  • A – He apparently went to Channel 4 and sold them a story, and they spent 6 weeks undercover filming and following him around.  It was to do with named people.  They withdrew the plug and I went to see Channel 4, found the producer, who told me about being involved in it.  It was just like they were petrified that I turned up, I thought I was going there to chat to a producer to tell me what he knew about [NAME REDACTED].
  • Q – No senior officers with you?
  • A – No, I asked them to come with me, but it was a case of ‘no you won’t need us’.
  • Q – They indicated footage had been destroyed?
  • A – Yes, they wouldn’t give me any information on suspects, or anything like that.  (01:16:10)
  • Q – Do you know what it was about?
  • A – Supposedly about [NAME REDACTED] was taking them to an identified (or unidentified) people that were abusing WM-A118 and WM-A119.
  • Q – This is MH, under MH?
  • A – Yes.
  • Q – Remember any of the names of the people at the meeting?
  • A – No, but there would be a list on the docket.  I listed everyone who was there.
  • Q – There was no senior officers, it was yourself and people you describe as lawyers.
  • A – Yes, we went round the room and it’s as if everyone had their own lawyer.  The Director was there, the Senior Manager of Channel 4 was there – he had a lawyer.  The camera team was there – they had a lawyer.  I said: “Can you tell me what you did?”  They said they made a programme but destroyed all the films.  Can’t comment, no comment.
  • Q – Was it a pre-arranged meeting?
  • A – Yes, it took me ages to get the meeting as I kept ringing them up saying I really wanted to come and talk to them about this.
  • Q – This [NAME REDACTED] had indicated to you while you had a prison visit with him that he had been helping out Channel 4?
  • A – Yes.
  • Q – And he had given information to them?
  • A – Yes.
  • Q – What senior Officers did you ask to go with you?
  • A – If you go to see the press (can’t hear answer but something like authority or report), you had to get authority from no lesser rank that DCI.  It would have been in the MH docket that I asked to go and then asked for authority.  No one came with me.
  • Q – Did you ask Bob McCloughlin?
  • A – Yes, Bob was the DI.
  • Q – Do you remember who your DCI was?
  • A – JIM REYNOLDS.
  • Q – So nothing came out of the meeting?
  • A – No.  Confirmed they had a programme, they know [NAME REDACTED], they filmed over a period of 8 weeks, that the footage had been destroyed, they didn’t say why it had been destroyed.
  • Q – What year?
  • A – It was around when I started there, it would be in the docket – around 97, 97 or 98.
  • Q – I want to move onto WM-F172 was that an operational name?
  • A – No that was LINDA HOLDEN and myself picked that up from looking into corruption and fraud.  A load of houses basically had been bought by criminals, C11 criminals, they were the top criminals in the country – the ARRIFS, people like that.  They bought Docklands property.  They put locals up, gave them money.  It was a way of laundering money.  WM-F172 ran these places for them.  You would have a high court judge in his beautiful house and next door he would have about 30 refugees, they were just piling people into them.
  • Q – At what point have you been investigating WM-F172?  Where were you at that time?
  • A – I was at Rotherhithe.
  • Q – What year?
  • A – 1990 – I was on CID.
  • Q – Was it your investigation?
  • A – No, it was LINDA HOLDEN’S.  We got together on this.
  • Q – Where did WM-F172 live?
  • A – She lived in a flat in DPA – a big six-bedroomed house.
  • Q – How did this come to light – there was some kind of corruption or fraud?
  • A – I can’t remember exactly how it came about.  We ended up looking at her as the prime suspect.  I came at it from the fraud aspect.  There were many people living in this house.  Linda came at it from another way.  Discussion on how he found out the villains turned up on the day, threw people out of the queue, put their own in to get the properties and how WM-F172 was linked to the properties.
  • Q – There was a search of her business property?
  • A – She ran a cafe in DPA.  It was a meeting place for villains.
  • Q – What was the name of the cafe?
  • A – I think the DPA.
  • Q – Done a search of her business premises, cafe?
  • A – Her office was upstairs where she ran the stuff for the housing.  We came across a safe that she wasn’t going to open and didn’t have the key.  We were going to call a locksmith when she opened it, and we found the tape recording.  We thought it might be more evidence of what we were looking for.  We got back and listened to the tape WM-F7WM-F7 has a distinctive voice.  Realised it was his voice on it and he was engaged in having sex with someone – another male.  We knew he had an association with WM-F172, as there had been bits in the press attending functions with her on his arm.
  • Q – Describe the voice you believed was WM-F7.
  • A – I don’t know how to describe his voice – it’s distinctive and it was him, as far as I was concerned it was him.
  • Q – Had you seen him on TV?
  • A – Yes, he was the local MP for DPA.  I had seen him a few time around, I had spoken to him a few times, on TV he is regularly on.  He has a twang to his voice.  If you heard it you would know it was him.
  • Q – What did you hear on the recording?
  • A – It was obvious he was having sex with someone basically.  Grunts, groans, his voice, encouragement and bits and pieces, and it went on for a while.
  • Q – Did you hear what the other person was saying – what the voice sounded like?
  • A – I can’t really recall.  It sounded a youngish male basically, or you could gather from it.
  • Q – How young are we talking?
  • A – Impossible to say. (01:29:03)
  • Q – Young male, as in teenager or above, or are we talking child?
  • A – It was a teenager, child that sort of age.  It was a young person.  He was in his 40s.  This was a significantly younger probably child or young adult, grunts and groans and talking during sex.  It wasn’t exactly a conversation.  It sounded like they didn’t know that they were being recorded.
  • Q – What was the record done on – what type?
  • A – Can’t remember if it was an ordinary cassette or micro cassette.  I think it was just an ordinary cassette.
  • Q – It was just audio.
  • A – Just audio.
  • Q – Anything written on the cassette, you can remember?
  • A – I can’t remember.
  • Q – From that recording, this teenager or child – can you remember what they were saying?
  • A – No.
  • Q – What made you believe it was a young person or child?
  • A – The voice was higher – just the whole tenure of it being encouraged to participate as though he was talking to someone young.  Couldn’t say if it was a child – could have been a young person.  It was definitely someone on the younger side.
  • Q – Were there sounds of distress?
  • A – No, it was consensual.  Our main concern was that he was often protecting her when people were complaining to him about WM-F172.  People had gone to his surgery to complain that the villains had got there, but he said no I’m sure not.  He was on her arm at places, and it wasn’t until about 10 years later that he came out being gay.  Before that the people of DPA would not have voted for him.
  • Q – Listened to the recording – was Linda there as well?
  • A – Yes.  I think the DI as well.  We were going to keep it quiet.  We couldn’t say if it was a child, was an MP being blackmailed, was he being blackmailed by WM-F172 therefore by most of the villains in South East London?
  • Q – When you say you were going to keep it quiet, was there a conversation around that?
  • A – Yeah, the DI was going to take it to SB, I think.  We didn’t want to make it worse.  It needed appropriate people to deal with it.  We couldn’t deal with it as the local CID.  It was going to be taken up elsewhere as far as we were aware.
  • Q – Who was the DI at the time?
  • A – MICKY SUETT
  • Q – There was a conversation about this going to SB as the local CID couldn’t deal with it?
  • A – Yes, the three of us didn’t say anything to anyone else.  Then the tape went missing.
  • Q – How long after it was booked in did you go back to find it?
  • A – It wasn’t me who went to find it, it was Linda, and it wasn’t there.  We weren’t sure who had taken it – had SB come along and taken it?  It was not booked out, it wasn’t where is should be.
  • Q – Was this fed back to the DI?
  • A – Yes.
  • Q – Do you know what happened from there?
  • A – I think he may have done a copy so I don’t think he was that worried.  We all talked about doing a copy each and keeping hold of it.  If you left it in your drawer though and someone picked it up, it wouldn’t be a secret anymore.  (01:36:32)
  • Q – Did you know that for certain or was it just a comment saying he would make a copy?
  • A – I just felt confident he had made a copy.  We talked about making copies ourselves.
  • Q – Did you make a copy?
  • A – Don’t recall making a copy, no.  Abut this time I ended up at the Bailey for about two weeks.  I wasn’t much in the office.
  • Q – Who would have had access to the property office?
  • A – It would have gone to the property store at SOUTHWARK once it had left us because she was a prisoner, it would have been booked in at Southwark.
  • Q – It was moved from Rotherhithe?
  • A – Yeah, after the arrest was made she went to Southwark as there was no facilities at Rotherhithe.  We would have taken the stuff back to the office in Rotherhithe to listen to and book it in and leave it in the property store.
  • Q – Would there have been signing out and signing in?
  • A – Yeah.
  • Q – Was it a 105 the…
  • A – Yeah.
  • Q – So the book 105 would be signed out and signed in?
  • A – Yeah.
  • Q – So there was an audit trail?
  • A – Yeah, some of the paperwork was kept in the office so we could go through it as you would forget the names.  The tape wasn’t something we were going to do anything with so it went back.
  • Q – At the time you found this tape, was it a case of you all being worried that an MP was being blackmailed by WM-F172 and other villains, or did you look at it as a child abuse aspect?
  • A – Couldn’t say for a 100% that it was a child, it was just things that came later, children in, children I was investigate later from the Children’s Home spending the night at his constituency surgery, seen coming out in the morning.
  • Q – So it was later on in your career when you discover all that and that’s when you thought?
  • A – Yeah, it was later on.  Just as I left Rotherhithe to go to CPT, I remember having a conversation with the CH SUPT there, ALAN EVERSHED.  I don’t know how we got on the subject, but it was about WM-F7.  He may have been briefed by MICK SUETT about children coming out of his constituency surgery in the early hours of the morning.
  • Q – That information was fed to you so you didn’t witness it yourself?
  • A – I did later.  There were children there that were related to [NAME REDACTED] that group of kids were the ones coming out of his constituency surgery.  Those kids like WM-A118 and WM-A119 never said anything about WM-F7ALAN EVERSHED telling me about the kids coming out of the surgery and we were doing some observations around there about a child we knew who was a prolific burglar we caught him coming out of his constituency surgery.
  • Q – What time in the morning are we talking about – half six?
  • Q – What was his surgery?
  • A – Like a shot front, just like a shop.  Kids had been staying there.  The one kid I saw, can’t remember his name, was from Rotherhithe.  Same sort of thing he was into burglaries, stealing.  He was about 15 or 16 and had stopped all of a sudden.  He was coming out of there one morning.  I don’t think we were doing a surveillance, just driving past.  It was towards the end, when I was leaving there.  EVERSHED said he had received information that kids were spending the night at the surgery.
  • Q – Was it a set up like an office, this surgery?  What was it like?
  • A – It was like a shop front/come office.  The kid came out of it.  We might have been doing something on the WM-F172 job in the area.
  • Q – Were these children’s home kids?
  • A – Yeah, I think he was a children’s home kid.
  • Q – Do you know which one?
  • A – I can’t remember.  It was only later that the links going through the children’s home when I got into it with the CPT.  Moves on to the bit when I got upset.  The reason I was upset was because I was very close to Linda and I told her about the meeting.  I never actually told her they had photographs, she went off alarming when I said [IRRELEVANT].  She went off on one and I never spoke to her from that day to this.
  • Q – What happened again at your meeting?
  • A – I was meeting a friend of mine in a pub on the way home from Rotherhithe.  I got to the pub and outside was what was obviously a police car.  I thought it was my mate taking the piss.  Got inside and there was someone there who introduced himself as a Supt from the Regional Crime Squad.  I thought he might be with my mate, but he wasn’t.  We started chatting.  He starting blowing smoke up my bum about things I had done, knew a lot about me.  He said we should stop the investigation into WM-F172 for everyone’s interests.
  • Q – Do you know who he was?
  • A – No, I took the car reg at the time and ran it through.  Not locally but someone up north, but never identified.  Can’t even remember his name, I had it all written down.  I didn’t know who he was but he was purporting to be from the job.  That’s how he knew I was going to be in the pub because I had phoned my mate once from Rotherhithe and once from Southwark confirming the meeting, so unless it was someone in those offices listening to me, no one else would have known I was going there.  He was waiting for me, so we had this conversation.  It was a case of me saying, no I don’t think we will stop the investigation.  Making life difficult if LINDA [IRRELEVANT] making life difficult for me.  That was it, and off he trotted.
  • Q – This was Linda’s investigation around WM-F172?
  • A – Yes, I meet with Linda the next day and told her what happened.  She went off on one and I never actually got to tell her they claimed they [IRRELEVANT].
  • Q – Of what?
  • A – [IRRELEVANT] We never spoke from that day to this.  Shortly after I went to the Paedophile Unit, not the CPT.
  • Q – After you told her about that meeting she never spoke to you?
  • A – Yeah.
  • Q – This male introduced himself as a Supt RCS? (Regional Crime Squad)
  • A – Yes, claimed to be from the South East Regional, which made sense with the job car outside that he got into when he left.
  • Q – What did he look like?
  • A – About 5’10”, slim face, small moustache, quite skinny.
  • Q – Was he on his own?
  • A – Strangely, when he got into the car, someone else got into the car I hadn’t seen before.  The two of them got into the car to leave.  I was looking outside the window.
  • Q – Was that another male?
  • A – Yeah.
  • Q – Was he driving this other person who spoke to you in the pub?
  • A – No.
  • Q – Did he say why he wanted this stopped?
  • A – No.  There’s two theories.  One is about WM-F7 or about WM-F172.  I think she may have been an informant.  Certainly my life turned to shit afterwards.
  • Q – After that meeting?
  • A – Yeah.
  • Q – Was that investigation still going on, was Linda still dealing?
  • A – Yeah, we got to the stage I think we were charging her that week or the following week.  This was days before she was charged.  Things were said at the trial that came second hand to me.  The CPS put a bar on me from attending court.
  • Q – Why was that?
  • A – Because I was under investigation.  Strangely, someone had made a complaint against me.  I had received the 163A which meant that the complaint was over.  The complaint started again, I was reinvestigated for it.  It was to do with the (Fur trader, not clear).  I went on a central discipline board.
  • Q – So the CPS barred you from attending the WM-F172 trial?
  • A – I was barred from attending court in general, all things, I was not allowed to give evidence in any trial (discussion about CPS action for police officer under investigation and giving evidence).  I was on gardening leave, although I was acting DI in the office as he was off sick and I was the only one who had passed the exam.
  • Q – With regard to WM-F172, when she was arrested was she brought in at that point when you did the search?
  • A – Yeah. Searched her home address when she was arrested at her home and her business premises later in the day, I think.  Took ages to search her home, took her back to the nick and then took her to her business premises.  All the villains from South East London were banging on her door and standing around for the rest of the day.
  • Q – Was she ever asked about that recording?
  • A – I don’t think we ever did.  We were going to pass it over, leave it like we had never seen it or listened to it, we just dropped the subject, left it.  I don’t know if it is to do with WM-F7 or general (can’t make out 01:54:27).
  • Q – What happened with WM-F172 trial?
  • A – I didn’t go but I heard from someone else that she was found guilty on some counts and someone went in to see the judge.  That’s what I heard, but of course I wasn’t there.
  • Q – Did you ever mention to anyone else, senior officers, about this person threatening you in in the pub to drop the investigation?
  • A – No.
  • Q – Why?
  • A – I didn’t trust anyone, wasn’t going to do it.  I wasn’t going to stop, not in my nature.
  • Q – Anymore you can tell us abut the WM-F7 WM-F172 element?
  • A – No, I can’t be sure but it was always in the back of my mind these were the same group of kids, but ther.  But never did any of the lads I dealt with ever mention him, it’s just the tape recording suspect, whether it was a child or not being know and talked about regularly about the kids coming out of his address.  He could have been a nice man putting them for the night, nothing a 100%.
  • Q – OP HATTON (01:58:26) Can you give me a brief overview?
  • A – OP HATTON evolved from the Met’s monitoring of the Paedophile Information Exchange where I got involved.  BRIAN FRANC#### was running Operation Hatton.  He had a card index system, he tried to get it put on Holmes but got a knock back.  It was an old card system, cross referenced a lot of it historic, way back.  The main players in it, we got to dealing with it.  One guy lived in DPA and they used to meet every 4 weeks, the PIE at his house on a Sunday afternoon.  Before my time they managed to get an undercover officer into those meetings but they actually thought he was a member of the security services, they allowed him in and weren’t bothered who he was.  They would discuss things like how they were trying to change people’s perceptions  They would meet with the likes of [NAME REDACTED] and people like that to see how they’d run campaign to, for their side of it to get homosexuality normalised, they were trying to mirror that to do the same in bringing down the age of consent.  I remember one particular a teacher, female, aged about 30 was done for having sex with a 14-year old boy in her school.  They were trying to bring that to the forefront of the press trying to make it sound ridiculous.  They would send people to talke to the Paedophile Unit at the Yard pretending they had information so that they would get to know us.  Basically they were trying to see if they could discredit any of us, the police through the press.  The one guy who lived in the house in DPA we kept getting this funny phone number appear, when we were doing the cross checking number.  He was actually a computer scientist, he was directing a satellite from home, he was said to run the dark web for paedophiles.
  • Q – OP HATTON was Paedophile Information Exhange and you picked up that operation when you were on the paedophile unit?
  • A – Yeah.
  • Q – When?
  • A – When BRIAN retired, I picked up all of it, late ’97.  What I would do, any phone calls that came in, again that was put on the crimint system, the new stuff was put on.  I tried to get the old stuff put on but it didn’t meet the criteria for going on crimint for the A1, A, because it wasn’t done like that.  Just the current but a lot of that we couldn’t put on because it was coming from the undercover.
  • Q – Would there be a file on HATTON?
  • A – Yes.
  • Q – So there would be a GR docket?
  • A – Yeah.
  • Q – Under the name of HATTON?
  • A – OP HATTON, yeah.  What we were trying to do was get this persons password so we could get onto the dark web (discussuion about how they tried to get the password by using fixed keyboard).
  • Q – You were running Hatton as well as MH at the same time on your own?
  • A – Yeah.
  • Q – Did you ever ask for any assistance?
  • A – (Discussion about workload).  The rest of the guys were all busy with the child pornography.
  • Q – What was the aim of OP HATTON?
  • A – It was an intelligence operation to monitor the activities of PIE and moved on to try and get access to the dark web, where they were all communicating.  (Discussion about intel that would be fed through to senior officers, eg: PIE trying to get undercover to go abroad, Asia, and drive a boat and arrange for children to be brought in. 02:07:33)
  • Q – Asking for resources?
  • A – To follow it through but it wasn’t getting done basically.
  • Q – Did you document that, put a report through?
  • A – It would go round as a report on HATTON but you weren’t allowed to write in the margins where you say there is a new document.  It would go round with a 728 on it, asking for something.  If they didn’t like it, it would come back with the 728 ripped in half and a note saying, no, it wouldn’t be added to the docket.
  • Q – Did you put a report up asking for resources?
  • A – Yes, there were plenty of times.  One there was nobody to do it, you couldn’t get anything, you couldn’t get a sausage.
  • Q – Who was your line manager at the time?  Did you specifically put any report thrugh for assistance for HATTON for resources?
  • A – Only time I looked for recourses on HATTON I know from talking to BRIAN FRANCE#### he was pulling his hair our, it was making him ill, he was putting stuff in and asking for resources.  They were freely chatting with the undercover about what they were doing.  He got really deep in amongst them.  As far as the job was concerned, just leave it and concentrate on trying to get into the dark web.  (Discussion on dealing with Military as he was liaison trying to get access to dark web).
  • Q – OP HATTON information on PIE and you picked it up while working on MH.  Did your request anything from your senior officers to assist in your investigations?
  • A – I put in a request, previous time before I arrived undercover being asked to drive a boat to Phillipines get children on the boat.  It happened again whilst I was running it – they made the same request.  We put in a docket to allow the undercover to follow it through – it was a straight ‘no’.
  • Q – Why do you think that was?
  • A – Money, time, resources.  I don’t know what else SO1 was dealing with at the time.
  • Q – Was the undercover from your unit?
  • A – No.  There were onlyt wo undercovers at that time rated for dealing with paedophile jobs.  One was in our office [NAME REDACTED] and the other I can’t remember his name, his number DPA.  There would be weekends when he went in and there was just him and me.  I’d brief him before he went in and debrief him afterwards.  I’d be in the house opposite.  Because it was overtime, I wasn’t allowed to do it on overtime, I would have to swap my days to do it on a Sunday if I wanted to cover it.  They put the meetings on Sunday afternoon because they said no police officer is going to be there.  There would just be the two of us.
  • Q – Do you think there were missed opportunities by not having the resources to cover it?
  • A – Yeah.  Plenty of opportunities that could have come out, more could have been made, different people would turn up at different meetings.  Half the time we didn’t identify the half of them.  I was concerned with the undercovers, I could go chasing people up the road (discussion about safety isues or lack of them fo the UC).  The resources, time, money, effort just wasn’t there.
  • Q – Was the Paedophile Unit well established by the time you got there?
  • A – Yes, but as I said to yu before, it was called the Paedophile Unit but it was the guys from the Dirty Book Squad.  They had all been trained to interview children in the early days but not on had interviewed a child.  There was so much work coming through, NCIS was giving us work from the Canadians the computer network thing*, people paying for viewing child pornography by credit card and a list came to us.  10,000 names for people in the UK and all of these needed to be turned over.  (*I think this is referring to OP ORE)
  • Q – What training was given to yu or people on the Paedophile Unit?
  • A – None.  I bourhg tht etraining there with me.  I moaned to the DI that the guys there had no idea how to work with the social services.  (Discussion abut lack of skills to deal with child abuse allegation).
  • Q – How mahy people on the Paedophile Unit whilst you were working on HATTON?
  • A – DCI, DI, I think 3 DSs, 12?
  • Q – Can you name them?
  • A – No, and 12 DCs.
  • Q – Can you remember any names?
  • A – BRIAN FRANCE####, DAVE RYDEN (DC), BRIAN was an old school DS from the CID, my line manager.  DI was BOB MCCLOUGHLIN, DCI was JIM REYNOLDS, GRAHAM PASSINGHAM (DC) I have mentioned.
  • Q – There would be what you describe as a large file on HATTON?
  • A – Yeah it was about 6 inches thick.
  • Q – That was based on inteilligence gathering?
  • A – No, the intelligence gathering was in the cars and the system, the docket was for getting the operation set up in the first place, the original parts of the PIE, the obviously marked secret because of the UC work and the putting in the bug for for the computer stuff, it was all in there and just bounced backwards and forwards.  (Discussion on how bad this was.  02:20:11)
  • Q – Recap on HATTON.  It was you took it on whilst working on MH on Paedophile Unit took with you from CPT late 1997, BRIAN FRANCEWARE ran it originally, it evolved from the Met’s monitoring of PIE, on the cards system?
  • A – Separate from the office system, the office had it’s own card system, HATTON had it’s own card system, BRIAN wanted it done that way because he originally wanted it on Holmes but because the card system in the office covered everything from the ’60s.  It wasn’t a proper collation system as such.  When we went onto crimint they decided they were not going to backdate or go through the old files, nothing was transferred onto crimint.  It sat there as a stand alone system and we were told to move onto crimint nothing would be backdated.  I think HATTON was updated but only new information.  If there was anything of any prominence, was often never marked, it was consult and often you just asked GRAHAM PASSINGHAM.  The keeper of secrets.
  • Q – You put in a 728 asking for resources to assist with Hatton and you weren’t given any further resources to assist you with undercover operations with HATTON.  You think there missed opportunities because of that?
  • A – Yeah.
  • Q – No training was given, you brought in some training yourself?
  • A – Yeah.
  • Q – DCI JIM REYONLDS, DI BOB MCCLOUGHLIN, DS BRIAN FRANCE####, ANDY RYDON and GRAHAM PASSINGHAM were some of the officers you worked with?
  • A – It wasn’t the case that the guys there didn’t care, they wanted to do stuff but they just couldn’t get the oomph from above to deal with it.  When I tried to get MH off the ground, it took a year for the docket to be accepted.  I wrote the report and it was about a year later.  It bounced back and forward.  It took nearly a year for authority just to go and interview.  It was so slow.
  • Q – Finish off now.  Time is now 14:50. (2:24:42)
Advertisements

2 thoughts on “IICSA: WITNESS STATEMENT: WESTMINSTER STRAND: OP WINTER KEY/OP MILESHOGUE/OP HATTON

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s