Warsi sinks the boot into the zionist leaning Eton groomed posh boys in control
Warsi's criticism of (Eton groomed prick) Cameron is basically one of hypocrisy. While this government has not been shy about criticising other regimes for what it sees as human-rights abuses, on Israel, it has been deafeningly silent.
As she puts it: "One of the arguments I've heard from people is: 'Why don't you criticise Assad?' Well, we did. 'Why don't you criticise Isis?' Well we did. 'Why don't you criticise Iran?' We did. 'Why don't you criticise Putin?' We did. 'Why don't you criticise Israel?' Well, we didn't. That's the difference. It is about an inconsistent approach to our foreign policy. It is an inconsistency about our application of our values.
"That has impact on us both domestically and internationally. We go around the world talking about our values and human rights, and we will be accused of being hypocritical if we are seen to be applying them selectively."
"When he went to Blackpool to make his speech to become leader, he first came to Dewsbury to a social action project I was running. We then went to Blackpool and I introduced the speech ... I am absolutely part of the Cameron era and compassionate Conservatism. I thought this is a guy who gets today's Britain. He's a new kind of Conservative. He was really clear that values were values that included all of Britain.
"[But] I think the party has shifted. The party leadership has shifted since then. I think over time it will be a regressive move because we have to appeal to all of Britain, not just because morally it's the right thing to do, but because it's an electoral reality.
"The reason why Boris appeals to voters is because Boris presents himself as the person he is," she says.
"Boris does not pretend not to be posh. Boris doesn't pretend not to have had an Eton education. What is required now is an age of authenticity in politics, and it doesn't matter what background you come from as long as you are authentic in that identity. People are not anti-posh or anti-brown – people are anti-false."
Bumbling Boris Johnson controls London's banking gangsters
'History is a human right': UK govt. Wikipedia edits obscure high profile killings
UK government officials have reportedly edited an array of Wikipedia articles relating to the high profile killings of Jean Charles de Menezes, Lee Rigby and Damilola Taylor.
According to an in-depth investigation conducted by Channel 4 News, government computers were recently utilized to add inaccurate data to a Wikipedia page documenting Jean Charles de Menezes’ death. De Menzes was shot and killed by Metropolitan Police officers at Stockwell tube station in 2005.
Official state computers were also reportedly harnessed to edit the pages of Damilola Taylor, a 10-year-old Nigerian schoolboy who was murdered in Britain in 2000, and Lee Rigby, the 25-year-old victim of the 2013 Woolwich terror killing.
A spokesman for the de Menezes family expressed deep shock that anonymous editors had used official state computer networks to alter vital information in his Wikipedia article. The edits allegedly sought to obscure police failings from public knowledge.
Asad Rehman, who spoke on behalf of the De Menezes family, condemned the revelations, emphasizing it wasn’t the first time they’d been targeted in such a manner.
"Like all ordinary members of the public, I'm shocked. This is yet one more smear and attack on the family. We've seen over many years lies, misinformation and smears during the family's attempt to find the truth and justice and answers about how an innocent young man on his way to work was gunned down by police officers," he said.
On the question of whether UK civil servants had breached their formal responsibilities under the Civil Service Code, a government spokesperson gave an assurance on Wednesday that “Government takes these matters very seriously.”
The spokesperson subsequently confirmed plans to issue more comprehensive guidance on the utilization of internet and social media technology to all UK government departments.
Internet censorship: 'Right to be forgotten' ruling
Government officials’ alleged editing of Wikipedia articles documenting the tragic and untimely deaths of Damilola Taylor and Lee Rigby have also generated criticism.
The Wikipedia page documenting the case of Lee Rigby, a soldier who was attacked and killed in 2013, has been edited by anonymous government officials.(AFP Photo / Lindsey Parnaby)
The revelations have surfaced at a time when the Wikimedia Foundation has confirmed its decision to challenge the European Court of Justice’s “Right to be Forgotten” ruling. The Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization that operates Wikipedia and other open source knowledge projects. The Foundation announced on Wednesday its plans to publish data of individuals, who issue formal requests to Google to remove pages about them from its search engine.
In its first transparency report, the Foundation condemned the ECJ’s controversial ruling. The policy shift, enacted by the European court, undermines internet transparency and accuracy, according to the Foundation’s executive director, Lila Treitkov.
"A recent European Court of Justice (ECJ) decision is undermining the world's ability to freely access accurate and verifiable records about individuals and events. The impact on Wikipedia is direct and critical," Tretikov recently wrote in his blog.
Tretikov argues that the ECJ has reneged on its responsibility to safeguard one of the most vital and universal rights: “the right to seek, receive, and impart information.” In the wake of the ‘Right to be Forgotten Ruling’, “accurate search results are vanishing in Europe with no public explanation, no real proof, no judicial review, and no appeals process," he warns.
Treitkov cautions that the result is a censored internet forum where inconvenient data “simply disappears.”
With respect to Jean Charles de Menezes, an official government computer was reportedly used to delete a crucial section of a Wikipedia article that criticized the Independent Police Complaints Commission’s (IPCC) handling of the deceased man’s case.
An entire section pertaining to the IPCC’s admittance it had “got it wrong” with respect to leaks relating to Mr de Menezes’ death simply vanished, according to Channel 4 News.
The covert editor, who is yet to be identified, also erased a quote that stated the Metropolitan Police Federation accused the IPCC of “perverse action” with respect to its mediation in the de Menezes’ case. New information pertaining to the IPPC was added by this editor, including the Commission’s responsibility to increase “public confidence,” and multiple other cases the body has dealt with.
An official government computer was reportedly used to delete a crucial section of a Wikipedia article that criticized the Independent Police Complaints Commission’s (IPCC) handling of the De Menezes' case.(Reuters / Dylan Martinez)
These edits surfaced in the aftermath of a report released in July, which uncovered the Met’s Special Demonstration Squad had effectively spied on 18 separate UK justice campaigns, including that of the De Menezes family.
Eight years ago, official government computers were also used to incorporate slanderous information into one section of his Wikipedia article. On this occasion the editor alleged the deceased had “a high level” of Class A drugs in his system. Wikipedia editors were also approached to alter the rationale followed for employing the decision to shoot the young man.
And in the early phase of the 2008 inquest into his death, official government computers were orchestrated to delete accurate data relating to Menezes’ immigration status.
Damiola Taylor & Lee Rigby
Following the firing of a UK civil servant over potentially defamatory data added to internet pages associated with the Hillsborough tragedy, an array of automatically generated Twitter “bots” have been created to draw attention to edits enacted by parliamentary officials.
In light of these developments, the UK government is currently facing questions over the harnessing of official state computer networks to alter controversial websites.
One anonymous individual allegedly harnessed a government network to edit sensitive information about Damilola Taylor, a young schoolboy of Nigerian extraction who tragically lost his life in 2000. The person in question reportedly substituted the phrase “was murdered” to simply state the young boy had “died.”
The Wikipedia page of Damilola Taylor, a ten-year-old schoolboy of Nigerian extraction who tragically lost his life in 2000, has been edited using an official government computer network. (Reuters)
In the case of 25-year-old British soldier, Lee Rigby - who was attacked and killed in 2013 – another anonymous edit claimed his death was simply “not notable enough” for an article pertaining to terrorism. A complete section of the article relating to Rigby’s death was also deleted by the editor in question.
The edits were all elicited from internet addresses that have previously been noted as being on an official state network called the Government Secure Intranet (GSI). This internal network provides a platform for government officials, along with certain police officers, to connect online.
The full range of Wikipedia edits are visible in the page’s history, as are the specific internet addresses from which the changes were enacted. This level of transparency cultivated by Wikipedia ensures computer networks from which anonymous edits originate can be revealed.
While Wikipedia has faced demands to remove approximately 50 search results to various articles, it plans to publish the details of each and every request. The firm’s first ever transparency report backs this measure. The Wikimedia Foundation has also stated it plans to host and update a page documenting Wikipedia pages censored in European search results.
Even zionist Miliband thinks zionist Cameron is getting it 'wrong' on Gaza VIDEO
One Man, Two Guvnors: the conflict at the heart of British justice
Grayling a mass murdering crooked henchman who was behind the tory assassins ATOS and DWP before they moved him on
to justice.. Image by James Rowland
Yesterday Chris Grayling, who is both Minister of State for Justice (dismantling the legal aid system) and Lord Chancellor (sworn to uphold the rule of law), gave evidence before the House of Commons Justice Committee.
Chris Grayling, PR-man-turned-politician . . . and Lord Chancellor
Chris Grayling is an experienced PR man. After Cambridge University and a stint at the BBC, Grayling joined Burson-Marsteller, the international masters of reputation management. Their business: protecting the strong from the weak. Clients have included the Nigerian government during the Biafran war, the Argentinian junta after the disappearance of 35,000 civilians, the dictator Nicolae Ceaucescu and the Saudi Royal Family.
Grayling carried the art of spin into Westminster where, as MP for the safe Tory seat of Epsom and Ewell, he tended his property portfolio with help from his parliamentary expenses.
The Daily Telegraph revealed in 2009 that Grayling had claimed thousands of pounds to renovate a flat in central London – bought with a mortgage funded at taxpayers’ expense, even though his constituency home is less than 17 miles from the House of Commons. One year he claimed close to the maximum allowance. The next year he submitted some late-arriving invoices. One scribbled note of explanation read: "decorator has been very ill & didn't invoice me until now".
As shadow home secretary in 2010 he was publicly rebuked for "damaging trust in official statistics"; he had drawn comparisons between different sets of violent crime figures. His critic? Sir Michael Scholar, whose job it was to keep politicians' interpretation of statistics straight.
Chris Grayling can't help it. He's a PR man.
He is also Minister of State for Justice. And Lord Chancellor, the first non-lawyer in the role.
As Lord Chancellor he has taken an oath to uphold the rule of law. Here it is:
“I, Christopher Stephen Grayling, do swear that in the office of Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain I will respect the rule of law, defend the independence of the judiciary and discharge my duty to ensure the provision of resources for the efficient and effective support of the courts for which I am responsible. So help me God.”
As Minister of Justice he leads a radical attack on the heart of British justice.
In Grayling's Britain, victims of rape will be deprived of legal representation. The sister of Jean Charles de Menezes (an innocent man shot dead by the Metropolitan Police), would be denied legal aid. Or, as Grayling put it to last year's Conservative Party conference: "I don’t think it’s right that someone can just pitch up here, without any connection to the UK and use the legal aid system at our expense."
A pregnant woman sent to prison on remand for shoplifting food for her children will no longer get legal aid to fight the decision to separate her from her baby as soon as it is born. Or, as Grayling told his conference: "Right now prisoners can get legal aid to complain about the prison we put them in, and use it to try and get an easier ride elsewhere."
Lately the Guardian reported a whistleblower's allegation that the minister had told his political staff to put a positive spin on written answers drafted by Ministry of Justice officials.
Yesterday morning Grayling spent just over an hour being lightly interrogated by members of the House of Commons Justice Committee.
He spun their questions about prisons overcrowding and shortage of prison staff into answers about a special new "reserve force" of retired prison officers. It sounded strangely positive. (Grayling has a way of smiling as he speaks, whatever he happens to be saying.)
He said one reason for staff shortages was — good news! —"the more buoyant labour market".
He was asked about the rise in prisoner suicides. He couldn't put a positive spin on that. Could he?
He spun his answer into a comment about assaults on prison staff. (They hadn't asked him about that).
Pressed on overcrowding, he said (incorrectly): "Prison overcrowding means prisoners sharing a cell."
Then, the wealthy man who dipped into the public purse for mortgage payments on two separate properties, said: "If prisoners have to share a cell in order to make sure they can go to prison this is not a great problem."
Again he swerved into the matter of assaults on prison staff.
Does any decent person think that thumping prison officers is a good idea? Why bring it up? To divert and distract? To use up parliamentary time? To please the Daily Mail?
Grayling at the Justice Committee, Wednesday 9 July 2014
He called the European Convention of Human Rights, "a laudably worded document" which "contains many balances of rights and responsibilities". (You can see why legal minds have so little respect for him).
"But," he went on: "it is time for Parliament to assert its view about where and how human rights law should be applied. I have said that I want to curtail the role of the European Court of Human Rights in the UK. I have said that I want to replace the Human Rights Act."
Then: "Let me be clear this doesn't mean that I don't regard human rights as important," said Burson-Marsteller's former European Marketing Director. "Human rights are of fundamental importance around the globe and we shall always be a beacon championing them."
All the while, sitting behind him, campaigners from the Howard League for Penal Reform, in silent protest, held up copies of Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment. For this is the Lord Chancellor who has banned prisoners' families and friends from sending them books to read, and other essentials such as underpants.
As Grayling told his party conference: "You wanted a tougher justice system. We are delivering a tougher justice system . . .Many, many of our offenders have had terrible childhoods, fragmented education, issues with drugs and alcohol, suffered abuse, or long periods of worklessness. But all of them are also there because of the choices they have made. I’m not making excuses for any of them."
Palestinian flag calling for 'Sanctions now' was projected onto the Houses of Parliament
Tory mafia's BIG society redirects public money into their crooked coffers
Every contract dished out by the tory mafia ultimately ends up, via their donors, back in their own coffers.
Public money used to fund the tories murderous agenda via the likes of ATOS and a myriad of companies under the guise
they are helping the unemployed into work when they have ulterior uses for diverted resources.
Big Society Network under investigation over 'funding misuse'
Watchdog examining whether charity set up to lead David Cameron's initiative used funds to pay debts of linked company
An investigation has begun into the use of taxpayer-funded grants by the charity set up to lead David Cameron's "big society" initiative.
The Charity Commission was examining whether funding for a childhood obesity project was used to pay the debts of a linked company. The commission was also seeking more information on payments allegedly made for consultancy services to two directors of the Big Society Network (BSN) and its chair, Martyn Rose, a Conservative Party donor.
News of the investigation comes days after a public spending watchdog issued a critical report about how National Lottery and government funds were handed over to and used by the BSN.
A former trustee of one grants body has claimed it was "forced" to award a total of £480,000 to the project without undertaking the usual checks.
The shadow civil society minister Lisa Nandy said she was asking the cabinet secretary to investigate whether political pressure was exerted to secure money for ministers' "pet projects".
The BSN was launched by the prime minister at 10 Downing Street two months after the coalition took office, with the aim of encouraging the kind of community work and volunteering Cameron had put at the heart of the party's manifesto for the election.
The performance of many of its projects has been heavily criticised and the National Audit Office (NAO) exposed problems with how £2m worth of grants were handed over to it.
The NAO said the Big Lottery Fund failed to challenge the BSN's "ambitious" target to recruit a million members a year to one particular initiative, despite the meeting of that target being crucial to its success. The Your Square Mile project was given an £830,000 lottery grant, but attracted only 64 members. The grant was also allowed to be transferred to a new company set up by the BSN chairman and another director, without checking that it had the IT skills to make the scheme work, the NAO said.
Its report also found that the £300,000 childhood obesity grant was made "contrary to the Cabinet Office's own guidelines" and even though it did not meet its criteria for funding.
The Independent reported that officials had been told to "go back and change the criteria".
The funding was halted after £200,000 had been handed over because of the project's poor performance, and the Cabinet Office did not recoup any of the funds.
Civil Society News reported that another £480,000 was handed over by the innovation funders Nesta, now a private organisation but then a quango, without a competitive pitch.
One of its former trustees, Liam Black, has said it was "forced" to hand over the resources for setting up BSN and several projects, branding it a "scandalous waste of money".
A Charity Commission spokeswoman confirmed that it was examining the award and use of funds by the BSN's charity arm.
"Our case into the Society Network Foundation remains open and ongoing," she said.
"We have received a response to questions we had relating to connected party transactions and the use of a grant, however this does not fully address our concerns and we are in the process of engaging further with the trustees.
"We are also awaiting copies of documents that explain the grounds on which a grant was given."
Rose, who the Independent reported had contributed more than £54,000 to the 2010 Conservative election campaign, told the newspaper he did not recall the payment from the network but said tit was possible that "one of my companies did work on its behalf".
He said he put £200,000 of his own money into the Big Society Network, which he had not got back, and defended its operations.
"With hindsight, of course, if we had all known that the projects were not going to work we would have been idiots to do them," he said. "In the early stages of social investment some will work and some won't."
Nesta told Civil Society News: "While the vast majority of Nesta's grants are made following open calls for proposals, we do have the ability to provide grants to projects that fit with our vision and advance our objects outside of open calls for proposals.
"That is what happened with the grants to the Big Society Network."
Nandy said the entire big society project lay "in tatters" and called for an investigation.
"It's bad enough that millions of pounds of public money were squandered, but the connections between these organisations and the Conservative party are deeply concerning," she said.
"I am writing to cabinet secretary Jeremy Heywood to ask him to investigate the process by which the grants in question were given.
"We must know if political pressure was applied to give an organisation with close ties to ministers special treatment.
"At a time when many charities are fighting to survive, handing out large sums of money to flawed, pet projects is inexcusable."
A Cabinet Office spokesman said: "The awarding of this grant has been the subject of intensive investigation by Cabinet Office and independently by the NAO.
"Both investigations found no rules were broken and the matter is now closed."
UK's three major 'paedo protecting' political mafia's back mass spying VIDEO
From citizens to suspects: Cameron pledges £800 million on nation's cyber intelligence VIDEO
Homopaedo protecting tory murdering scum want to legitimize their global spy network
Official impact assessments on the emergency surveillance bill due to be rushed through parliament this week appear to confirm privacy campaigners' fears that the law contains sweeping new surveillance powers that will affect every man, woman and child in Britain.
Two Home Office impact assessments deposited in the House of Commons library late on Friday show that the legislation would add an extra £8.4m to the average annual bill for state surveillance. The figure covers the cost of extra payments to internet and phone companies for storing extra data and new safeguards to be put in place, such as a role for the information commissioner in overseeing data requests.
But more worryingly for privacy campaigners, the impact assessments make explicit that the legislation would confirm powers for the British government to impose sanctions and penalties on overseas internet and phone companies anywhere in the world that refuse to comply with an interception warrant from London to hand over the content of communications. The prime minister has insisted the fast-track legislation will do no more than confirm existing surveillance powers and put them beyond legal doubt.
The impact assessment on a section on enforcement of the new powers says the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (Ripa) imposes penalties on companies that refuse to comply with interception warrants and sets out the circumstances in which they may be requested to maintain permanent interception capability.
However, it is possible that a company may refuse to comply with a notice requesting it to maintain a permanent interception capability. In the event that an overseas company refuses to comply with such a notice, there is an established process for applying to a UK court via civil proceedings for an injunction to enforce compliance.
The Home Office adds that there is a process for enforcing overseas the decisions of UK courts and says the emergency legislation amends Ripa to make clear that companies can be obliged to provide assistance in relation to interception warrants.
The Home Office says the fast-track data retention and investigatory powers bill – known as the Drip bill – is not intended to extend the UK's reach around the world. Rather, it is to confirm that Ripa obligations in relation to interception apply to all companies providing services to people in the UK, irrespective of where they are based. This will maintain the ability of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to intercept the communications of those who would do us harm, says the official impact assessment.
The proposed legislation would not impose any new obligations on UK business. Instead, it is intended to put beyond doubt the obligations that already apply to overseas providers, it adds.
But privacy campaigners warn that these powers to pay companies anywhere in the world for helping British snooping efforts and sanctioning those who refuse to comply amount to new and unprecedented powers.
Isabella Sankey, Liberty's policy director, told MPs in a briefing being circulated on Sunday: "Clause 4 of the bill also contains new and unprecedented powers for the UK to require overseas companies to comply with interception warrants and communications data acquisition requests and build interception capabilities into their products and infrastructure. These provisions will expand existing mass interception powers that are due to be challenged in the British courts next week."
Privacy campaigners also fear that these extra-territorial powers could provide the legal basis for enabling a number of Tempora-style programmes around the globe. Documents leaked by Edward Snowden disclosed that GCHQ has been tapping into transatlantic fibre-optic cables and storing huge amounts of data for up to 30 days under its Tempora programme.
A joint briefing note to MPs by Liberty, Privacy International, the Open Rights Group, Article 19, Big Brother Watch and English Pen warns that the small print in clause 5 of the six-clause bill extends the 2000 definition of telecommunications services to enable a much wider range of data, including webmail and some social media traffic data, to be collected.
The privacy campaigners warn that the two clauses taken together mean that elements of the rejected snooper's charter are present in the emergency legislation.
They are pressing MPs and peers to ensure that the bill's sunset clause – the date the legislation automatically expires – is brought forward from December 2016 to this December. Sankey tells them: "This fast-track legislation contains sweeping surveillance powers that will affect every man, woman and child in the UK."
Murdering tory scum turn UK from police state into stasi spying state VIDEO
Tory henchman Hancock poses at London's South Bank in front of graffiti declaring: 'Sack Cameron!
UK Government whips covered-up homopaedo MPs' 'scandals involving small boys' in exchange for loyalty
British state and their den of paedo protecting scum
The complicity of the British establishment in protecting vile homopaedo's instead of the boys abused by the
utter scum and filth.
A senior former Tory MP boasted about how Edward Heath’s government could cover up scandals involving them and ‘small boys’.
Tim Fortescue revealed how the whip’s office, which rules over MPs for the party leadership, would try to ‘get a chap out of trouble’ in return for loyalty. He served as a whip between 1970 and 1973.
Mr Heath himself pioneered the keeping of a ‘dirt book’ about MPs' private lives to turn to his political advantage.
Mr Fortescue's extraordinary comments from a 1995 documentary emerged as Theresa May said political parties would be included in a wide-ranging inquiry into allegations of child abuse in every part of British society.
A panel of experts will examine evidence that successive governments, charities, political parties, the NHS, the BBC and the Church failed to protect children from paedophiles. It has been claimed that powerful figures, including MPs, judges, senior military figure and celebrities, were able to avoid prosecution for abusing children as part of an Establishment cover-up.
In an interview for a BBC documentary entitled Westminster's Secret Service, Mr Fortescue lifted the lid on the lengths the whips’ office would go to in order to prevent an MP’s private life becoming public.
Former Tory MP Tim Fortescue, who died in 2008, revealed in a 1995 interview how the whip’s office, which rules over MPs for the party leadership, would try to ‘get a chap out of trouble’ in return for loyalty
"It might be debt, it might be a scandal involving small boys. If we could help, we did"
said Ex-Tory MP Tim Fortescue
Mr Fortescue, who died aged 92 in 2008, claimed he could help MPs with scandals 'involving small boys' in order to exert control over them to make sure they vote in line with their party's intentions.
Mr Fortescue said: ‘For anyone with any sense, who was in trouble, would come to the whips and tell them the truth, and say now, 'I'm in a jam, can you help?'.
‘It might be debt, it might be... a scandal involving small boys, or any kind of scandal in which... a member seemed likely to be mixed up in, they'd come and ask if we could help and if we could, we did.
‘And we would do everything we can because we would store up brownie points... and if I mean, that sounds a pretty, pretty nasty reason, but it's one of the reasons because if we could get a chap out of trouble then, he will do as we ask forever more.’
THE POWER OF THE WHIPS' OFFICE
They are not household names, but whips wield extraordinary power in the shadows of Westminster.
They are charged with ensuring party members turn out for votes, and vote the way their party wants.
One way to encourage loyalty is to help them when they get into trouble, and keeping it secret.
Before becoming Prime Minister, Edward Heath was Tory chief whip from 1956 to 1959.
During this time he gathered information, gossip and intrigue about every member of the party, and used it to his advantage.
The file became known as the 'dirt book', and successive administrations have used the same tactic to keep MPs in line, covering everything from teenage misdemeanours and extra-marital affairs to allegations of law-breaking.
Mr Heath once said: ‘I acted on the principle that the more you know about the people you are speaking for, and the more they know about you and what you are being asked to do, the better.’
The damning interview was raised in the Commons last night, sparking calls for all political parties to be subject to the panel inquiry.
Labour MP Lisa Nandy said Mr Fortescue’s interview was ‘just one powerful example of how personal and political interests can conspire to prevent justice from happening’.
She called for the inquiry to consider ‘not just the police and social services but will also look at what happens at the heart of power’.
She added: ‘If those systems are found to exist today, [they must] be overturned, whether that makes life uncomfortable for political parties, whether it makes life uncomfortable for Parliament, or whether it makes life uncomfortable for the Government itself.’
Tory Mark Reckless also asked if the inquiry would ‘consider any allegations or evidence held by the whips’.
Mrs May, the Home Secretary, insisted no part of society would be off limits in the inquiry. ‘It is not my intention that political parties should be outside the scope of the inquiry,’ she said.
‘I think this has to be wide-ranging, it has to look at every area where it is possible that people have been guilty of abuse and we need to learn lessons to ensure that the systems we have in place are able to identify that and deal with it appropriately.’
She stressed that the inquiry panel will not be investigating specific allegations, which would be a matter for the police.
‘It is looking across the board at the way things have been approached in the past and asking that question as to whether, and I expect to draw this quite widely, people did have in place the proper protections for children or not and if not, what are the gaps, are those gaps still existing today, and what do we need to do to make sure that those gaps are filled?'
‘I would expect that as much information as possible is given to the panel to enable them to do that.’
The interview was raised by Labour MP Lisa Nandy
Theresa May said political parties would be included in a wide-ranging inquiry into allegations of child abuse in every part of British society
The interview was raised by Labour MP Lisa Nandy, who urged Home Secretary Theresa May to ensure the wide-ranging review included political parties
Whistelblower Peter McKelvie has claimed a 'powerful elite' of at least 20 prominent establishment figures formed a VIP paedophile ring that abused children for decades.
The former child protection officer first raised the alarm about high profile individuals engaged in child sex abuse.
Speaking to BBC's Newsnight programme, Mr McKelvie said: 'For the last 30 years and longer than that, there have been a number of allegations made by survivors that people at the top of very powerful institutions in this country - which include politicians, judges, senior military figures and even people that have links with the Royal Family - have been involved in the abuse of children.'
'At the most serious level, we're talking about the brutal rape of young boys,' he added.
Lord Warner, who ran social services in Kent and was later an aide to Jack Straw when he was Home Secretary, was asked if he believed claims MPs and peers were among the 20 alleged paedophiles.
He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: 'I think they are possibly true. I haven’t seen the evidence.
'What I do know is that the 1980s was a slightly strange period when what started to emerge was much more detail, many more cases, about children being sexually abused. Some of this abuse was actually taking place within families... but many others, as a pivotal point, in children's homes,' he said.
HOW THE STORY UNFOLDED: CHILLING CLAIMS THAT SEX ABUSE RING MAY HAVE OPERATED IN BRITISH ESTABLISHMENT BACK TO 1983
The chilling claims that a paedophile ring may have been operating within the British establishment first emerged in an investigation by campaigning Conservative politician Geoffrey Dickens.
In November 1983, the MP for Littleborough and Saddleworth in Greater Manchester sent a 40-page document to then Home Secretary Leon Brittan detailing alleged VIP child abusers, apparently including former Liberal party chief whip Cyril Smith and other senior politicians.
In a newspaper interview at the time, Mr Dickens claimed his dossier contained the names of eight 'really important public figures' that he planned to expose, and whose crimes are believed to have stretched back to the 1960s.
Geoffrey Dickens produces a huge dossier detailing allegations of sexual abuse against prominent figures in the British establishment. He tells his family the claims will 'blow apart' the VIP paedophile ring.
Home Secretary Leon Brittan tells Mr Dickens that his dossier has been assessed by prosecutors and passed on to the police, but no further action is taken. The dossier is now either lost or missing.
Geoffrey Dickens dies. A short time later his wife destroys his copy of the paedophile dossier. The only other copies - one received by Mr Brittan and another allegedly sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions - are believed to have been lost or destroyed.
The 29-stone Rochdale MP Sir Cyril Smith dies aged 82 without ever being charged with sex offences.
Following the death of Sir Jimmy Savile, dozens of claims of historic child abuse emerge - including a number of alleged victims of Smith, who is said to have spanked and sexually abused teenage boys at a hostel he co-founded in the early 1960s.
During Prime Minister's Questions, Labour MP Tom Watson claims there is 'clear intelligence suggesting a powerful paedophile network linked to Parliament and No10'.
Lancashire Police announced they will be investigating claims of sexual abuse by Smith relating to incidents before 1974, while Greater Manchester Police will investigate claims after 1974.
The Crown Prosecution Service admits Smith should have been charged with crimes of abuse more than 40 years earlier. The CPS also admitted Smith had been investigated in 1970, 1974, 1998, and 1999 but rejected every opportunity to prosecute him.
A former special branch officer, Tony Robinson, says a historic dossier 'packed' with information about Smith's sex crimes was actually in the hands of Mi5 - despite officially having been 'lost' decades earlier.
Scotland Yard sets up Operation Fairbank to investigate claims a paedophile ring operated at the Elm Guest House in Barnes, southwest London, in the 1970s and 80s. Among those abusing children are said to have been a number of prominent politicians.
Operation Fernbridge is established to investigate the Elm Guest House alleged paedophile ring.
It is claimed a 'paedophile ring of VIPs' also operated at the Grafton Close Children's Home in Richmond, Surrey.
Two men, a Catholic priest from Norwich, and a man understood to be connected to Grafton Close, arrested on suspicion of sexual offences and questioned by Operation Fernbridge officers.
Scotland Yard claims that seven police officers are working full time on Operation Fernbridge and are following more than 300 leads.
Charles Napier, the half-brother of senior Conservative politician John Whittingdale, is arrested by Operation Fairbank officers.
Some senior Labour party politicians linked to pro-paedophile campaign group the Paedophile Information Exchange, which was affiliated with the National Council for Civil Liberties pressure group, now known as Liberty, in the 1970s and early 1980s.
Police search the home of Lord Janner as part of a historical sex abuse investigation. He is not arrested.
Current deputy leader of the Labour Party Harriet Harman, who was NCCL's in-house lawyer at the time of its affiliation with PIE and even met her husband Jack Dromey while working there, is forced to deny she supported the activities of the pro-paedophile collective.
Patricia Hewitt, Labour's former Secretary of State for Health who was NCCL's general secretary for nine years, later apologised and said she had been 'naive and wrong' to consider PIE a legitimate campaign group.
Lord Janner's Westminster office is searched by police. Again the peer is not arrested.
July 3, 2014
Labour MP Simon Danczuk called on Leon Brittan to say what he knew about the Dickens dossier. It emerges the dossier has now been either lost or destroyed and the Home Office admits it can find no evidence of any criminal inquiry relating to it.
July 5, 2014
More than 10 current and former politicians are said to be on a list of alleged child abusers held by police investigating claims of an alleged paedophile ring.
July 6, 2014
Home Office permanent secretary Mark Sedwill reveals that 114 files relating to historic allegations of child sex abuse, from between 1979 and 1999, have disappeared from the Home Office.
It is also revealed that former Home Secretary Lord Brittan was accused of raping a student in 1967. The 2012 allegation was not investigated until Director of Public Prosecutions Alison Saunders ordered the Met Police to re-open the case in June this year.
Homopaedo gang in the British parliament 'included 20 ex-MPs'
Force the public to accept the homosexual agenda under so called EQUALITY then reduce the age of consent
to whatever these evil homopaedo bastards desire.The gutter press finally catching up with what we have been exposing
for over a decade.
There is evidence at least 20 prominent figures - including former MPs and government ministers - abused children for "decades", a former child protection manager has claimed.
Peter McKelvie, whose allegations led initially to a 2012 police inquiry, said a "powerful elite" of paedophiles carried out "the worst form" of abuse.
The government has already announced two reviews into claims of abuse.
The Home Office's top civil servant will appear before MPs later.
Permanent secretary Mark Sedwill will face questions from the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee about his department's handling of child abuse allegations made over a 20-year period.
Announcing the reviews in the House of Commons on Monday, Home Secretary Theresa May said the first would be a wide-ranging inquiry - similar to the inquiry into the Hillsborough disaster - led by an independent panel of experts on law and child protection.
The second review - which is to be led by head of the NSPCC Peter Wanless - would cover how police and prosecutors handled information given to them, she told MPs.
Home Secretary Theresa May: "With allegations as serious as these, the public needs to have complete confidence"
Following the announcements, Mr McKelvie - giving his first television interview for 20 years - told the BBC he believed there was evidence to link a number of former politicians to an alleged paedophile network.
"I would say we are looking at upwards of 20 (people) and a much larger number of people who have known about it and done nothing about it, who were in a position to do something about it," he said.
Mr McKelvie said some of those who were alleged to have abused children had now died.
He told the BBC he had spoken to victims over "many, many years" and that children - "almost exclusively boys" - were moved around like "a lump of meat".
They had been subjected to the "worst form of abuse", including rape, he said.
Mr McKelvie was a child protection manager in Hereford and Worcester and worked on the conviction of paedophile Peter Righton - a former consultant to the National Children's Bureau.
Righton, who is now dead, was also a founding member of the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), before he was convicted of importing child pornography.
However, Mr McKelvie told the BBC that the evidence discovered in the case went much further than simply Righton.
'Boxes of evidence'
Mr McKelvie - who had access to documents relating to paedophile networks linked to the Righton inquiry - said he told police in 2012 there were seven boxes of potential evidence being stored by West Mercia police.
He said the evidence included letters between Righton and other alleged paedophiles.
In 2012, Mr McKelvie took his concerns to Labour MP Tom Watson, who then raised the matter in Parliament, prompting a preliminary police inquiry in 2012 that became a formal inquiry in 2013.
His interview comes after footage emerged of a former Conservative MP suggesting to the BBC in 1995 that party whips might not disclose certain behaviour of colleagues including that "involving small boys."
Tim Fortescue, who was a senior whip in Sir Edward Heath's government from 1970-73, claimed that MPs would "come and ask if we could help and if we could, we did".
Meanwhile, Greater Manchester Police have also said there will be a wider inquiry into allegations of a cover-up involving paedophile abuse at Knowl View residential school - a school linked to the late MP Cyril Smith - in Rochdale in the 1980s and 1990s.
Announcing the reviews after weeks of increasing questions about how past claims of child sex abuse were handled, Mrs May said the review headed by Mr Wanless would be assisted by a senior legal figure.
She said it would focus on concerns the Home Office failed to act on allegations of child sex abuse contained in a dossier handed over in the 1980s by former Tory MP Geoffrey Dickens.
Forget the expenses scandal. If MPs have harboured paedo's, the damage to British democracy will be fatal
Brittan with Heath and Whitelaw
MPs will pay a heavy price for harbouring paedophiles in their midst.
As I was I was making my way from the House of Commons on Monday night after a late vote a Tory minister stepped out of the shadows to confront me. I'd never spoken to him before in my life but he blocked my way and ushered me to one side.
He warned me to think very carefully about what I was going to say the next day before the Home Affairs Select Committee when I'd be answering questions on child abuse.
'I hear you're about to challenge Lord Brittan about what he knew about child sex abuse,' he said. It wouldn't be a wise move, he advised me.
'It was all put to bed a long time ago.'
He warned me I could even be responsible for his death.
We looked at each other in silence for a second. I knew straight away he wasn't telling me this out of concern for the man's welfare.
There was no compassion in his voice.
As politicians made their way out of Westminster, I had no doubt that other conversations like this were taking place.
Indeed, this was confirmed when I spoke to other members of the Select Committee the next day.
They'd been paid similar visits. Phone calls had been made. Members who'd previously indicated they would ask me who I thought knew about the VIP child abuse ring at the notorious Elm Guest House in southwest London were suddenly silent.
During the committee hearing later that day, one MP asked if pressure had been put on me to keep quiet about suspected child abusers. I nodded. Yes, it had. The MP pursued it no further.
The next day, several people said to me it was surprising no one on the committee had pursued this answer, demanding to know where the pressure was coming from.
The answer is simple: it is because they all knew.
After being neglected for far too long, child abuse is now reviled at all levels of society. It generates disgust and anger.
I welcome the Home Office announcement yesterday that a senior lawyer is to investigate claims that a paedophile sex ring at Westminster has been covered up. But it is no substitute for the full scale public inquiry needed to establish the truth once and for all.
Recent events have led me to the inescapable conclusion that in politics, particularly when the focus is on members of parliament guilty of abusing children, it frequently generates indifference. That's not to say all politicians have a blind spot where this terrible crime is concerned.
There are some great campaigners across all parties working hard to protect children – as evidenced by the 130 MPs who have signed up to a call for a public inquiry into historic child abuse.
But among the higher echelons of party politics, where the real power resides, my impression is that there is little appetite to confront the abusers in their midst. Quite the opposite. The mood is defensive, the approach is dominated by silence. 'Move along, nothing to see here,' or 'what's the point in raking all that up old boy?' is the attitude I have seen time after time.
A few months ago police officers came to visit me to discuss an investigation into a current parliamentarian accused of horrific child abuse. I listened to some of the details of the alleged crimes and my stomach churned.
Did I think it was likely that their inquiries would be met by political interference, the police asked?
I looked at them in utter disbelief. How can the police put a Cabinet Minister behind bars for lying about speeding points but be worried they couldn't properly investigate someone for child abuse?
The incident spoke volumes about the mindset that pervades politics. This kind of obstructive, 'Look the other way, sweep it under the carpet' thinking threatens to drag politics to new depths of public hate.
Paedophiles: Sir Cyril Smith and Sir Jimmy Savile were both outed after their deaths
I believe we're on the verge of a Savile-like scandal sweeping through Parliament. Yet, for most people at the top, this prospect is not even on their radar. They're completely impervious to it.
If the political classes thought the expenses scandal was the worst nadir politics could experience in terms of public opprobrium they should think twice.
Once the idea that paedophiles have been lawmakers gains wider traction and people start to think political parties have knowingly harboured paedophiles then our parliamentary democracy will suffer an enormous, near fatal blow, the likes of which it will take years to recover from.
That 's why it's so important that political leaders quickly get on the front foot where this issue is concerned. Grasp the nettle, order a Hillsborough-style inquiry into historic abuse and confront the failings of the past.
Police recently searched Greville Janner's office as part of an investigation into alleged child abuse committed by the Labour politician
Let victims be finally heard. Nick Clegg has refused to investigate who knew about Sir Cyril Smith's appalling paedophilia in his party and it has cost the Lib Dems dear. But this problem is not exclusive to his party.
The Tories have yet to properly face up to the abuse of Margaret Thatcher's aide Sir Peter Morrison, outed by fellow Tories such as Edwina Currie as a paedophile after he died.
Equally, there are potentially problems on the horizon for Ed Miliband after police recently searched Greville Janner's office as part of an investigation into alleged child abuse committed by the Labour politician.
David Cameron's former senior aide Patrick Rock is now facing trial over child abuse images and the former Liberal president Des Wilson has recently spoken about a Liberal MP who liked attractive boys and frequently had to be rescued from trouble after being picked up by the police.
Against this unedifying backdrop, the spectre of former Home Secretary Leon Brittan's calamitous handling of a paedophile dossier given to him by his fellow MP, the late Geoffrey Dickens, looms large.
This is arguably the most damaging incident yet, given that the dossier is said to have named Jimmy Savile, Cyril Smith and Establishment paedophiles and wasn't acted on.
After previously denying all knowledge of the dossier, Brittan's muddled statements last week acknowledging he had indeed received a dossier and then confirming that it had disappeared will only make the public suspicious of another cover up to protect high society paedophiles.
'I know exactly what I am up against,' said Mr Dickens at the time, 'for I know that within the Establishment there are those who would not wish to see a change in the law.'
Patrick Rock, a former special advisor to Prime Minister David Cameron, arrives at Westminster Magistrates Court, London, where he faces charges of making and possessing indecent images of children
Last week, Mr Dickens's granddaughter Louise told me her grandad had been betrayed by Lord Brittan, who was Mr Dickens's parliamentary colleague and someone he regarded as a friend.
'My grandad was determined to do the right thing, he wanted to give abused children a voice and the Home Secretary dismissed his work,' she said.
'He was years ahead of his time,' she says of Mr Dickens and I believe she's right.
Only now is the full horror of what he warned of about to start sinking in. The NSPCC estimate that one in 20 children have been sexually abused. Thousands of children will never speak out against their abusers because they don't think anyone will believe them.
And so they carry it with them for the rest of their lives. It doesn't have to be like this. We can do a lot better job of protecting children. But it won't happen without political leadership. And nothing will really change until Parliament faces up to the scandalous abuses of power within every party that have ruined lives.
Tory scum's slave labour schemes unlawful for a second time
Iain Drunken Smith a psychopath pushing the poorest sections of society into suicide and homelessness
The government could have to pay out up to £130m to claimants of jobseeker's allowance after the high court ruled on Friday that emergency laws introduced to shore up back-to-work schemes were incompatible with European law.
Human rights lawyers successfully challenged emergency legislation introduced by the government after its flagship welfare-to-work schemes were ruled legally flawed. Mrs Justice Lang ruled that the retrospective legislation interfered with the right to a fair trial protected under article 6(1) of the convention on human rights.
Campaigners said it was a "damning assessment" that, if upheld on appeal, could lead to payouts to thousands of claimants denied benefits under the schemes.
Critics say back-to-work schemes are "slave labour" because claimants are forced into unpaid work experience, but supporters say they are a good way of getting unemployed people back into work.
The Department for Work and Pensions brought in retrospective legislation to overcome flaws identified by three appeal court judges in a case involving Poundland. The appeal court judges unanimously agreed that the 2011 regulations failed to give unemployed people enough detailed information, especially about sanctions – including loss of jobseeker's allowance – for refusing jobs under the schemes.
The appeal court ruling was a victory for Cait Reilly, 24, a geology graduate from Birmingham who challenged having to work for free at a Poundland store, and for 40-year-old unemployed HGV driver Jamieson Wilson, from Nottingham, who objected to doing unpaid work cleaning furniture and as a result was stripped of his jobseeker's allowance for six months.
Public Interest Lawyers, which acted for Reilly and Wilson, said the appeal court ruling meant thousands of people unlawfully stripped of jobseeker's allowance under the flawed regulations would be entitled to reclaim their benefits. But the government pushed through emergency regulations to enable the schemes to continue and to block any attempt to claw back lost benefits.
Reilly was joined by another jobseeker, Daniel Hewstone, to argue that the new regulations were a ploy by a "cynical" government to make lawful in retrospect what senior judges had declared unlawful and to avoid the consequences of its fatally flawed actions.
Phil Shiner, the solicitor acting for both, said the latest ruling was a "massive blow" to the government's attempts to make people on benefits work for companies for free.
"Last year the supreme court told Iain Duncan Smith [the work and pensions secretary] and the coalition government that the scheme was unlawful. In this case the high court has now told the government that the attempt to introduce retrospective legislation, after the DWP had lost in the court of appeal, is unlawful and a breach of the Human Rights Act and is a further disgraceful example of how far this government is prepared to go to flout our constitution and the rule of law.
"I call on the DWP to ensure that the £130m of benefits unlawfully withheld from the poorest section of our society is now repaid."
A DWP spokesman said the government would appeal.
"We're pleased the court recognised that if claimants do not play by the rules and meet their conditions to do all they can to look for work and get a job, we can stop their benefits. That is only right," the spokesman said. "However, we disagree with the judgment on the legislation and are disappointed. It was discussed, voted on and passed by parliament.
"While this applies to only a minority of past cases and does not affect the day-to-day business of our jobcentres, we think this is an important point and will appeal."
The retrospective legislation – the Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act 2013 – remains in force and benefits will not be repaid pending an appeal. The spokesman said: "There is no change to the operation of our schemes from the outcome of the high court today. We will continue to help people back in to work and we will not be repaying any sanctions pending our appeal."
Labour peer Lord Janner offices raided as part of inquiry into historic homopaedo abuse
He's not only an MP but a lawyer and one of Labour's zionist mafia
Part of the House of Lords has been searched by police investigating historic child sex abuse claims against a Labour peer.
Up to eight officers from Leicestershire Police swooped on the office of Greville Janner as part of an ongoing inquiry linked to children’s homes in the county.
Officers took the highly unusual step of entering Parliament to raid his office and seize computer equipment just weeks before submitting a dossier on the peer to the Crown Prosecution Service.
The move came after police spent several days searching the 85-year-old politician’s home in Golders Green, north-west London, in December.
The widowed father of three, a Labour MP in Leicester from 1970 to 1997, has not been arrested in connection with the allegations and police have yet to send a full file of evidence to the CPS.
But preliminary papers have been served to prosecutors who are advising detectives on the progress of the investigation which started last year after a man came forward claiming he was abused as a teenager in the 1970s by Lord Janner.
The probe has been linked to pervert Frank Beck, who was found guilty of abusing more than 100 children in the 1970s and 1980s.
Beck, who ran three children’s homes in Leicestershire, was given five life sentences and died behind bars. Two hundred children complained they had been abused by him over 13 years to 1986.
In Beck’s 1991 trial, a 30-year-old man said he had been abused by Lord Janner, who was still an MP at the time, while he was in care aged 13. Lord Janner was not prosecuted and received cross-party support in the Commons when he said there was ‘not a shred of truth’ in the claims. Police rarely enter the Houses of Parliament because of the age-old principle of parliamentary privilege intended to guarantee politicians’ freedom of speech.
In the past decade, searches of members’ offices have been carried out only a handful of times.
The Commons office of former Deputy Speaker Nigel Evans was raided last year by police investigating allegations of rape and sexual assault. He was later acquitted.
In 2008 the Metropolitan Police searched the office of Tory immigration spokesman Damian Green over allegations he had leaked information from the Home Office.
Mr Green denied this and in 2009 the CPS said it would not be bringing charges against him.
To obtain permission to search a member’s office, police have to go through a lengthy process which involves getting a search warrant sanctioned by a judge before alerting the Clerk of the Parliaments and Black Rod, a senior officer in the Lords responsible for security.
Yesterday Leicestershire Police refused to confirm what was seized during the raid which took place in March but was only made public yesterday. But a spokesman said the search was monitored by senior House of Lords officials, adding: ‘No arrests or charges have been made and enquiries continue.’
Two men aged 69 and 63 from Corby, Northamptonshire, have been quizzed in connection with the allegations but not arrested.
Lord Janner, who was appointed a QC in 1971, is a prominent campaigner for Jewish rights and a former president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews. His legal team has confirmed he is helping with inquiries, but Lord Janner was unavailable for comment yesterday.
Janner was president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the main representative body of British Jewry,
from 1978 to 1984, and was a key campaigner in the efforts to get reparations for victims of the Holocaust.
He is also a vice-president of both the World Jewish Congress and the Jewish Leadership Council.
Janner is Founder and President of the Commonwealth Jewish Council and Chairman of the Holocaust Educational Trust.
Child abuse allegations
In 1991, the director of a children's home in Leicestershire, Frank Beck, was convicted of child abuse and sentenced
to five life terms. During the trial, Beck accused Janner of having abused a child. A 30-year-old man also accused
Janner of abusing him when he was in care aged 13. A letter was shown to the jury that was allegedly sent from
Janner to the boy. Janner was not prosecuted at the time and in the House of Commons he said there was "not a
shred of truth" in the claims against him.
In December 2013, Leicestershire police searched his home in Golders
Green, north London, in connection with a police investigation into child abuse allegations.
In March 2014 the Police searched Janner's offices in the House of Lords However no charges have been bought
against Janner and the allegations remain unsubstantiated.
Social media mass surveillance is permitted by law, says top UK official
Charles Farr's statement marks first time government has commented on how it exploits the UK's legal framework to operate mass interception
The true extent of the government's interception of Google, Facebook and Twitter – including private messages between British citizens – has been officially confirmed for the first time.
The government's most senior security official, Charles Farr, detailed how searches on Google, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, as well as emails to or from non-British citizens abroad, can be monitored by the security services because they are deemed to be "external communications".
It is the first time that the government has admitted that UK citizens, talking via supposedly private channels in social media such as Twitter direct messages, are deemed by the British government to be legitimate legal targets that do not require a warrant before intercepting.
The 48-page detailed defence of mass monitoring by Farr, who is director general of the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism, develops a legal interpretation that critics say sidesteps the need for traditional intercept safeguards.
The document, released on Tuesday, provoked calls for the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa) to be overhauled urgently, as well as allegations that the government was exploiting loopholes in the legislation of which parliament was unaware.
The government defence was published in response to a case brought by Privacy International, Liberty, Amnesty International and other civil rights groups before the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), which deals with complaints against the intelligence services. A full hearing will take place next month.
The accusation that mass online surveillance is illegal emerged in the wake of revelations from the US whistleblower Edward Snowden about the impact of the monitoring programme codenamed Tempora operated by the UK monitoring agency GCHQ and the US National Security Agency (NSA).
Tempora taps into the network of fibre-optic cables which carry the world's phone calls and online traffic. Its designer described it as "Mastering the Internet", enabling GCHQ and the NSA to process vast quantities of communications between entirely innocent people, as well as targeted suspects. As many as 600m "telephone events" a day can be recorded.
Under Ripa, traditional interception of "internal" communications within the UK requires an individual warrant. Farr argues that in a technologically-fast moving world, where the greatest threat to national security is from "militant Islamist terrorists" operating both abroad and in the UK, identifying individual targets before monitoring starts is too difficult. Those deemed to be "external" can be monitored without an individual warrant.
Farr says: "Any regime that … only permitted interception in relation to specific persons or premises, would not have allowed adequate levels of intelligence information to be obtained and would not have met the undoubted requirements of intelligence for the protection of national security."
His submission explains that searches on Google, Twitter, Facebook and YouTube are likely to involve communicating with a "web-based platform" abroad and are therefore "external communications" which do not "require a person or a set of premises to be named in the interception warrant". Emails sent or received from abroad could be intercepted in a similar way.
Farr's statement notes that the issue was raised during Ripa's passage through the Lords in 2000, implying that parliament was aware of the difficulty of distinguishing between domestic and foreign messages when it passed the legislation.
In one section, Farr says he can "neither confirm or deny" the existence of the much publicised Tempora interception programme, although he does accept the existence of Prism – another interception programme – "because it has been expressly avowed by the executive branch of the US government".
His statement, published by Privacy International and other human rights organisations, is the first time the government has commented on how it operates its mass intercept programmes within a legal framework. Under section 8(1) of Ripa, internal communications between British residents within the UK may only be monitored pursuant to a specific warrant.
These specific warrants should only be granted where there is some reason to suspect the person in question of unlawful activity. "External communications", however, may be monitored indiscriminately under a general warrant, according to section 8(4) of the act.
The Conservative MP David Davis, a former shadow home secretary, told the Guardian: "This is extraordinary. It calls into question the entire evidence that the agencies and Home Office gave to the committee that was looking into the communications data bill.
"If they are trying to claim parliamentary approval for this, they should have said it in terms in the Commons [when Ripa was passed in 2000]. Every time they bring legislation to the House they tell us a very partial story. It appears this was very deliberately byzantine and intended to confuse."
Lord Macdonald, the former director of public prosecutions, who has previously called for greater scrutiny of the intelligence agencies, said: "Mr Farr's statement is the best argument I have seen for a thorough overhaul of surveillance law to bring it into the modern age. When Ripa was enacted, social media didn't exist.
"It is fatuous to pretend that elderly laws can cope with modern communications, as Mr Farr convincingly demonstrates. No doubt our intelligence agencies take their legal duties seriously, but the problem is that those legal duties fail to address the 21st century. We need new laws to counter new threats, carrying public confidence with them."
Eric King, deputy director of Privacy International, said: "Intelligence agencies cannot be considered accountable to parliament and to the public they serve when their actions are obfuscated through secret interpretations of byzantine laws.
"Moreover, the suggestion that violations of the right to privacy are meaningless if the violator subsequently forgets about it not only offends the fundamental, inalienable nature of human rights, but patronises the British people, who will not accept such a meagre excuse for the loss of their civil liberties.
"The distinction drawn by the government between 'internal' and 'external' communications no longer has any practical meaning. The safeguards provided by RIPA pertaining to the interception of 'internal' communications do not in fact result in any meaningful protections for such communications privacy when applied to the modern communications system."
James Welch, legal director of Liberty, said: "The security services consider that they're entitled to read, listen to and analyse all our communications on Facebook, Google and other US-based platforms. If there was any remaining doubt that our snooping laws need a radical overhaul, there can be no longer. The agencies now operate in a legal and ethical vacuum; why the deafening silence from our elected representatives?"
Michael Bochenek, senior director of international law and policy at Amnesty International, said: "British citizens will be alarmed to see their government justifying industrial-scale intrusion into their communications. The public should demand an end to this wholesale violation of their right to privacy."
Anne Jellema, chief executive of the World Wide Web Foundation, said: "It seems the UK's spy agencies are using flimsy legal justification to sidestep the need for individual warrants and feel able to indiscriminately collect and monitor the private social media and web communications of anyone.
"[The] revelations mean it is simply unacceptable for the UK government to delay a single day longer in launching a full and independent inquiry into GCHQ's activities, leading to far-reaching changes in law and practice."
Jack Hart from the Freedom Association said: "It is now clear that the security services are happy to justify the large scale monitoring of every Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Google user in the UK. The public have never consented to such wide-reaching powers which make us all suspects, often without any grounds for suspicion. The security services are operating within a legal framework that only works in their favour."
A spokesperson for Google said: "We disclose user data to governments in accordance with the law, and we review all such requests carefully. Google has not joined any program that would create a 'back door' for government to access private user data."
Tory homo henchmen use Hollywood's zionist campaigners to prop up feminist vote
Zionist Kerry and Jolie flank Tory henchman Hague using the zionist mafia to prop up a murderous tory government
as if they give a damn about the mass murder campaigns they have instigated in the Middle East and carried out by the three zionist
rogue states America, Israel and England.
Tory mafia at war with the cop mafia in fuckwit claim VIDEO
Slave labour returns to UK where poverty can be actively enforced by brutal employers on powerless staff
It will be no surprise to anyone who is looking for work that you can now be sanctioned for refusing a zero-hours contract. You can be sanctioned for almost anything: failing to turn up for an appointment you didn't know about; being unable to attend a work programme placement because the fare was a third of your jobseeker's allowance.
Asked about the rise in their usage, 83% of food banks cite these sanctions as causing the delay or withdrawal of benefits. It is plain that, by means up-front and underhand, unemployment benefit is being systematically destroyed as a reliable source of income. This protective role of the state, to make sure we don't starve, has been outsourced to charities. Without it, one wonders what the state is for – which, I imagine, was the point of vandalising it in the first place. This is something to bear in mind if you succumb to the despairing thought that all politicians are the same. They are often dispiritingly similar, but we've never had it so bad.
The zero-hours contracts – of which there are now 1.4 million in the active workforce – remain a flashpoint, even if they are by no means the most unjust requirement made by the Department for Work and Pensions (they are not as bad as mandatory work activity, for instance). The statement from the employment minister, Esther McVey, that jobcentre "coaches" would be able to "mandate to zero-hours contracts" marks an important point, the moment at which the government demonstrably chose the interests of the employer over those of the employee.
Defenders of the free market insist that, since everybody now uses them, the salient point is not the zero-hours contract itself but how the employer behaves within it. The Gourmet Burger Company uses them but has pensions and paid holiday, rights that are, arguably, what the zero-hours contract was invented to wriggle out of.
That's not the norm, however. I've heard of a major fast food chain that kept employees underemployed – taking on more staff rather than give any one member more than 30 hours – while at the same time enforcing exclusivity clauses that prevented workers from taking on even voluntary work in their spare time. Workers were marched to the cashpoint if their tills were ever out. In the Costa Coffee in Channon retail park near Eastleigh, Hampshire, there was an advert for a job of about 20 hours for which prospective candidates had to be free from 6am until 9pm, five days a week, plus the occasional weekend. I met a woman in the Newcastle train station Starbucks kiosk who told me she had come into work for a one-hour shift.
If I even begin to describe the behaviour of employers in the care industry, we will be here all day. We're looking at a situation far worse than the simple avoidance of basic rights such as pensions and paid holiday; it's a system in which poverty is actively enforced by overweening employers whose convenience comes at the price of their employees' dignity. Marxists talk about systemic unemployment – the joblessness built into the system so that people with a job are easier to control – but systemic underemployment is fractionally worse. Poverty is still shot out indiscriminately but deliberately, like thunderbolts from the palm of Thor. In the service of profit margins, there still have to be people who can't pay their rent or feed their children. But as well as being used as industrial fodder, you also have to turn up to work.
You often hear this described as just the modern way. When we talk of things such as job security, paid time off, pensions, some human bond between the employer and the employee, some sense of symmetry, some acknowledgement of the fact that the employer creates the job but the employee creates the value, these are all now written off as belonging in a bygone era, along with coalmining and docking.
But there is nothing modern about this situation: employers have been trying to screw their staff since industrialisation began. The only difference now is that, through the erosion of collective bargaining and the amnesia of the political class, employers face very little meaningful resistance (except for unions, of course: where any opposition exists, it is from a union, and they should be applauded. But they can't do everything. They also need cultural and political support).
Here the Labour party is being culpably supine. Sheila Gilmore, the MP who put the question that elicited this response from McVey, said: "While I don't object to the principle of either universal credit or zero-hours contracts, I am concerned about this policy change." Apart from being limp to the point of irrelevance, this is immoral. The party is called Labour because it was established to represent the interests of people who work, against predators who would have them work for poverty pay. It was established so people couldn't be treated like indistinguishable pieces of meat by employers who sincerely didn't care about how they lived.
The irony of the zero-hours contract life is that, like so many mean ideas, it costs more than it saves. Security, a sense of agency, a sense of personal pride and value at work, a belief that you are doing something that is valuable to your employer – all of this is dismissed at a price. The resulting poverty is bad enough, but something important is going on that you can't count, some steady undermining of the purpose and stability and self-worth of 1.4 million people. This is the confidence of the nation's workforce we are sacrificing, so that Costa Coffee doesn't have to plan its shifts, or pay for anyone's mini-break.
But more than that, nothing distils so well the crisis in politics: that such a clear fissure between one person's rights to turn profit, against another's right to a fair day's pay, would go uncontested in Westminster. And politicians wonder why people question their relevance.
Here is what the deluded tory scum and filth think is some sort of recovery
They have destroyed millions of jobs and replaced some of them with zero hours, part time
and slave labour.
They have murdered the sick and disabled using their assassins ATOS and DWP. The money saved has been given to their rich backers in the city of London where they are spending millions on luxury properties leaving millions of ordinary Londoners to struggle, with the poorest being ethnically cleansed out of the city to satisfy the devious agenda of the tory mafia.
For those who kept their jobs they have made their life so much more difficult with new technology that allows draconian bosses to monitor their employees every move and everything they write and say . Those bosses have failed to increase salaries to keep up with inflation with millions getting no rise during the whole life of the parliament leaving them destitute and who need to use food banks to survive. These are the same bastards who fund the tory third reich during election time
They have ensured anyone dependent on the state for a pittance of handouts are forced into draconian tests that psychologically torture the mentally ill who either end up homeless or dead and pensioners who cannot heat their homes. Thousands have died in winter conditions because of lack of money.
Within the care system and in the NHS the elderly have been viciously abused to the point of death with a lack of food, water and heat that has ensured thousands of the most infirm have had their lives brought to an earlier end through neglect.
Thousands of fathers continue to be robbed of their property, assets and children with many placed in care homes for the establishment paedo's to get access to vulnerable children.
Many of those fathers have committed suicide after being pushed to the edge by the psychological torture meted out by Britain's judicial and legal mafia.
Yes Britain is a very different place after four years of tory mob rule but the right wing gutter press would have us believe they are miracle workers and heroes despite all of the above reasons and NOT the evil murdering fascist bastards that they really are.
Ex-Tory minister 'pictured in child sex abuse video' confiscated by customs at Dover in 1982
A former Tory cabinet minister was pictured in a video allegedly featuring child sex abuse, it has been claimed.
The tape is believed to be among a batch of films seized by customs officials and handed over to MI5, reports the Sunday People.
No details about it have ever been made public.
But the customs officer who seized the haul is said to have identified the ex-minister in the footage.
However, he declined to say whether or not the politician was participating in the alleged child abuse.
A probe has uncovered evidence that the cassette was confiscated at Dover in 1982.
A seizure notice shows a customs officer took custody of three 8mm films, three video cassettes and an order form.
The notice said the items were “seized as liable to forfeiture upon the grounds that the said goods are indecent or obscene articles”.
Friends of the customs officer, now retired, have confirmed he told them this week that he recognised the minister in the film – but would not say anything else after his former bosses reminded him he had signed the Official Secrets Act.
This week the officer was too frightened even to open his front door, and said he was unwilling and unable to comment.
He said: “I am bound by all these regulations until I die.”
The existence of the video is likely to be seized upon by Operation Fernbridge cops investigating claims of a historical VIP sex abuse ring.
They are understood to have already spoken to the ex-minister about another video that places him at a sex party involving teenage boys three decades ago.
Now they are expected to speak to the customs officer.
The video was seized at Dover’s Eastern Car Terminal along with other child pornography.
It was being brought into Britain from Amsterdam by Russell Tricker, a British-born businessman based in the Dutch capital. He was held for two hours and officials confiscated the tape.
The customs officer then passed the case over to senior managers at Customs and Excise – since reorganised as part of HM Revenue and Customs.
They took no further action against Mr Tricker, and are understood to have passed the tape to MI5 .
The seizure notice gave brief details of some of the material, showing one of the videos was titled “GB10”.
A child abuse victim has told Exaro that this video showed boys, some of them “runaways”, who could be “ordered” by paedophile clients.
Another video was called “Amsterdam Tramway Museum” and featured images of boys from elsewhere in Europe who could be procured by perverts.
The video started with a few minutes of train footage before turning to pornographic images of boys.
Mr Tricker confirmed he was stopped by customs officials when travelling through Dover as a passenger in 1982.
But he claimed he did not know what was inside the sealed packages.
He said: “I have nothing to hide. I was asked to take some brown envelopes to England. They were seized by Customs. I did not know what was inside them.”
Mr Tricker said a business associate had asked him to take the packages into the country and then post them to an address in the UK.
Asked whether he was aware of claims that an ex-minister and child sex abuse featured on one of the videos, Tricker denied any knowledge of the content.
“They were just confiscated, and I was allowed to continue my journey. They detained me for two hours,” he said.
Mr Tricker confirmed he was convicted of a child sex offence in the Netherlands in 1992 and jailed for two-and-a-half years, but said he was cleared on appeal and released after five months.
His lawyers were able to show that the boy concerned had carried a false identity card and had pretended to be above age, Mr Tricker said.
The boy was later shot dead in Amsterdam, he said.
“It is a sad story,” he added.
Tricker denies being a paedophile but confirmed he was a personal friend of Peter Glencross, who was commercial manager of Spartacus International.
At the time, Spartacus International was used to attract new members to the Spartacus Club, an underground network for paedophiles.
The rise of food banks is proof of the continuing poverty crisis that Britain faces - no matter what the Tories say.
YEARS of wages falling behind the cost of living have left many people on the edge.
It is going to take more than a squeak in the graphs showing that wages are rising slightly more than inflation figures to rescue anyone from the miserable consequences of the squeeze of the last four years.
What the Tories specialise in at times like this is driving a wedge between those who have and those who have not.
Generating resentment and scapegoating the poor for their own unfortunate situation is part of the Tory plan to avoid taking the responsibility for the damage and the cuts they instituted.
The rise of food banks is the most harrowing symbol of the continuing poverty crisis that Britain faces.
That is why they are being denigrated by the Tories and the right-wing Press.
Do not fall for their easy lies about the poor, or the claims that people are the authors of their own misfortune.
Today we publish the facts about food banks, about how zero-hour contracts and minimum level wages and cuts to family credits have combined to send people to charities for handouts.
Use the information in the debates and discussions people will have in the pub, at the workplace, in the hairdressers and at home.
Don’t fall for the easy lies of the Tories. Don’t turn your back on the poor. Don’t let them be robbed of their dignity.
Tory official Iain Corby: No wonder Cameron and his trolls are pushing the gay mafia agenda?
Shocking gay sex texts of top Tory who bragged of 'cute boys' in the penthouse claimed on expenses
Bombshell details of salacious messages sent by a top Tory official on a gay dating service, referring to a sex party funded by Conservative MPs’ expenses, were revealed last night.
Messages the official exchanged with another man on Grindr, a gay dating app, refer to ‘cute boys’, ‘orgy’, ‘gay party’, ‘hottie MPs’ and ‘all in one bed’ said to be ‘on offer’ in a luxury hotel suite hired for Tory researchers at the party’s annual conference in Manchester.
The messages name two top Tory MPs: one of the most senior Government Ministers and an MP tipped as a future Party leader.
The MoS can reveal that the exchanges involved Tory official Iain Corby and were one of the reasons he suddenly quit as head of the Westminster-based Parliamentary Resources Unit (PRU), which is paid for by MPs via taxpayer-funded expenses.
Insiders say there was near panic at 10 Downing Street when the Grindr messages were reported to David Cameron last month.
He ordered an urgent investigation, which led to Mr Corby’s departure in an attempt to limit the damage.
It adds to a fevered atmosphere at Westminster, with wild, and for the most part, anonymous, claims that young gay researchers are bullied – or even drugged – into accepting sexual advances from MPs and other senior political figures under the threat of missing out on political careers.
The ‘sex party’ on MPs’ expenses at Manchester’s Light ApartHotel, where rooms cost up to £2,500 a night, was first revealed by The Mail on Sunday last week. At that stage, this newspaper faced legal restrictions over the amount of detail that could be reported.
Today we can reveal full details of the Tory PRU chief at the centre of the row – and of how claims that the PRU scandal was covered up for years forced No 10 to act.
The body responsible for MPs’ expenses and pay, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA), is now investigating the hotel ‘sex party’.
An IPSA source expressed ‘deep worry’ at the allegations. IPSA has good reason to be concerned: the event was funded by money claimed from it by MPs.
Furthermore, it could have been a breach of IPSA rules to pay for the PRU accommodation at the Light ApartHotel, regardless of what went on there.
IPSA rules state ‘staffing expenditure may not be claimed for any party political activity.’ Nor can MPs claim expenses for ‘attendance at political party conferences’.
The PRU is a team of 20, mainly young male and female researchers, whose job is to advise Tory MPs on all political issues, from climate change to potholes.
Each Tory MP pays the PRU £4,000 a year for research services. The MPs claim it back from IPSA as an expense.
One researcher, Anthony Pickles, quit after a year working at the PRU, dismayed by its ‘drinking culture’.
‘Anthony flagged up his concerns very clearly but nothing was done,’ said a source. ‘He was appalled at the way people went out drinking.He did his best to draw it to the attention of the authorities.’
Former Minister Michael Fabricant revealed he reported Mr Corby to party chiefs after being approached by PRU whistleblowers three years ago
Mr Pickles is now Chief of Staff of the Welsh Conservative Party.
To avoid blame for the PRU fiasco, Ministers were quick to point out last night that technically, the unit is not part of the Conservative Party.
It operates in Parliament and is answerable to a board of Tory MPs.
Senior Tory MP Oliver Heald, former chairman of the PRU, held an inquiry two years ago into the ‘sex party’ claims at the 2011 Tory conference in Manchester, and the allegation that Mr Corby was rude after returning to work under the influence of alcohol.
Mr Corby was given a formal warning.
Lurid orgy jokes, rating 'hottie MPs', a naked boy to 'keep his boss happy': How Iain Corby used dating site Grindr to lure men to hotel... funded by you
The message – accompanied by a ‘selfie’ – posted by Parliamentary Resources Unit (PRU) chief Iain Corby on gay dating app Grindr at the Tory conference in Manchester in 2011 seemed clear.
The photo of Corby in a casual, open-necked shirt, portrayed a man at play, not at work.
‘Open to offers!’ it announced. It appeared to be an open invitation to anyone else logged on to Grindr nearby to join him at his three-bedroom suite at the Light ApartHotel.
Helpfully, it gave details of Corby’s location and personal information: ‘The light hotel, 35 years old, 173cm, white.’
It even gave the hotel’s address, ‘20 Church St’.
There was only one problem: Corby and his PRU team are employed to advise Tory MPs on party policy and were there funded by taxpayers, via MPs’ expenses.
A very different type of ‘party’ features on Corby’s Grindr messages: a ‘gay party’.
Tory chiefs were well aware of Corby’s Grindr exchanges and his taxpayer-funded stay with a group of PRU aides at the Light ApartHotel.
They were alarmed by references to two well-known and powerful Tory MPs with close Downing Street links. Neither attended any sex party – or went to the Light ApartHotel. The Mail on Sunday has redacted all names in the Grindr messages.
When the Grindr claims were followed by allegations of a ‘heavy drinking culture’ in the PRU and unsubstantiated claims concerning gay sex and young male aides, Tory chiefs launched an official investigation after a complaint. Corby was given a warning.
Party chiefs congratulated themselves that a potential scandal had been swept under the carpet.
But it has come back to haunt them after word swept Westminster last month of a new Tory scandal involving the PRU. Two weeks ago, Corby resigned. The official reason was he wanted to ‘return to the commercial world’.
Last week, The MoS revealed the Grindr row – and this week we disclose full details.
Corby’s Grindr messages in Manchester start just before midday: ‘Enjoying the penthouse.’ It has the desired effect, soon afterwards, another Grindr user, who is not named, replies: ‘Penthouse? I’m only in standard.’
‘Yep. Top 2 floors. Quite nice!’ Corby replies.
The exchanges soon get more intimate. ‘Sharing with two colleagues but I chose the cutest boys from my team!’ says Corby, teasingly. ‘All in one bed!’ comes the excited reply.
'Tory chiefs were well aware of Corby’s Grindr exchanges and his taxpayer-funded stay with a group of PRU aides at the Light ApartHotel'
The steamy theme continues with a suggestion that a married Tory has cheated on his wife with a ‘girl’ in one room; references to ‘orgy!’ ‘your fit housemate’ and a named man who ‘did come to the gay party’. Corby’s anonymous respondent then quips: ‘Sleep to the top!’
It is at this point that the first senior Tory is referred to, apparently as a joke. Corby replies with mock outrage: ‘Oh please. I don’t need to sleep with MPs.’
His Grindr ‘playmate’ takes issue with him, stating some younger MPs are ‘hotties’, naming one whom he says he ‘likes’. He continues: ‘How about a trip up to your room later?’
Corby replies: ‘XXXXXX is just out of the shower walking around naked. He knows how to keep his boss happy even if he claims to be straight.’ Back comes the reply: ‘He wants a pay rise! Am I competing with him?’
It is not known what happened after the exchanges.
One member of the PRU who visited the Light ApartHotel during the 2011 Tory conference told The Mail on Sunday. ‘I didn’t see any sex parties when I was at the hotel, but rumours of wild goings on there were the talk of the conference.’
Mr Corby was unavailable for comment.
Inquiry into Tory conference ‘homo-sex party paid on expenses’
Parliament’s expenses watchdog is to investigate claims that the taxpayer indirectly funded a hotel suite that was used for a gay-sex party during a Conservative Party conference.
The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa) said it was “deeply worried” by allegations that public money was used to pay for a suite of rooms used where the party took place.
It said it would be investigating the claims, which come in the wake of revelations about inappropriate relationships between young Tory researchers and MPs following the Nigel Evans trial. Mr Evans was cleared of a string of sexual assaults on young men following a five-week trial at Preston Crown Court.
The Independent understands that a suite of rooms costing up to £2,500 per night was booked at Manchester’s Light ApartHotel by an organisation called the Policy Research Unit (PRU). The PRU, which is overseen by senior Conservative figures, provides “parliamentary research” for the party’s MPs that is carried out by a team of mainly young researchers and interns.
The majority of the PRU’s £437,725-a-year income comes directly from the taxpayer via MPs’ expenses. Tory MPs each pay nearly £4,000 a year to the PRU which they claim back through Ipsa.
The organisation states on its website that it only carries out “the same work which would otherwise be permitted to be undertaken within a member’s own office by their own publicly funded staff”.
If the PRU paid for the suite of rooms in Manchester it may have been in breach of parliamentary expense rules – regardless of what went on there. Ipsa’s rules clearly state that “staffing expenditure may not be claimed for any party political activity”. The rules add that “attendance at political party conferences or meetings” cannot be covered by parliamentary expenses.
Last night an Ipsa spokesman said: “MPs who use a parliamentary research company, such as PRU, can seek reimbursement for the cost as a perfectly reasonable claim. Allegations that the PRU has misused public money are deeply worrying and pose serious questions for the PRU board to answer.
“We have received the proper assurances and evidence from all MPs who claim through PRU but, in the light of these concerns, we will be contacting PRU to seek further assurance about their work and that the claims fall within Ipsa’s scheme.”
The Independent understands concerns were raised with senior Tory officials after the gay networking application Grindr was used to “advertise” the party which took place during the Conservative Party conference in 2011.
While there is no suggestion of any wrongdoing on behalf of anyone involved, it follows revelations in yesterday’s Independent that a number of Conservative MPs regularly got drunk, “flirted” and made passes at young male parliamentary workers during Commons drinking sessions. The Independent has been told that some of these researchers may have worked for the PRU.
Separately, earlier this month Iain Corby, director of the PRU, resigned from his job to “return to the commercial world”. His departure was not linked in any way to the booking of the Manchester hotel rooms.
Oliver Heald, the Conservative MP who was at the time the chairman of the PRU, confirmed that members of the unit would go to party conferences and that this was paid for by the organisation.
“They did used to go,” he said. “Three or four people from the unit would go. It was all approved by the Treasurer (of the PRU) and it has all been audited.” Mr Heald said he was unaware that such expenditure might have been breach of Ipsa’s rules.
Henry Bellingham, the Conservative MP and current chairman of the PRU, confirmed that the majority of the PRU’s income came through the parliamentary expenses scheme. He said that, to his knowledge, no one from the unit had attended the Conservative Party conference since he took over in 2012.
Meanwhile, the Director of Public Prosecutions defended the decision to prosecute Mr Evans, the former Commons Deputy Speaker, saying people who have been sexually assaulted do not always consider themselves victims.
Alison Saunders told the BBC that the CPS did not take “weak” cases.
She said decisions to prosecute were normally based on police documents and video interviews, saying “evidence is tested in court in a way in which we are not able to when we make our decision”.
She added: “Victims may not always think of themselves as victims. It rather depends on the relationship they are in with their alleged abusers, so if someone is in a position of power... We have seen it in grooming cases where victims think they are not victims because their abusers love them and take care of them.”
Nigel Evans case: The ‘victims’ who didn’t think they were victims
Several of the seven alleged victims in the Nigel Evans trial told the court they did not believe the MP had committed any crime, seriously damaging the prosecution’s case:
A Westminster worker allegedly touched by Nigel Evans while drinking with friends at a Soho bar in 2003. According to the case for the prosecution, the man considered it a drunken pass rather than an indecent sexual assault. The two men remained friends.
He was contacted by police two weeks after Mr Evans’s arrest in 2013 over an alleged assault said to have taken place at a Tory party conference in Blackpool 10 years earlier when the MP was accused of twice putting his hand down the younger man’s trousers. He believed the incident had been dealt with effectively at the time and did not want to press charges.
The prosecution claimed Mr Evans attempted to kiss him in a corridor outside the Strangers’ Bar in the House of Commons. The complainant said he was “embarrassed and bewildered” by the incident but did not feel like a victim of crime. He did not wish to make a complaint.