It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
. . . the Convoy in particular and travelling people in general were the Enemy Within because of their involvement at Greenham Common and Molesworth. But they were instrumental in raising the issue of American nuclear weapons on English soil. I remember being in Moscow in 1985 and seeing images of the Convoy on big screens relayed at public events.
I was with the Convoy for a while in 1984. We were on the road when van loads of pigs went by, on their way to Orgreave, presumably. As they passed us they held up big notices in the windows of the vans which said "You next"
So the Beanfield violence was very much pre-planned . . .
dicegeorge 16 Aug 2015 11:19
There were hants police and wilts police and other police and soldiers - MOD police dressed up as civilian police.
Andre Bates5 months ago
I was told by a police sergeant the orders came from on high that day. To break up the convoy. The government were scared of the anarchy.The convoy moved onto land owned by a good friend of mine that year. He wasn't a rich farmer. Just a very nice man. They ruined his land and polluted the river with #. It was very sad to see him have a nervous breakdown over this. I was there. I saw first hand the total disregard for the countryside and this man's livelihood. A lot of people living on the convoy were not peaceful hippies. They were drug dealing criminals.
Some years ago I briefly worked with a young man who was a child at the Beanfield - he was haunted and scarred by it and never recovered. As an adult he self harmed and used heroin to blot out the pain of it and was in constant trouble with the law, though it all his 'crimes' were directed at himself - it was all he could talk about and he never had the chance to move on from it. He later committed suicide.
The government will never hold an inquiry into such a politically charged event.
23 July 2015
As you know, for decades there was widespread child sexual abuse taking place in the London Borough of Islington. The extent of the abuse was only uncovered through the tenacity and bravery of whistle-blowers, journalists and survivors which led to a number of independent inquiries and the damning Ian White report in 1995.
As with the rest of the country, the reality is that child abuse was rampant, ignored, covered up and the extent of it is only just beginning to come to light. The attitude was that of the Head of MI5, who was revealed yesterday to have written about a paedophile MP to the then Cabinet Secretary Sir Robert Armstrong in 1986: ‘At the present stage…the risks of political embarrassment to the government is rather greater than the security danger’
. . .
Perhaps most worrying of all are the implications of your question to the Home Secretary on November 3rd 2014.
You stated that ‘Finally in my own borough of Islington there have been complaints about Islington children’s homes in the past and the council has investigated them.’ This statement at first glance is non contentious. However on reflection is an extraordinary statement considering the representations made to you in the past that the council was in fact covering up abuse and not listening to the survivors, issues you were challenged on at the time.
Repeatedly across the country, institutions investigating allegations about themselves over child abuse have heard nothing, seen nothing and known nothing. This is at the very heart of the cover up culture.
. . .
My concern is about your politics and how that results in actions, or in this case non-actions. As we have seen with the appalling misjudgements of the NCCL and its allowance of membership to the Paedophile Information Exchange in the 1970s, sections of the left were in denial of the motivations of some campaigners and this unwillingness to face up to unpalatable possibilities clouded judgement over the most serious of allegations.
In fact the allegations were true and are true as survivors increasingly choose to speak out. The establishment and sections of the left stood by and allowed children’s lives to be destroyed.
The reason that your response and inactions to these matters is worthy of specific scrutiny is that unlike others who did not see what was happening, or as we saw with Saville, kept their suspicions to themselves rather than speak out or investigate, you are wishing to lead the Labour Party during the period of Goddard inquiry into child abuse and are seeking become Prime Minister.
The so called ‘trendy left’ politics of the early 1980s was a contributory factor in covering up child abuse. I myself saw that repeatedly at first hand in Lambeth. Meanwhile children were murdered and disappeared, were raped and beaten, forced into prostitution, trafficked around and a significant number of lives destroyed and blighted.
Your inaction in the 1980s and 1990s says a lot . . .