The Medomsley Monsters

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”.

2008-12-09T00:46:00.001Z

The laws and statutes of this land were written for all men with no exception. It is not for our government or their agents to choose which laws either do or do not apply to them and then walk away from the culpability for their actions. Being a prison officer, police officer or even high court judge does not put you above the law.

Would they allow a known sex offender to continue working for 27 years within the youth penal system? Would they facilitate his transfers from institution to institution while they knew that he was a danger to young boys? I’m afraid the answer is yes; they would and they did allow just that. ‘They’ are the Home Office and their employees.

Neville Husband, a married 67-year-old from Shotley Bridge, County Durham, staged a string of sexual abuse offences at the Medomsley centre in the 1970s and 1980s. After his career in the prison service, Husband became a Clergyman of the United Reform Church. In February 2003, Husband was convicted at Newcastle Crown Court of abusing five youngsters and was jailed for eight years. The publicity surrounding the trial led to others coming forward, and in September 2005 he was jailed for a further two years after admitting attacks on four more teenagers. He is now a known and convicted paedophile who is currently serving out his ten year prison sentence.

Husband himself worked for nearly 30 years as a prison officer and Home Office employee. As with most employers, his employers wrote his employment records, and right there on top of the pile of files is one dating back to 1967. It says Neville Husband had been arrested for the illegal importation of homosexual pornography directly into the prison. When training with the prison service, Husband claimed he bought the material for research purposes and was never charged. He was also quizzed in 1999 - five years after he was ordained as a minister - in connection with police operations probing mail order pornography. The case was dropped. One of his many victims is now pursuing the right to sue his employers for vicarious liability in a high profile sex abuse scandal.

Kevin Young, suffered at the hands of Husband, while he was serving a short sentence at the Medomsley Detention Centre, Consett, Co Durham in 1977. Husband, who became a church minister after quitting the prison service, was jailed after admitting a string of horrific sex attacks on teenage boys. Between 1969 & 1984 Despite the Home Office’s attempt to block the move, last year Mr Young won a landmark legal case to launch a bid for compensation at a hearing in Leeds against the Home Office, which ran the detention centre where Husband worked. The Home Office tried to get the case thrown out, and their plea was that too much time has passed since the crimes occurred. This has customarily worked well as a defence for child abusers in the past, as the 1980 Limitation Act states claims for compensation need to be lodged three years after attacks took place. But Mr Young's legal team argued there was provision for people to lodge claims three years after the "date of knowledge". Abuse victims may not realise how badly they have been harmed until years after the attacks took place.

Although the 1980 Limitation Act does do a valuable job and performs its function well in certain areas, it was never meant to be used or abused in order to allow the high and mighty of this land to manipulate the legal process in their own favour. The Judge (Judge Cockroft) at Leeds Crown Court rejected the Home Office’s plea of limitation. Even so, the Home Office has appealed against Judge Cockroft’s ruling, and tried to block Kevin Young’s fight for justice.

Mr Young's solicitor, David Greenwood, of Wakefield firm Jordan's, said: "This stalls the process until it's heard in the Court of Appeal in London.
"They have already tried to have his case thrown out, but they weren't successful. Now they are appealing against that decision.
"Hopefully, if Kevin is successful again, he will be able to go on and prove that the Home Office neglected to care for him adequately and allowed this abuser to sexually assault him."

Neville Husband hand-picked boys to work with him in the kitchens before brutally attacking them. One boy was forced to submit after having a bread knife held to his throat. Another was attacked when he was caught stealing icing and marzipan from the kitchen storeroom. Many of these offences were happening as early as1967 at Portland Young Offenders Institution, and at Medomsley Detention Centre for 17 years.

Psychologist Elli Godsy said that these crimes were some of the worst sexual abuse she has ever heard of.
“This is one of the worst cases of sexual abuse I have come across in my 17 years working for the home office and working with some of the most prolific sex offenders and victims in the country.”
Sexual abuse on this scale could only happen in an institution, and Husband was continually moved around from one young offenders institution to another, allowing him to continue to sexually assault young boys wherever he went with absolute and total impunity. Countless young people were dehumanized and degraded in a never-ending flow of young flesh to the torture chamber.

Governors and senior management were in full knowledge as to the horrors that were going on in the Medomsley Detention Centre. They became the people who aided and abetted Neville Husband in his perversions. They helped him to escape liability for damage done to so many people, over a very long time. Governors and senior management turned a blind eye to the blatant sexual, physical abuse, and constant barracking. This destructive behavior originated from those who were meant to be helping with the rehabilitation of young minds, with the intention that these young boys would go on to becoming productive members of society

For example, governors and senior management not only knew what was going on in the kitchen area but they actively prevented all officers’ rights of search in Neville Husband’s designated areas. Former prison officer David Gordon McClure alleged that…

"Tim Newell (the Governor) thought very highly of Husband and seemed to look after him.”

“For example, on a regular basis on rotation we would thoroughly search various areas within the centre. This was to look for cigarettes and alcohol.”

“All main areas of the prison were searched except for the kitchen area.

“The prison management would not allow anyone but Husband to have access to the kitchen area. If anyone did try and search this area there were reprimanded by management.” especially a governor called Tim Newell”

“There were always very strong rumours that Neville Husband was homosexual and that he was sexually abusing boys who were working for him in the kitchen. This was general knowledge amongst staff and boys in the centre."

“Most evenings Husband would usually keep one boy back with him after the others had been dismissed and we all felt sorry for that boy.

“Nobody reported their suspicions to anyone because Husband was so close to and supported by the Governor and his senior management. Without proof we knew that nothing would come of it except that we would be moved to a different prison.”

We feel that as we were prisoners, articles from the Geneva Convention on the torture and degradation of prisoners would be more applicable in cases like this.

* * *

We go to court again in London on the 17th 18th and 19th of October to hear the reasons behind the Home Offices appeal against judge Cockroft’s historic decision. This may allow Kevin Young’s case to go forward to the high court.

Mr Young, 45, said: "I've said from the start, this is not about money. It is about the principle that people knew this was going on but nothing was done about it.
The experience left him mentally scarred, and he was determined to help bring his tormentors to justice. This started when police officers asked him to tell his story back in 1998 as part of the operation rose years ago.

The evidence and testimonies of the many victims and other prison officers from Medomsley at the time Neville Husband was there, were instrumental in bringing him to justice. Jurors heard how Husband used intimidation and fear to ensure the silence of his detention centre victims, all from damaged backgrounds.
Judge Esmond Faulks told him:

"Their fear of you caused them to submit to your unwelcome attentions and this was in my judgement a gross breach of trust. You and others like you helped cause their damaged personalities. Until now they never thought anyone would believe them.

After the case, Det Insp Simon Orton, who led the Durham Police investigation, said he was delighted by the outcome of the case.

“It is clear this man feasted himself on these young men who were in his charge," he said. "I hope that this will bring closure for the victims. I have no doubt in my mind their lives will always be affected by what happened in Medomsley. My thoughts are very much with the victims still. DI Orton said:
"He has never acknowledged any guilt."
“They have been very brave."

Following the news coverage of his first trial, that Neville Husband was called back to court. More than seven new victims had come forward, and he eventually pleaded guilty and what’s more dropped his appeal against his original 10 year sentence.

Tim Newell was Governor from 1979 to 1981 at Medomsley. He was at Grendon prison as well as the architect of the restorative justice reforms. He says in his statement… “About five years after leaving Medomsley I was on a course at the Prison Training College at Wakefield, when I bumped into a Medomsley colleague John McBee. John told me that Neville had to leave the service over an allegation that he had abused a boy.”

That would make it around 1985/86 when Husband, “Had to leave the service over an allegation that he had abused a boy.” In 1985/86, after being forced to leave Medomsley then got a promotion to senior officer at the Frankland Maximum security prison in Co Durham. Martin Narey was the governor at the Frankland from 1986 to 89, and the governor when Husband was promoted to a senior officer as ‘punishment’ for being caught sexually abusing boys.

Public Relations

Gerry Sutcliffe, parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Home Office is aware of outstanding civil claims relating to abuse of prisoners at the Medomsley detention centre which closed in 1983. His view is that while these civil actions are ongoing it would be inappropriate to comment on any calls for a public inquiry.

“A cash boost in May this year thanks to £1.25million funding for voluntary and community organisations throughout England and Wales, announced Home Office Minister Gerry Sutcliffe.

"Sexual crimes can result in high levels of distress and can be the most damaging physically and emotionally. This funding will help to ensure that victims of these terrible offences have timely access to advice, information, care and counselling that meets their individual needs no matter where they are in the country.

"I am determined that the needs of victims of crime must be better met and this funding is part of a wider programme of Government initiatives to put the needs of those affected by crime central in the criminal justice system."

This is what Gerry Sutcliff says in public; however when in private he is as bad as the abusers. He is allowing the suffering of all the victims from Medomsley to continue, and has failed to respond adequately to calls for a public inquiry into Medomsley Detention Centre and the decades of sexual torture many young kids were put through.

The sexual abuse of a child is a uniquely horrible crime, because it destroys the child's sense of him or herself and undermines the capacity to trust. The fact that this crime is usually carried trusted and respected adults of some standing, makes the damage worse.

Mr. Young, says that it is not just him, but other Medomsley claimants are still locked in an ongoing high court case against the Home Office.

Mr Young, from York, said: "I saw some things that nobody should have to see as a young person.

Governors of the Medomsley Detention Centre and their senior management "were aware of what was happening" at the centre and "failed to stop or act upon, in accordance with the prison protocols of that time."

Many if not all of the vulnerable youths were from broken homes and fractured backgrounds. They took on the baggage of being in the care system, where they were also sexually and physically abused, not to mention ill educated. This was the only alternative to being looked after by the church. And we all know where that leads.

I believe Husband had access to all the records about the inmates he chose to serve in his kitchen; he used these to great effect. I also believe that he was not!! allowed to have access to these private documents that were for the eyes of the governor and senior officers only ad he would use these to make his decision on who he could abuse. Who has little contact with the outside world?

Who doesn’t have parents? How many come directly from the care system or had abusive parents?

In Medomsley, we would start work early as we had to get all the breakfasts ready for all the other inmates. Husband would always be there, almost superimposed on every synapse of each young mind in his charge. He had enormity and presence in his own kingdom.

I’ll not bother telling you how breakfasts were in Medomsley … sufficed to they were fast! Everything worked that way in places like that. Once you were at work, Husband would make an excuse to get past you while you were, lets say, tending the potato peeling machine. As he did so he would press his penis towards your backside fleetingly then carry on what he was doing.

On the way back he would do the same thing only with more gusto, and we all knew what might follow. He would sense everything from the initial contact in the dining hall, where he would inspect the newest intake to the centre that day, and then he’d choose who would work in the kitchen.

All his victims were threatened with their lives. Neville Husband laid claim to being in the Military and was trained to kill. “You could disappear in places like this and nobody would ever know.” “You could be buried in the bottom sports field and nobody would care.”

One centre he worked in closed in 1987. There, male inmates stayed until they were 21, and during that time in the North East detention centre he went on to becoming Reverend Husband, a minister at the Brighton Road Reformed Church in Bensham, Gateshead.

Betrayal

The UK's most vulnerable children are being "betrayed" by a care system that is guilty of a catalogue of failings, according to a damning report. The majority of young people leaving institutions are destined to become prostitutes, homeless or spend time in prison, the study states. Harriet Sergeant, author of ‘Handle with Care: an investigation into the care system’, said:
"It is not just a tragedy for the individual. A successful system of care would transform this country.

"At a stroke it would empty a third of our prisons. It would halve the number of prostitutes, reduce by between a third and a half the number of homeless and remove 80% of Big Issue sellers from our street corners.

"Not only is our system failing the young people in care, it is failing society and perpetuating an underclass."

The report says that out of the 6,000 people who leave care on average every year, 75% (4,500) will have no educational qualifications and within two years 50% will be unemployed, while 20% (1,200) will be homeless. Just one out of a hundred will make it to university. In the year ending March 31 2005, 60,900 children were taken in care - most placed with foster parents or in children's homes. Failings of the care system included children being moved among foster carers too often, and homes focusing on short-term containment rather then the long-term well-being of the youngsters. The report concluded the system should be reformed to provide "secure, stable, long-term and loving care for difficult children".

New initiatives that might help children should be explored and young people should be tracked after leaving care in order to build up a true picture of how the system was working, it added.

Hypocrisy

One would think the Crown and its employees could not act with absolute carelessness and abandon. One would think that it has sufficient morals of the sort that bind humanity together, yet the above comments show that this is far from the truth. Even today, despite the sector’s growth in statistical knowledge and greater education, young people are still not tracked after leaving care. A public servant is allowed to continue sexually assaulting children with absolute and total impunity. The authorities, being in full knowledge of these horrors are allowed to escape liability for the damage done whilst simultaneously, those same authorities don’t hesitate to punish a child for stealing a watch. It is clear from what has happened, that carelessness and abandon are words that do describe the actions of the Crown and those public servants who are only there at all because they have our trust.

We the undersigned hope that you can bring these matters to light in an effective way. This will make a difference not only to us, but the thousands of other abuse survivors whose abuse originated from being in the care of government institutions.

To this end, we will be cooperative in any projects you wish to propose that we feel are for the greater good.

Kind regards.

The Monsters of Medomsley

2008-05-03T14:01:00.004Z

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is
for good men to do nothing”.

The laws and statutes of this land were written for all men with no exception. It is not for our government or their agents to choose which laws either do or do not apply to them and then walk away from the culpability for their actions. Being a prison officer, police officer or even high court judge does not put you above the law.

Would they allow a known sex offender to continue working for 27 years within the youth penal system? Would they facilitate his transfers from institution to institution while they knew that he was a danger to young boys? I’m afraid the answer is yes; they would and they did allow just that. ‘They’ are the Home Office and their employees.

Neville Husband, a married 67-year-old from Shotley Bridge, County Durham, staged a string of sexual abuse offences at the Medomsley centre in the 1970s and 1980s. After his career in the prison service, Husband became a Clergyman of the United Reform Church. In February 2003, Husband was convicted at Newcastle Crown Court of abusing five youngsters and was jailed for eight years. The publicity surrounding the trial led to others coming forward, and in September 2005 he was jailed for a further two years after admitting attacks on four more teenagers. He is now a known and convicted paedophile who is currently serving out his ten year prison sentence.

Husband himself worked for nearly 30 years as a prison officer and Home Office employee. As with most employers, his employers wrote his employment records, and right there on top of the pile of files is one dating back to 1967. It says Neville Husband had been arrested for the illegal importation of homosexual pornography directly into the prison. When training with the prison service, Husband claimed he bought the material for research purposes and was never charged. He was also quizzed in 1999 - five years after he was ordained as a minister - in connection with police operations probing mail order pornography. The case was dropped. One of his many victims is now pursuing the right to sue his employers for vicarious liability in a high profile sex abuse scandal.

Kevin Young, suffered at the hands of Husband, while he was serving a short sentence at the Medomsley Detention Centre, Consett, Co Durham in 1977. Husband, who became a church minister after quitting the prison service, was jailed after admitting a string of horrific sex attacks on teenage boys. Between 1969 & 1984 Despite the Home Office’s attempt to block the move, last year Mr Young won a landmark legal case to launch a bid for compensation at a hearing in Leeds against the Home Office, which ran the detention centre where Husband worked. The Home Office tried to get the case thrown out, and their plea was that too much time has passed since the crimes occurred. This has customarily worked well as a defence for child abusers in the past, as the 1980 Limitation Act states claims for compensation need to be lodged three years after attacks took place. But Mr Young's legal team argued there was provision for people to lodge claims three years after the "date of knowledge". Abuse victims may not realise how badly they have been harmed until years after the attacks took place.

Although the 1980 Limitation Act does do a valuable job and performs its function well in certain areas, it was never meant to be used or abused in order to allow the high and mighty of this land to manipulate the legal process in their own favour. The Judge (Judge Cockroft) at Leeds Crown Court rejected the Home Office’s plea of limitation. Even so, the Home Office has appealed against Judge Cockroft’s ruling, and tried to block Kevin Young’s fight for justice.

Mr Young's solicitor, David Greenwood, of Wakefield firm Jordan's, said: "This stalls the process until it's heard in the Court of Appeal in London.
"They have already tried to have his case thrown out, but they weren't successful. Now they are appealing against that decision.
"Hopefully, if Kevin is successful again, he will be able to go on and prove that the Home Office neglected to care for him adequately and allowed this abuser to sexually assault him."

Neville Husband hand-picked boys to work with him in the kitchens before brutally attacking them. One boy was forced to submit after having a bread knife held to his throat. Another was attacked when he was caught stealing icing and marzipan from the kitchen storeroom. Many of these offences were happening as early as1967 at Portland Young Offenders Institution, and at Medomsley Detention Centre for 17 years.

Psychologist Elli Godsy said that these crimes were some of the worst sexual abuse she has ever heard of.
“This is one of the worst cases of sexual abuse I have come across in my 17 years working for the home office and working with some of the most prolific sex offenders and victims in the country.”
Sexual abuse on this scale could only happen in an institution, and Husband was continually moved around from one young offenders institution to another, allowing him to continue to sexually assault young boys wherever he went with absolute and total impunity. Countless young people were dehumanized and degraded in a never-ending flow of young flesh to the torture chamber.

Governors and senior management were in full knowledge as to the horrors that were going on in the Medomsley Detention Centre. They became the people who aided and abetted Neville Husband in his perversions. They helped him to escape liability for damage done to so many people, over a very long time. Governors and senior management turned a blind eye to the blatant sexual, physical abuse, and constant barracking. This destructive behavior originated from those who were meant to be helping with the rehabilitation of young minds, with the intention that these young boys would go on to becoming productive members of society

For example, governors and senior management not only knew what was going on in the kitchen area but they actively prevented all officers’ rights of search in Neville Husband’s designated areas. Former prison officer David Gordon McClure alleged that…

"Tim Newell (the Governor) thought very highly of Husband and seemed to look after him.”

“For example, on a regular basis on rotation we would thoroughly search various areas within the centre. This was to look for cigarettes and alcohol.”

“All main areas of the prison were searched except for the kitchen area.

“The prison management would not allow anyone but Husband to have access to the kitchen area. If anyone did try and search this area there were reprimanded by management.” especially a governor called Tim Newell”

“There were always very strong rumours that Neville Husband was homosexual and that he was sexually abusing boys who were working for him in the kitchen. This was general knowledge amongst staff and boys in the centre."

“Most evenings Husband would usually keep one boy back with him after the others had been dismissed and we all felt sorry for that boy.

“Nobody reported their suspicions to anyone because Husband was so close to and supported by the Governor and his senior management. Without proof we knew that nothing would come of it except that we would be moved to a different prison.”

We feel that as we were prisoners, articles from the Geneva Convention on the torture and degradation of prisoners would be more applicable in cases like this.

* * *

We go to court again in London on the 17th 18th and 19th of October to hear the reasons behind the Home Offices appeal against judge Cockroft’s historic decision. This may allow Kevin Young’s case to go forward to the high court.

Mr Young, 45, said: "I've said from the start, this is not about money. It is about the principle that people knew this was going on but nothing was done about it.
The experience left him mentally scarred, and he was determined to help bring his tormentors to justice. This started when police officers asked him to tell his story back in 1998 as part of the operation rose years ago.

The evidence and testimonies of the many victims and other prison officers from Medomsley at the time Neville Husband was there, were instrumental in bringing him to justice. Jurors heard how Husband used intimidation and fear to ensure the silence of his detention centre victims, all from damaged backgrounds.
Judge Esmond Faulks told him:

"Their fear of you caused them to submit to your unwelcome attentions and this was in my judgement a gross breach of trust. You and others like you helped cause their damaged personalities. Until now they never thought anyone would believe them.

After the case, Det Insp Simon Orton, who led the Durham Police investigation, said he was delighted by the outcome of the case.

“It is clear this man feasted himself on these young men who were in his charge," he said. "I hope that this will bring closure for the victims. I have no doubt in my mind their lives will always be affected by what happened in Medomsley. My thoughts are very much with the victims still. DI Orton said:
"He has never acknowledged any guilt."
“They have been very brave."

Following the news coverage of his first trial, that Neville Husband was called back to court. More than seven new victims had come forward, and he eventually pleaded guilty and what’s more dropped his appeal against his original 10 year sentence.

Tim Newell was Governor from 1979 to 1981 at Medomsley. He was at Grendon prison as well as the architect of the restorative justice reforms. He says in his statement… “About five years after leaving Medomsley I was on a course at the Prison Training College at Wakefield, when I bumped into a Medomsley colleague John McBee. John told me that Neville had to leave the service over an allegation that he had abused a boy.”

That would make it around 1985/86 when Husband, “Had to leave the service over an allegation that he had abused a boy.” In 1985/86, after being forced to leave Medomsley then got a promotion to senior officer at the Frankland Maximum security prison in Co Durham. Martin Narey was the governor at the Frankland from 1986 to 89, and the governor when Husband was promoted to a senior officer as ‘punishment’ for being caught sexually abusing boys.

Public Relations

Gerry Sutcliffe, parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Home Office is aware of outstanding civil claims relating to abuse of prisoners at the Medomsley detention centre which closed in 1983. His view is that while these civil actions are ongoing it would be inappropriate to comment on any calls for a public inquiry.

“A cash boost in May this year thanks to £1.25million funding for voluntary and community organisations throughout England and Wales, announced Home Office Minister Gerry Sutcliffe.

"Sexual crimes can result in high levels of distress and can be the most damaging physically and emotionally. This funding will help to ensure that victims of these terrible offences have timely access to advice, information, care and counselling that meets their individual needs no matter where they are in the country.

"I am determined that the needs of victims of crime must be better met and this funding is part of a wider programme of Government initiatives to put the needs of those affected by crime central in the criminal justice system."

This is what Gerry Sutcliff says in public; however when in private he is as bad as the abusers. He is allowing the suffering of all the victims from Medomsley to continue, and has failed to respond adequately to calls for a public inquiry into Medomsley Detention Centre and the decades of sexual torture many young kids were put through.

The sexual abuse of a child is a uniquely horrible crime, because it destroys the child's sense of him or herself and undermines the capacity to trust. The fact that this crime is usually carried trusted and respected adults of some standing, makes the damage worse.

Mr. Young, says that it is not just him, but other Medomsley claimants are still locked in an ongoing high court case against the Home Office.

Mr Young, from York, said: "I saw some things that nobody should have to see as a young person.

Governors of the Medomsley Detention Centre and their senior management "were aware of what was happening" at the centre and "failed to stop or act upon, in accordance with the prison protocols of that time."

Many if not all of the vulnerable youths were from broken homes and fractured backgrounds. They took on the baggage of being in the care system, where they were also sexually and physically abused, not to mention ill educated. This was the only alternative to being looked after by the church. And we all know where that leads.

I believe Husband had access to all the records about the inmates he chose to serve in his kitchen; he used these to great effect. I also believe that he was not!! allowed to have access to these private documents that were for the eyes of the governor and senior officers only ad he would use these to make his decision on who he could abuse. Who has little contact with the outside world?

Who doesn’t have parents? How many come directly from the care system or had abusive parents?

In Medomsley, we would start work early as we had to get all the breakfasts ready for all the other inmates. Husband would always be there, almost superimposed on every synapse of each young mind in his charge. He had enormity and presence in his own kingdom.

I’ll not bother telling you how breakfasts were in Medomsley … sufficed to they were fast! Everything worked that way in places like that. Once you were at work, Husband would make an excuse to get past you while you were, lets say, tending the potato peeling machine. As he did so he would press his penis towards your backside fleetingly then carry on what he was doing.

On the way back he would do the same thing only with more gusto, and we all knew what might follow. He would sense everything from the initial contact in the dining hall, where he would inspect the newest intake to the centre that day, and then he’d choose who would work in the kitchen.

All his victims were threatened with their lives. Neville Husband laid claim to being in the Military and was trained to kill. “You could disappear in places like this and nobody would ever know.” “You could be buried in the bottom sports field and nobody would care.”

One centre he worked in closed in 1987. There, male inmates stayed until they were 21, and during that time in the North East detention centre he went on to becoming Reverend Husband, a minister at the Brighton Road Reformed Church in Bensham, Gateshead.

Betrayal

The UK's most vulnerable children are being "betrayed" by a care system that is guilty of a catalogue of failings, according to a damning report. The majority of young people leaving institutions are destined to become prostitutes, homeless or spend time in prison, the study states. Harriet Sergeant, author of ‘Handle with Care: an investigation into the care system’, said:
"It is not just a tragedy for the individual. A successful system of care would transform this country.

"At a stroke it would empty a third of our prisons. It would halve the number of prostitutes, reduce by between a third and a half the number of homeless and remove 80% of Big Issue sellers from our street corners.

"Not only is our system failing the young people in care, it is failing society and perpetuating an underclass."

The report says that out of the 6,000 people who leave care on average every year, 75% (4,500) will have no educational qualifications and within two years 50% will be unemployed, while 20% (1,200) will be homeless. Just one out of a hundred will make it to university. In the year ending March 31 2005, 60,900 children were taken in care - most placed with foster parents or in children's homes. Failings of the care system included children being moved among foster carers too often, and homes focusing on short-term containment rather then the long-term well-being of the youngsters. The report concluded the system should be reformed to provide "secure, stable, long-term and loving care for difficult children".

New initiatives that might help children should be explored and young people should be tracked after leaving care in order to build up a true picture of how the system was working, it added.

Hypocrisy

One would think the Crown and its employees could not act with absolute carelessness and abandon. One would think that it has sufficient morals of the sort that bind humanity together, yet the above comments show that this is far from the truth. Even today, despite the sector’s growth in statistical knowledge and greater education, young people are still not tracked after leaving care. A public servant is allowed to continue sexually assaulting children with absolute and total impunity. The authorities, being in full knowledge of these horrors are allowed to escape liability for the damage done whilst simultaneously, those same authorities don’t hesitate to punish a child for stealing a watch. It is clear from what has happened, that carelessness and abandon are words that do describe the actions of the Crown and those public servants who are only there at all because they have our trust.

We the undersigned hope that you can bring these matters to light in an effective way. This will make a difference not only to us, but the thousands of other abuse survivors whose abuse originated from being in the care of government institutions.

To this end, we will be cooperative in any projects you wish to propose that we feel are for the greater good.

Kind regards.

Kevin Young says

2008-05-03T13:59:00.000Z

All who have a desire to seek the truths & facts surrounding the long term systematic sexual and mental abuse of young teenagers by Crown officers and ongoing litigation against the Home Secretary, The Home Office?

“This is a most serious matter involving Crown officers!”
Judge Cockcroft at Leeds crown court 9th November 2005

How serious? How many officers? Who was involved?

Only a much needed investigation and or enquiry public or independent into the long term criminal activities by known and named officers H.M.D.C. Medomsley, County Durham, (Now Hassockfield). Will begin to uncover what is quite frankly a horror story that really needs to be told openly and honestly so lessons not lip service may be addressed.

“This is the worst case of sexual and physical abuse I have had to deal with in my 17 years as a Home Office physiologist ,dealing with some of the most violent and dangerous sex offenders in our prisons “
Dr.Elie Godsi Leeds court 9th November 2005

Between 1967 and 1983 many raped and tortured sadistically often on a daily basis throughout there 3, 6 month sentences by a small group of serving officers and with the apparent knowledge of more senior prison officials, assistant governors and governors, with criminal charges being formally lodged firstly in 1967 for criminal offences that clearly showed a most unhealthy appetite for homosexual pornography in regards young boys in bondage etc.

The illegal importation of homosexual pornography both into the uk and then into the Medomsley youth custody centre its self, to be shown to the young inmates in private viewing situations between officers and inmates according to home office official documents and known as Portland Young offenders institute , only to be dismissed as not in the public interest!

The relocation of the offending officers to other youth custody centres, despite formal criminal charges laid by Portland police, also charges that were to be subsequently drop deemed not in the public interest!

Allowing them free access to continue there ways uninterrupted as they most certainly did, culminating in the rape and violent sexual attacks on many young inmates over a twenty year period.

Most of these will remain silent witnesses, many with a duty of care, having failed in that duty have welcomed the immoral use of this statutes of limitations act designed primarily for medical negligence to allowing those responsible to avoid accountability and therefore deny justice to genuine victims. The Church and many other institutes have and continue to misuse the act to avoid accountability! In particular where the facts have been fully investigated and found to be true.

Only by dealing truthfully and morality with past, so called historic abuse
(Not historic to those who live with its affects today!) can we truly learn and there fore begin to avoid a large proportion of the inhuman and life destroying abuse that has and continues to blight our progress to a better and more just society.

Home offices policies of inaction / avoidance and at times outright criminal deceit in this and many similar cases have resulted in the continuation of the most brutal and inhumane criminal treatment of young persons in their custody.

A society that tolerates abuse is by its very nature an abusive society, and the laws required to deal justly and morally with abuse must reflect that society’s desires.

I can fully understand the statutes of limitations when used for its designed purpose (medical negligence )but this law was never intended to be applied to victims of abuse who seek an opportunity for a fair hearing and with consideration for the well known and documented symptoms of those abused being unable to unburden there nightmares

Sometimes until many years later, in reality most victims will live out there lives silent witnesses to the betrayal and humiliation that only they will truly know and there silent screaming heard only in there shattered minds . In reality for many years only the lawyers and legal frame have gained financially from all this pain and yet how quick the defence to constantly refer to the compensation always the compensation?

They chose to further belittle and cause pain while collecting there fees in bulk, woe ye layers. Who would ignore our quest for justice peace of mind and a opportunity for some degree of closer that we and our families crave so badly.

Yours sincerely A Survivor

www.justice4survivors.org

Prison Officer evidence Medomsley DC

2008-05-03T13:41:00.001Z

Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act this is the evidence of David McClure, Prison Officer Medomsley DC 1978

"Tim Newell thought very highly of Husband and seemed to look after him. For example, on a regular basis on rotation we would thoroughly search various areas within the centre. This was to look for cigarettes and alcohol. All main areas of the prison were searched except for the kitchen area.

“The prison management would not allow anyone but Husband to have access to the kitchen area. If anyone did try and search this area there were reprimanded by management.”

“There were always very strong rumours that Neville Husband was homosexual and that he was sexually abusing boys who were working for him in the kitchen.
This was general knowledge amongst staff and boys in the centre.

“On a night time Husband would usually keep one boy back with him after the others had been dismissed and we all felt sorry for that boy.

“Nobody reported their suspicions to anyone because Husband was so close to and supported by the Governor and his senior management.

“Without proof we knew that nothing would come of it except that we would be moved to a different prison.”

“For sometime I was employed as a gate officer and was surprised to see that Husband was receiving large quantities of post containing homosexual pornography.

“Sometime the envelopes were not sealed and I used to look at the magazines and burn them without telling Husband.

“One opened package contained a video I looked at this and found it was hardcore gay porn, again I burned it.

“The only other person who got to work in Husband’s kitchen was his relief when he went on holiday.

“His relief was a prison officer called Brian Greenwell. There was one period where Husband was away for several weeks and another catering Officer was brought from elsewhere.

“Whilst this man was working in the kitchens he approached me and said that he was quite shocked to be receiving gay porn addressed to the ‘Catering Office and asked what to do with it. I took it from him and incinerated it.

Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act this is the evidence of Tim Newell, Gov Medomsley DC 1978 to 1981

“About five years after leaving Medomsley I was on a course at the Prison Training College at Wakefield, when I bumped into a Medomsley colleague John McBee.
John told me that -Neville had to leave the service over an allegation that he had abused a boy I was quite shocked to hear this as we had continued to exchange Christmas cards.

“Neville didn’t take much time off and worked very long hours. When he was off a relief chef filled in for him, but Neville usually worked alone with the assistance of trainees which he selected.

“Neville was qualified for promotion but never took up the promotion. I have never been in touch with Neville Husband since, 1981 but I did write to him offering support shortly after I had spoken to John McBee.

“Neville seemed a devoted family man and spent a lot of his time with his family & was heavily involved in church matters.

“Not entirely consistent with what Officer McClure says is it? For it would appear that this Governor was affording Neville Husband a measure of special privilege, in going against prison protocols in the prevention of officers in their right of search of the kitchen area where Neville husband sexually abusing the kitchen inmates.”

Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act this is the evidence of Thomas Boyle, Prison officer Med DC 1974 to 1977

“Husband left Medomsley on promotion around 1982 it was within a matter of weeks after he left that I was asked to assist to clean out the upstairs area of the kitchen it was while cleaning one of these upstairs rooms out, with Tony HAYES who had taken over from Husband that I opened up a 4 drawer cabinet.

“In one of the drawers I found a dildo, one or two bras, stockings and different coloured suspender belts. There were also a number of pornographic books such as parade and hustler. Books of this nature were not allowed in the detention centre.”

“He did comment that,’ THE BEST KITCHEN STAFF WERE COLOURED AND GAYS BECAUSE THEY ARE THE CLEANEST.”

“Thomas Boyle also thought it ok to destroy evidence. By doing so he allowed more years of sexual abuse to continue and many more young vulnerable people to suffer at the hands of his fellow officers, again a failure in his duty to the inmates of the detention centre.

Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act this is the evidence of Tony Hayes, Prison officer Med DC 1980 to 1987

“As soon as I arrived I was told by two officers that Neville Husband was a domineering character and also that he allegedly sexually abused inmates. One of these officers was called Neil Sowerby and the other one was called Frank but I don’t remember his surname, I know that he eventually moved to Frankland.

“About six months to a year before Husband left one of the gate officers intercepted a package addressed to him and found it contained gay pornographic video. He showed this to me before destroying it. I don’t remember the name of this prison officer.

“Husband was into local amateur dramatics and I know that he took at least four boys out of the Detention Centre to help him set up things for the dramatics group. I also know from talking to these boys that he also took them to his home.

“I don’t remember these boy’s names but it was about two months after I’d arrived. I learned from other staff that Husband had returned the boys to camp about 11 .00pm (2300hrs) on each occasion.

“In 1985 or 1986 Husband was promoted and moved to H.M.P Frankland. I remember he left at 1 .00pm (l300hrs) on a Thursday, leaving me in charge of the kitchen. The same day I went into work at 2.30pm (l430hrs) and on arrival I was immediately approached by a delegation of three kitchen lads.

“One of them was the spokesperson, he asked me if Mr. Husband had finished for good I replied ‘Yes’ The next question was, has he really finished , is he not coming back I confirmed that was the situation The three boys then told me that when Husband was working and I * was not there, that the lad who was working in the pastry department would never clean up They said that Husband would take him up to the staff changing room to look at pornography He would then come back to the kitchen to organise the cleaners and then return to the changing room These three suggested that this was to have sex with the boy.

“Even though I believed that what these boys had told me I was still too scared of Husband to say anything to anybody Prior to Husband leaving there were a number of times when I had taken sick leave because of the stress of Husband’s overbearing, overpowering and intimidating attitude towards me was too much for me to cope with. I can say that I was frightened of Neville Husband and that although I was very relieved when he left, this fear stayed with me for quite a while.

“Another prisoner told me that he had been sent up a ladder in the dry store by Husband and that once up the ladder Husband had fondled his privates. This lad had allegedly retaliated .and struck Husband.

“Later On the same day that Husband left Medomsley, I went into the kitchen office. In this office was a locked five drawer steel filing cabinet. Husband did all the ordering and he was the only one to have a key. I never saw inside this cabinet whilst he was there. He claimed to use it as a secure store for prisoner’s money. On this afternoon when he left I asked Husband for the key and he gave me it.

“After the three boy delegation had left my office I opened the locked drawers. Apart from legitimate paperwork, I found stuck to the back of the fourth drawer down, three thongs, one lace, one of PVC and one made of nylon. In the bottom drawer was a small quarter full jar of Vaseline and a white vibrator about four inches long. Shortly after I had found these items Neil Sowerby came into the office and I showed him what I’d found, before throwing them away.

“I continued to work at Medomsley until it closed in 1987 and I moved to H.M.P Durham. I resigned from the prison service in June 2001.

“I think that other prison officers who may know what Husband was doing are, Harrison, Bill Smith, a garden civilian and a Prison Officer called Frank Williams.
The third officer who makes the same observations as the others only this officer was told that Husband was abusing boys “A Delegation” of young inmates told him what husband was doing. He himself found a vibrator sexual apparel and pornography.

He also had opportunity with working in the kitchen to observe some of Husband’s control and manipulation tactics and he felt he himself had been subjected to intimidation at the hands of Husband. This officer needs to be applauded for his honesty now; however he bares a heavy responsibility for his lack of care and a gross dereliction of duty to many inmates of the detention centre.

Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act this is the evidence of Paul Montague Prison officer Med DC 1979 to 1982

“Husband ran the kitchen and among his staff of inmates he always had one boy identified as a head kitchen boy. The head kitchen boy and a couple of other senior boys always wore a red tie and remember that there used to be quite a bit of Mickey taking and banter about the head kitchen lad being involved sexually with Husband. This Mickey taking was very over the top and open. It was treated as a joke. It was so over the top that nobody believed it could have been true.

“It was not until I was working in Durham prison in November or December of 2000 (11 or 12/2000) and I was approached by prisoner ***** **** that I realised that Husband may have sexually abusing boys in Medomsley. **** told me that Husband had raped him whilst at Medomsley I passed this complaint on to my supervisor Governor Donn I know that before Husband left Medomsley he worked quite closely with a PO called Tony Hayes I vaguely remember Hayes finding some pornography and other items after Husband had left I’m sure he will be able to help you Tony works at Risley Prison Another PO who used to work in the kitchen Quite a lot was a maintenance electrician called Barry Paterson He is now an electrician at Low Newton Prison

“During my time at Medomsley I worked under four different governors they were, in Chronological order; Tim Newell (now at Grendon Prison), Derek Whitehead (Retired); Chris Harder (retired) and the last one whose name I can’t remember who came from Kirk Levington.

“The Mickey taking was very over the top and open. It was treated as a joke. It was so over the top that nobody believed it could have been true.”

This officer obviously thought it amusing when he heard the rumours and instead of acting on the rumours he ignored them just like the list of other officers. What amused him was actually our torture.

Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act this is the evidence of Alan Reed, Prison officer at Medomsley DC 1974 to 1987

“Husband was also a member of Shotley Bridge, Theatrical Society and used to take inmates out to assist him; I’m not sure whether they were in the play or were just assisting with meals etc. Husband would have had to have some sort of authority to do this usually. The prison governor who at the time was Tim Newell with whom he was quite friendly.

“At the time I was at Medomsley with Husband who I believe left before me I did hear rumours that he was interfering with the boys, that was the usual banter in prison amongst staff. For instance Husband used to call Leslie Johnson, the Queen Mother’ but it was all banter. It did occur to me while knowing Husband that he maybe was a homosexual however he was a married man, with children, he was always coming out with sexual banter, double meanings etc.

Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act this is the evidence of Evidence Alan Marrs, Prison officer of Medomsley DC 1984 to 1987.

“When I first went to Medomsley I remember Neville Husband who was the catering officer there. I would describe him as aged around 50 years old, short fat with greasy, greying lank hair.

“Husband left a year to two years after I first started I did hear rumours from officers who had served there longer that Husband had interfered with some of the inmates who worked in the kitchens.

“These rumours were about Husband only and did not involve anyone else. I remember Les JOHNSON was about Husband’s only close associate.
Les was a store man at Medomsley.

Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act this is the evidence of Kathleen Collwell, Admin Officer Med DC until 1988

“I would only see Neville if he was passing my office in order to see the Governors. He would never pass the time of day with me hut would only acknowledge me, as my door was usually open.

“As stated, I didn’t know Neville Husband on a social basis but I was aware of rumours circulating the centre regarding his behaviour i.e. that he had his favourite boys.

“I personally felt that he looked like a ‘pervert’ or a ‘dirty old man’. He never looked clean and he would often wear an old rain mac. I certainly felt very uneasy in his presence there was just something that I did not like about him.
No-one ever seemed to question him about his behaviour.

List of Officers:

Thomas Boyle,
Brian Judson,
Jimmy Bradley,
Bill Miller,
Chris Onslow,
Dave Tock,
Frank Shand
David McClure
Tony Hayes
Leslie Johnson
James Malcolm Kirkup
Brian Greenwell
Michael Paul Montague
Danny Scott
Barry Paterson
John McBee
Chief officer Homewood
Neil Sowerby
Alan Reid
Alan Marrs
Neville Husband
George Heath
Bill Smith

List of Governors

James Millar Reid
Timothy Charles Newell
Derek Whitehead
Chris Harder

It is a credit to those members of staff who came forward and told the truth. Without them, Neville Husband and his colleague Leslie Johnson would still be abusing children and youths, and causing more damage to people's lives.

But let us not be naïve and imagine that Neville Husband and Leslie Johnson were the only two perpetrators of such crime, and that prison inmates elsewhere are now safely doing their time in institutions throughout the whole of the UK.

These people were in a position of professional trust.

They witnessed crime of such magnitude and did nothing.

These silent witnesses were breaking the law, and they should at least be publicly held accountable for their collusive behaviour.

Without some follow up to their actions there is little hope for survivors left in their wake to recover their dignity.

There is also very little hope of stopping the destruction of the lives of other inmates who are still being detained in institutions throughout the land, and all because prison officers are not held accountable.

David Greenwood, Jordans Solicitors, Neil Jordan House, Wellington Road, Dewsbury, West Yorkshire WF13 1HL, 01924 457171

Letter to Durham Police

2008-05-03T13:34:00.000Z

Document/01

On the ............DATE PLEASE 2006, Judge Cockroft, (a circuit 9 Judge) at Leeds court said: “These are serious crimes committed by crown officers”.

Following the telephone call at 14.34 on Tuesday 4th January 2007 when we victims of abuse at the hands of Neville Husband were in a meeting, you said you were not prepared to take any further action in relation to Neville Husband’s crimes. We understand the reasons behind your decision. However our reason for complaining is not in relation to the actual crimes committed by Husband but the numerous crimes committed by the other prison officers at Medomsley.

Many officers not only failed in the duty of care they owed to the inmates at Medomsley. They hid and destroyed evidence, and conspired with other officers to destroy the evidence that could have substantiated any possible complaints at the time.

Leslie Johnson, another officer at Medomsley who worked in the stores was a close friend of Neville Husband. He was arrested and sentenced to time in prison for sexually abusing one Mark Stuart Park, who was also a victim of Husband. We believe Husband gave evidence on Johnson’s behalf. Mark Park told police about Husband at the same time…And yet nothing was done until years after Johnson was investigated and jailed for his crimes,

We have always been led to believe that there were no complainants from victims from Husbands time at the two United Reformed Churches where he worked. We have been made aware that this is not the case and there were complaints that came from his time at the church. Can you elaborate?

The trauma that all Neville Husbands victims suffered is being made even more tortuous by the failure of the Legal system to protect those who have suffered abuse. Basic human rights are still being trampled on by the Home Office as all these victims have not got the closure that they rightly deserve. Neville Husband was investigated over a period of twelve years. Why did the investigation take so long? Was this because Leslie Johnson was a close friend and fellow mason to Neville Husband? The following words are quotes from the trial that Judge Cockroft presided over:

“Neville Husband gave an inmate to Leslie Johnson so that he could abuse him.”

“There was an enormous responsibility, you may conclude, placed on prison officers and those who worked in the establishment of Medomsley.

Enormous trust was bestowed upon them by the system, by the Government, by the public, but also that very system was open to abuse. If somebody betrayed that trust, then it is incumbent upon the police service that originally arrested Mr. Husband to seek the justice that we are asking for. Only an investigation into the behaviour of all the officers at Medomsley, and not just Neville Husband’s behaviour will draw out the truth of the matters.

These matters hold us up in the courts while facing the current statutes of limitation on article 33 s (14). We have more than proven that conspiracy to pervert the course of justice was going at the time of the offences, therefore article 32 (b) comes in to play:

8. Section 32(1) (b) of the 1980 Act postpones the commencement of the limitation period where
"Any fact relevant to the plaintiff's right of action has been deliberately concealed from him by the defendant".
In such a case the period of limitation does not begin to run until the plaintiff discovers the concealment or could with reasonable diligence discover it. The rationale for this provision is plain: if the defendant is not sued earlier, he has only himself to blame.

9. Section 32(2) provides:
For the purposes of subsection (1) above, deliberate commission of a breach of duty in circumstances in which it is unlikely to be discovered for some time amounts to deliberate concealment of the facts involved in that breach of duty."

We are not talking about a few, or even a handful of incidences. We are talking about behaviour that was allowed to go on for a period of decades. We feel that the trial of Husband should have continued on to include all the people who allowed these horrors to continue.

In 2001 the Law Commision found that the time limititations for reporting child abuse claims were not in the best interests of the victims, who in many cases were so traumatised that it took many years before they could bring themselves to make claims against their abusers.

The public interest in protecting defendants from stale claims, and ensuring there is an end to litigation does not apply where the defendant has been guilty of sexual abuse. The Commision therefore recommended that its proposed long-stop Limitation period of 10 years should not be applied to claims in respect of personal injuries to the claimant and gave these recommendations to the Government. In July 2002, Lord Irvine, announced that the Government had accepted the Commission’s recommendations in principle yet over the following years, no legislation has been brought forward. At the end of last year, the Government confirmed that the report was amongst the many Law Commission reports still awaiting Legislation.

Given the concerns raised by both the commission and set out in this correspondence, it seems to us that the government should at least explain why further action on this matter appears to have halted. It is simply not good enough to think that there are abusers who will not be brought to justice because of this government inertia. It is an issue to which all concerned should give the most serious of considerations. Victims are being abused once again by this ridiculous Law that does everything to protect the rights of abusers or the places and people who employ them; Many thousands of pounds have been spent on this case and the public purse is not being served by the legal system in the way it should, and purports itself to be.

Let us not forget that there was a death as a direct result of what Husband did and what the prison officers at Medomsley did or didn’t do. After one of husbands victims had given his testimony in Newcastle Crown Court Detective Ian Mitchell told him that another of the victims who was due to testify had just taken his own life. We think that further investigation would shed more light on a matter of a serious magnitude and it would also be very much in the public interest.

The prison officers at Medomsley committed worse crimes against the inmates than the crimes the inmates had committed out in society. What is worse, is that those crimes were done with the approval and knowledge of other officers. We believe Officer Boyle commited purgery in the dock when he said there was no violence to inmates at Medomsley. 'Medomsley was all about violence.' said the Deputy Warden Homewood's son, who lived at Medomsley and was similar in age to the inmates at the time.

Taken from emails from Simon Homewood (Lawyer and son of the chief deputy warden of Medomsley until 78/79).

“I have been in contact with this man on a number of occasions and he says his father knew nothing of sexual abuse but knew of the physical abuse
Mr Homewood said “As for physical abuse..... Yeap, I know it went on.
I don't really know to what extent it went on. Whether you like it or not that was what DC's were about to a large degree.

“Looking back as a lawyer and with many years of life behind me, I would condemn it without reservation. That is simply how it was in the 1970s. It’s different today, as you point out. Apparently by 1976 it had got softer. In 72/73 and earlier it was supposed to be far worse! Makes you wonder doesn't it?

“Further, DC's, whether me and you like it or not, were supposed to be rough and tough. Even if "and Violent" wasn’t the official line, it was certainly the unofficial one. I suppose you could argue that for my father and his staff to claim that they were only obeying orders is no more of an excuse than it was for the German soldiers at Treblinka, Sorbibor and Auschwitz.

“I agree that he shouldn't have overlooked this violence and he may well agree himself, I don't know. If it is decided that he has to answer for it then so be it. But of course that will never happen because the whole state machine was complicit in it.

“He was doing what the prison department wanted him to do. I entirely agree with you, that he was wrong to do it, but then I am simply being wise after the event. It is still unfair to look back and judge people's actions in the past by the standards and thinking of today. Surely you must see that?

“Thank you for correcting me on Onslow. I doesn't surprise me that he was violent. If I may I will expand on him and his wife and why I mentioned her. My brother who was about 15 at the time and as a developing young lad took rather a liking to Mrs Onslow and to be honest he couldn't take his eyes off her when she was anywhere near him. She was a very attractive lady, as I have said. To cut to the chase, Onslow noticed this one day and went berserk. He grabbed hold of my brother around the throat almost choking him and had to be restrained by Brian Judson (Very tall blonde haired guy) and another officer. This may show a tendency to violence as well as an element of insecurity you may think?

“Perhaps now you see why I mentioned her in the way I did. It was a very prominent factor in my recall if not relevant to you. Perhaps, on reflection, I should have omitted the comment, but I was writing what I was thinking at the time.

“The running around the fence and the baseball bat business was a tactic employed by Royal Navy PEI's but they used a pick-axe handle. Naturally they targeted anyone they didn't like. I was actually in the Royal Marines and you may have seen recently the revelations about initiation ceremonies. There was a culture of violence at Lympstone and always has been. It is Action Man territory and the simple rule is if you don't like it, don't join, the exit door is over there.

“Many people would have said the same about Detention Centres at the time, but of course you couldn't walk out and the fact that we didn't made us volunteers I guess.”(End)

What could be worse than crimes that enable so many young people to suffer decades of sexual abuse without the possibility of escape? We think it's not having the possibility to have their complaints taken seriously. The behaviour is curtailed by the regime itself, with the tragedy of dangerous prison officers & criminals being allowed to continue in the prison service. With all the evidence that was found in the centre being consistently destroyed, who else was responsible but those who were in charge?

What has happened to police integrity, honesty? As a part of the Police Force, you know the truth of this matter. We have learned that people complained to both Durham Police and Consett police over the years. We can prove this with statements from witnesses who have said they went to the police in their local area. Further, that the police station did contact Durham police, and a woman police officer confirmed this by telephoning the complainant back from Durham police station. We have accounts of others who say they made complaints to various people and nothing was done. We have inmates who actually clubbed together to support each other and told officers exactly what Husband was doing, and still nothing was done.

If there was enough substantive evidence to jail Husband in two court cases, then one would imagine that this evidence was just as substantive to justify further criminal charges against those who allowed it to continue for years. There is enough evidence at the very least, to warrant a re-questioning all officers who where at Medomsley again.

The public would indeed be interested to know that there are prison officers who are still working in prison in the UK today who where instrumental in the continuation of the sexual torture of many young & vulnerable people. Despite the current cases of litigation against the home office, we feel it would be more equitable to take a criminal action against their employees. The management and governorship are just as accountable as those officers who destroyed evidence and ignored contemporaneous complaints.

David Greenwood, Jordans Solicitors, Neil Jordan House, Wellington Road, Dewsbury, West Yorkshire WF13 1HL, 01924 457171

Dear Mr Byers

2008-04-15T06:03:00.001Z

Dear Mr Byers
This is what we expect from those who are paid to represent us, and this is what I expected from my Member of Parliament, who is duty bound to help in any way that he can.

Below this email there is a document reproduced and in an attachment to this email written by Senator Stuart Syvret from Jersey. On how one should approach situations such as the one that presents itself to you sir.

I have gained a greater insight into the goings on in Jersey and how remarkably similar these cases are to that of Medomsley, Witherwack House and the Bryn Alyn and the St Vincent ' s St Aidan’s cases and how they were comprehensively glossed over.

I telephoned Mr Terry Hammond today to explain my last email to you and to apologise for my being angry at you for not really trying your hardest to bring these matters to the attention of the Home Secretary’s that have been in the post over the past 6 years.

As far as I am aware, you have not actually spoken to any of them on my behalf. You spoke to the minister in charge of the justice department. Mr Gerry Sutcliffe. I.e.

The very same people we are in litigation with?

I made mention of Members of parliament who have also done nothing for the victims they are meant to represent: MP for Widnes Derek Twigg who has done and said nothing, Malcolm Wicks who is at odds with the Law Lords as he said “I agree with the statutes on limitations the way they are and do and feels he can support his constituent member in this.

Hugh Bailey, York Council Labour Leader, who has done the minimum to support his constituent who I believe also, took over from one Rod Hills who had been remanded in custody then appearing at York Crown Court on charges of blackmail, perverting the course of justice, witness intimidation, wasting police time, soliciting women for prostitution, and dangerous driving. That’s some calibre is it not?

Of course they won’t have a public inquiry!!! The actual factual may get out into the public domain perish the thought.

Are these not the very people who are allowing this to travesty of justice to continue?

Or, are these people seen as the other side, the opposition in our case?

Can it be right that the Home Office can be the soul arbiter on judgement when it comes to people suing them?

Then to be ignored for decades, disbelieved for further decades, eventually going through appearances in court cases, confronting their tormentor face to face, given testimony of unspeakable events of their lives to an open courtroom.

To top it off! The Home Office, who are meant to stand for justice and integrity in this country, act in such a way as to tell the victims of sexual abuse at the hand of their staff and employee’s.

That they had every intention of dragging these sad sorry individuals through years of further litigation after having been through some of the worst cases of sexual torture a person could go through. (And Mr. Hammond was angry with me?)

I found his tone somewhat intimidating at first as he appeared to be shouting at me for some reason. He went on to say; “Your phone may be to load.” Which in my opinion he was wrong as my wife who sat beside me will tell you when I turned the phone onto external speaker he said “What do you expect from your MP.”

I will not be made to feel that way again! I have felt much the same way when my captor and abuser shouted at me. For the sake of getting my message across to Mr Terry Hammond, without having to resort to shouting at him and being cut off, thus failing to get my point across to him. I attempted to calm the situation by saying “I’m not shouting at you.”

As you and Terry Hammond know only to well I have tried for many years to get across our expectations from all MP’s not just yourself.

An MP’s Honesty, Integrity and an unswerving loyalty to the people who put them in their current position of that trust and power. Tell me am I wrong in my expectations of Members of Parliament? Isn’t the House Called the Houses of Commons? Was this not called that for the very purpose of dealing with the grievances of the common man?

This to date has not happened for any of the 22 common men involved in this case and in many other documented cases like this one. And you don’t win votes by shouting at people.

Enough is enough Mr. Byers surely you can empathise with the position all of these victims of state sexual abuse or do I have that wrong also?

I expect you with your honesty, integrity and unswerving loyalty to your people, to do the right thing and not stop asking for this public inquiry. I didn’t expect that you would just mention it twice then move on, with no follow up.

It is certainly not something one would expect their Member of Parliament to have difficulty with, however, once again! One only has to look at Jersey, Islington and Margaret Hodge to see examples of how not to behave.

I made mention of getting in touch with the BNP and believe me it’s been a long, long road to get here and with virtually no help from any agency apart from one person who works voluntarily for victim support it is likely I would never have felt able to go to court.

But to be honest with you I am at my wits end and finally I resort to seeking another way as the legitimate ways are being ignored, put to one side or purposely trampled on by the very people who were saying: “Tough on crime tough on the causes of crime.”

We were conned into going to court to make the police and cps look good, We foolishly though at last we would be believed, get justice, in full, and finally closure.

Where is it? We want to know!!!

A culture of denial that transends borders and countries

2008-03-02T19:51:00.001Z

Emailed to Members of Parliament

I was a victim of sexual abuse at the hands of Neville Husband at the Medomsley Detention centre in Co Durham in the Northeast of England.

I was promoted again to write you all Members of Parliament Not feeling sanguine about the chances that some Members of Parliament will even take the time to read this as a number of emails and documents have been sent to every MP in this country and only one person had the decency to write back to say how sorry he was that these things happened to you and I wish you well with your campaign.

This MP is and has always been a consistent liberal.

The overall majority of returned emails were auto responders or emails not from the MP but their secretaries which for one thing breaches the data protection act as the addressee does not necessarily read the email and the mail is private and of a highly confidential nature and should indeed be read by the intended recipient only! Nevertheless that is the position. At this point I wish to say that the parliamentary restriction is nothing more then a way to cover things up.

My Parliament, in my country should be available to anyone in the country and all should be responsible for stamping out institutional child abuse. It is the direct responsibility of those elected into the highest positions of respect in this country to make sure that when a victim is writing to them that they do not treat it like the ramblings of a lunatic or dismiss it as “He’s not my constituent so he’s not my problem.” What happens if it is a MP who is the abuser?

Who do his/her victims go to tell when almost every MP in this country turns their back on the victims whom are trying to tell them of the abuses that they have had to endure and further injustice of those in power at the home office dragging these victims through year and sometimes decades of litigation while knowing the full incontrovertible facts and truth of these cases.

Many are in fact so close the current unfolding case at Les Chenes, (now known as Greenfields) the secure children’s home and school based on the island of Jersey, we are now hearing for the second time about the institutional child abuse that has been going on there. In 2002, British childcare expert Dr Kathy Bull produced a report which was given confidential access by the BBC. It was in the wake of her findings that Les Chenes was re-named.

More to the point we are hearing about a cover-up within their Parliament where the health minister has been fired by those who would rather protect the interests of Jersey in the international world of finance then look after the Island’s children or help them in times of great stress and pressure to and past the point of criminality,

I would also like to bet that their parliamentary protocols are exactly the same as the UK. It is time for the doors of parliament to swing in both directions as one way traffic will always tell the story one way and either fail to see another way out or blinker themselves away from the truth in the hope that these abhorrent crimes will not tarnish their reputations or stop the flow of cash coming to them.

Two professionals in positions of service to society were sacked for speaking out, although this is of course denied by their employers. One was Jersey's former minister for Health and Social Security, Senator Stuart Syvret, and the other a social worker. Simon Bellwood, this British social worker confessed, "What concerned me most was that it was quite clear that the system was able to go on without a single senior manager or inspector picking up that the system was abusive to children."

How many more times do we have to hear this?

If your job is to care for youngsters, and you are sacked because you notice that children are being abused on your watch, the choice is very clear. You keep quiet and keep your job. You speak out, and are sacked.

It was exactly the same at Medomsley, in Consett Co Durham. Almost every member of staff knew exactly what was going on but did nothing to help the young boys in their care. Kevin Young has just come from the House of Lords after winning the right to sue the Home Office for the abuses he and others at the centre suffered. This is because those who ran the centre at the time didn't care to stop it even though they knew exactly what was going on. They had found copious amounts of substantiating evidence to back up their testimony, but proceeded to destroy it.

It is terrifying when you are not able to tell someone about the abuse you endure, and imagine what it’s like when even the ones you tell either do nothing out of fear for losing their jobs, or victimise you even more for speaking out. You are ensnared by the very authorities that are meant to guide and protect you.

Those who were in the highest positions of power back then may have been replaced, nevertheless that does not make them less culpable or negate their responsibilities to the many victims that this country has produced. Most of these victims derived from the care system, and many went on into various penal institutions or were homeless and or drug addicts with deep psychological wounds that could and should not be bourn alone.

In the news this week, the remains of a child were discovered under the floor at a former care home in Haut de la Garenne in Jersey, and are believed to date from the early 1980s. It’s unlikely the police would have gone looking for bodies without having identified and listened to the 140 victims and 40 suspects that have either come forward or given interviews.

Perhaps we can put to bed the idea that child abuse was not really heard about in the 60’s and 70’s. If that was so, the powers that be were hardly going to be listening to victims coming forward from the 40’s and 50’s. By its very nature, when evidence and testimonies of child abuse occur, they are denied and customarily destroyed.

Those who knew what was going on were deeply entrenched in their behaviour of denial, and we flatter ourselves in thinking things have changed in modern times. The sackings listed above occurred after the millennium, and the abuse deniers still left in employment are still receiving wages from those institutions. In the Medomsley case in particular, there were Masons from the local Masonic lodge involved. There was a sub-structure of social interaction, expectation and control that has never been rigourously addressed. As well as those in high office being members, it is said that the Masons contain many police officers, judges, clergymen and doctors.

Society has already awakened to the fact that it is common for child abusers to hold positions of high office. The reality is that child sexual abuse is as old as the human race itself, and those who claim that they have never heard of it in any decade you care to mention are either lying, or standing upon the foundation of an education that erased any common sense they ever had.

We won’t be fooled any more. In Jersey, there is now an opportunity for the lies of the past to be exposed so that the slate can be wiped clean. It’s either that, or the world will be subject to dribs and drabs of ‘new revelations of child abuse’ for every decade of our children’s lifetimes until there is sufficient collective determination to face up to child suffering, and stop it for good.

The Young v the Diocese of Leeds Catholic church and one other, the one other is the Home Office and the abuse was in a Detention Centre for Boys near Consett County Durham, the abusers were many! The abuse was physical, mental and sexual all at the same time everyday for 17 years.

The Home Office are considering their position, after the landmark ruling in the House of Lords where Lord Hoffmann, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Creswell and Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood unanimously shared the same opinion in favour of the victims of what after all were in the words of Judge Cockroft, Who was the Judge at Leeds who originally read the case files and used his discretion in the correct manner saying “This is a serious matter concerning Crown Officers.” I feel it would be unjust not to allow this case to go to trial?

At this point the Home Office immediately appealed judge Cockroft’s decision and forced the case to go to the high courts at the strand.

We then at this point were very weary men who were already suffering catastrophic psychological problems manifesting in panic attacks nightmares deep depression hopelessness and a deeper mistrust of the very authority who put us in Medomsley

These were the same authority now dragging the victims through years of litigation and trauma when all this time they were fully aware that what we were telling them and what we wanted to tell the court was nothing but the truth.

Collectively our group have had two of what we would say from bitter experience, the most predatory and consistently prolific pederasts who have ever been heard of as this country and that statement is being very generous. The abuse was relentless for 17 years whilst the abuser was the chief at the now “technically” closed centre. As we all no it’s none other than the privately run Hassockfield secure unit where Adam Rickwood was found hanging in his cell.

We can only wait to see whether justice is finally done and seen do be done. The noble lords are listened to at long last. The statute laws originally brought about to deal with Medical Malfeasance for 30 years has been stopping many legitimate claims by using this dysfunctional law to manipulate and control the leakage of so called historic cases of sexual abuse on 30 years of mainly already vulnerable youngsters
In the same way we believe they have done in the care systems institutions throughout the 50’s 60’s 70’s and 80’s.

Every time it is mentioned or rears its ugly head so called professional dive for cover and I mean that in the literal sense. And in almost every high profile case where the high profile doesn’t get its name from the number of victims involved it is in fact because the pederasts and paedophiles and high profile (Or should be except that the highest put great distance between them selves and those below them who invariably get the blame for the abuses.

Some of the crimes committed by these lads pale into insignificance when held up against the mind blowing barrage of crimes perpetrated by those who were meant to guide and teach us the errors of our ways. Many of the victims had fully accepted that they were being punished for the wrongs that they had done.

We now await the Home Office and what they have to say on the matter. All five Labour Home Secretaries since Labour came to power know about this case and have been given the opportunity to stop this charade form continuing knowing full well that the law commission had already made specific recommendation in 2002 to effect the current statute of limitations in much the same way as the noble lords advocated on Wednesday 30 January 2008.

Where they changed 400 years of legal statute law that governed the guiding principles of Parliament in the way that they considered, Parliament had originally intended those principles to be interpreted.

By Peter Garsden

2007-03-30T20:14:00.000Z

“I have a similar situation at a secure Care Home in the North West where
Cheshire Police were more determined to prosecute the Head of the Home
because they knew he was ignoring complaints of abuse by staff from
children, and permitting it to carry on.

The CPS advised them, however, that there was no criminal offence to match
the act of gross negligence in public office, and no prosecution proceeded.
Whilst the criminal law has moved on, I am not sure that there is a criminal
offence to match the crime.

A better solution might be to call for a public enquiry (or local enquiry)
into what went on. If this happens however it might halt in its tracks any
civil action.

I am not an expert in criminal law, and leave such matters to the CPS.
The time in reality to call for a local or public enquiry might be after the
civil case is over.

I hope this helps. I have been through exactly the same process in the North
West several years ago.”

Incidentally I am very impressed at the insight and depth of understanding
you have of the subject matter. Well done.

Regards,

Peter Garsden, Vice-President (Association of Child Abuse Lawyers)

"Can we can be called reasonable.”

2007-03-24T18:22:00.000Z

"The margins of society"
Hi there peter and thank you for your rather surprising remarks about the article I emailed you.

I thought I would write you one more to give you the reason why I wrote to you in the first place, and that was James Browne from fireinice sent me a link to your emails to and from Vera Baird QC MP (Conflict of interest in our cases I might add)

just a few lines on reasonability and why we can not in any way shape or form be referred to as of reasonable mind or body by those who act to silence the past in a "reasonable?" way that does not involve the blame and responsibility landing on them.

The reason why its title is the “margins of society” is; I do believe that the margin of society is where most if not all people who have been through the institutional care system ends up. Many if not all again, have suffered physical, mental, and sexual abuse.

Either familiar, peer, or indeed institutionalised, abuses that at the times of their lives when learning structured behaviour patens from all of the above are the most indentured into the adolescent mind.

Where the abuser is either, an adult who is meant to be a carer, or foster parents or an employee of the state, who is also their abuser, young people learn quite quickly who not to trust.

When this happens the young person attempts to internalise their feeling as they search for answers to many confusing question, only to find them rebounding from a place where no knowledge exists as this experience is competing with everything they are taught at school and by those around them in the wider society.

As these feeling rebound, and are on their outward thrust, young people display a bad attitude to school, this I believe is because they consider the teachers tell lies to them telling them the world is a lovely fluffy place and that mums & dads are all wonderful, with the society around them being made up of fine upstanding people only to find out the hard way that the teachers are talking uneducated and relative to themselves only, tripe.

The days of the 60’s were very austere for what society would term the working class, however the actual fact that just like now you had a “Not” working class, termed the underbelly today. Families where neither parents are working, ill educated at a time when things where even fluffier and lovely than today for those with the advantage of having rose tinted glasses.

They were basic human beings with all the obvious problems that inevitably came with that situation. Father is an alcoholic trying to drown his lifetime of abuse, taking out his drunken rage on the mother and children. The mother of course has six children, once again due to the lack of education and in many cases errant religious dictums.

This situation served only to swell the populations of the church orphanages and local council run children’s homes at a time when there was no training or observational structure or monitoring of children, and which is infinitely worse, the same lack of principle management of the staff who in far to many cases turned out to be paedophiles, (if I hear anyone say) “well paedophilia is a relatively new phenomena.”

I’ll burst a blood vassal. Just look at the word! Big clue… It’s Greek!!!

So we have a situation where these young people who have already become disillusioned by school, parents, and now the care system has its shot at it and fails miserably leaving a post pubescent heap of very angry flesh and bone neither equipped or ready to take on the massive task of societal integration. Ha! You have got to be joking?

What person in their right mind could ever think that you will get a positive transition into society given the background and the depths of depravity they have only just experienced at the hands of the neglect of that society?

Where can there be any sense of responsibility found within these young people who have, in many cases found that those who were trusted to be responsible were actually some of the most reprehensible society could imagine?

After leaving care those who could leave, or have grown too old to be able to be managed by adult manipulation and can finally stand up and fight for themselves against their abusers. Feeling angry, rebellious, and anti social in the extreme, they hit the streets running destined to looking back over their shoulders into adulthood.

As in the majority of cases running foul of the law which has already got it mark on them as a recidivist delinquent, A hoodie, a chav, a mod, rocker and many other ways adults find to explain the troubled times these young people seem to be bringing to society with out a single idea or understanding that it is society itself, that are directly responsible by act or omission, for the bad behaviour in the youths of that day and this day too.

We then see these young people placed into youth custody and again subjected to a regime of pain, suffering and brutality in a detention centre, having crimes perpetrated on them daily, which would have any man on the street arrested and imprisoned going by this societies principles, crimes by prison officers that would not look out of place in documents written about Treblinka, or Auschwitz.

Police in Consett have been contacted by our victim’s months ago to have these prison officers and governors management re-questioned, those who are still alive today and indeed some are still working in youth custody and some are a leading light in the restorative justice movement. We are still waiting for an answer from Consett police.

Lord Justice Dyson was wrong!!!

2007-03-20T04:41:00.001Z

Justice4survivors.org
Thursday, 22 March 2007
Who can victims trust?

We have considered the letter Peter Garsden sent to Vera Baird QC MP and I appreciate that she can not comment on individual cases, however it is my belief that these cases are generally not individual in their outcome although are individual in the fact that it is one of the ways the law specifically isolates victims of institutional abuses.

We also believe that one of our victims was not treat fairly by the Lords who sat at the high court in the Strand in the recent case of the Catholic Care & the Home Office v Young [2006] EWCA CIV.1534.

In reading Adams (FC) V. Bracknell Forest Borough Council (Appellants).

First and foremost one can hardly call a case of misdiagnosed dyslexia an equitable analysis to bring into cases such as that ofPJ Mc and JB and Young, other victims from the Young case, who have only now served Court proceeding against the defendants, in fact the many cases that still have to be heard and all those who this limitations law has silenced.

Not to mention the fact that I myself have written many emails to Vera Baird QC MP and I was warned not to write to her again, which needless to say left me feeling intimidated and further isolated.

Dyslexia or "special learning difficulty" as it referred to is a congenital condition, and presumed to be neurological, related to brain functions, distinctive examinable aspects are that mental ability and long term functionality of the brain are impaired along with persistent problems with reading, writing and spelling. It is not curable however many victims of this mental problem have found ways to cope.

Deliberate Sexual, Physical and mental abuse and the subsequent abuse the victims are still going through today, can not be judged under the same light as that of a congenital medical irregularity of a persons brain function.

Adams then talks us through the age of majority and the date he started his action, as well as the evidence and notes that were destroyed making the council unable to defend themselves due to lack of substantiating evidence

One of the main reasons why actions like that of Adams seems to be a new development is the fact that pre the 80’s people who were in care and the institutional system upon leaving ended up on the streets, as heroin addicts, or back in prison, and alas dead because their abused went unaddressed as well as the many who didn’t take those institutions to court because they could neither afford to do so and were not as intellectually equipped as people in the same situations today, it being still a time when children were seen and not heard.

As a consequence of these claims that stated to come forward and by the time they generally get to an appeal stage, in many cases years down the line from the initial complaints being made.

The laws on limitation have a very convenient date attached to them almost as if they knew what to expect in the near future, and that section 14 of the act look like a deliberate move to prevent cases like that of PJ Mc and JB and Young, JL CL RP RH MP and PGT.

The Court in Catholic Care & the Home Office v Young [2006] EWCA CIV.1534.

Found that the present Limitation Act was unsatisfactory in that the Judges were obliged to apply an objective test of when they thought “a reasonable man in the circumstances of the claimant would reasonably turn his mind to litigation”.

They concluded that the more serious an injury is, the greater the compulsion for the victim to start legal proceedings. The Court found that they were bound by not only the Limitation Act, but were also bound by the rulings of, Adams V. Bracknell Forest Borough Council.

I would have thought and I know in my case this works in the opposite of what the Lords think in as much as the more serious a case of sexual abuse is the less the victim wants to discuss the level of depravity they were forced to undergo. And the deeper the shame they feel along with the fact that their abuser is affirmed as part of the system they must complain to, rather like a prisoner being asked if everything is alright by a member of the board visitors at he is stood in his cell seeing the three officer behind the visitor scowling back at him. Not conducive to wanting to say anything except what you wont get beaten up for.

We believe this is also artificial as one can’t make a judgement that is equitable and fair where the situation exists that the Lords, Defendants and the Plaintiffs lawyers all agree that the law to be used in the case is unsatisfactory.

This must lead to an imbalance in the application of the law even as they are written as I go on and on and on to, attempt in my best possible way given my limited legal knowledge and educational circumstances.

We considered the objective arguments of the three Lords who sat the High Courts in London 14th November 2006, The fact that they have to use their heads and not their hearts to decide the merits of a case in the legal sense, is neither hear not there in as much as even if you looked at this case objectively, only using your mind one could still only come to the decision that laws were broken, that home office staff were and are negligent.

We noticed that the objective view of a case is based upon the laws and statutes of the irrational, because they do not take into account the actual evidence in a case and merely deal with the objective surface of the actual statute itself.

We also realised that when our argument was given a limited hearing in court it was viewed as subjective even when those who were doing the arguing both knew that the evidence was as clear as a bell and the victims had proved they were telling the truth, the victims had already secured a guilty plea of their abuser who was given 10 years in prison.

They had heard evidence that many other people not only knew what was going on and the young boys were being sexually molested and raped and still they did nothing to help the victims, the opposite was the case. Servants of the crown actually destroyed copious amounts of evidence that clearly showed what was going on.

This evidence was not shown in the court as the whole point of the appeal was to deal with a thing called the statutes of limitation section 33 and once again we were not allowed to have any evidence presented to the court, so once again the objective perception was adhered too.

Section 33 discretion.

In seeking to bring justice in an application under section 33 a judge must make a decision of which the consequential effect is either to deprive a defendant of a statute-bar defence or to deny a claimant's right of action against the civil wrongdoer who caused his personal injuries.

In choosing between these outcomes the court must be guided by what appears to it to be equitable, and fair to both sides as far as can be possible, and it must have regard to all the circumstances of the case and in particular the evidence in full of the basis for bringing the case to court .

The problem that underlies the true nature of statute law is now undermining the very reason for the statute being there. Any court who fails to bring justice for victims of deliberate sexual abuse by a civil service upon a child, without first taking into account the evidence is also part of the perceived conspiracy by the victims who after all this case would not be in a court had they not been victimised.

The statute law in relation to section 33 gives off the appearance that it treats the plaintiff and the defendant as individually liable to suffer any prejudice on the outcome of a case, and with no legal acknowledgment that it is recurrently in the interests of big insurance companies, who will be liable to suffer prejudice.

The plaintiff has not in any legal sense a representative insurer that can be made to suffer the prejudice for a lost case using the section of the law under the microscope generally having only self to fall back on his lawyer does not insure against the lost case and no justice in the fairest sense is achieved for the victim and not as the law sees it as the plaintiff.

The law does look at the insurance aspects of the case and given that the plaintiff or in our case victims do not generally have an insurer then they are already suffering prejudice before the case has been heard.

The lords decided that an error of law was made bye Judge Cockroft and claim that fact that one of the victims attempted to seek out his social services records of his time in the care system,

Lord Justice Dyson:

As was observed by the Law Commission (Limitation of Actions, Law Com No 270), claims by victims of child sexual abuse pose particular problems for any limitations regime. The acts giving rise to the cause of action will, by their nature, occur when the claimant is a child. The claimant may suffer immediate physical injury as well as prolonged psychiatric problems. These problems may only become manifest, or at least be recognised as such by the victim, many years after the abuse. This creates difficulties similar to those created by latent disease.

It is not a legal argument to use similes, or metaphors when deciding the merits of a case when the merits of the case can stand up for themselves, if given an opportunity to do so, which in the setting of the high court one would expect that the evidence that would prove and justify the reasons why judge Cockroft came to the decision that he did, would at the very least be heard.

In this case the full evidence was not heard as the statute laws acted to prevent the case in its entirety from ever seeing a court, the reasons for this, is the defendants knew what the plaintiffs were saying was indeed the truth and the defendants were using the statute of limitations illegally, where there is testimony that clearly shows the defendants or agents of, hid and destroyed evidence that the abuses were happening, and could substantiate any possible allegations that could have been made, making the limitations inactive from the period of the actual offences as a deliberate breach of duty would not come under section 33 of the statute laws and section 32 would stop the time limitation until the victims where in possession of the full facts that could only have been at the trial of Neville Husband in 2003.

13. There came a time when police started making enquiries into the conduct of Littlewood and Husband. “It is not clear how the police became involved.”

When dealing with the law and the facts of a case. One should look at all the facts. It is not good enough to remain comfortable with any less than the full facts of a case nor is it proper for Judge Dyson to be able to make a judgement without first reading the evidence in full or to make rash statements like the one above, when within the evidence that the current limitations is being used to suppress, the answers that would bring clarity to just how the police became involved with the enquiries into Husband does indeed exist they just chose to ignore it or were not as diligent as one would expect high court judges to be.

The only time the victim could have realised that there was a chance that they would be believed is when the police sought them out after making enquiries about the abuser. So it’s not as if the victims were rushing forward to say anything to anyone in December 2000 and it wasn't until 2001 that questions were first asked by the police, or so Judge Dyson believes due to not seeing the evidence he was sitting in judgement of.

The trial of Neville Husband is the time that the statutes should have started as this was the first time complaints were listened to by a body that is in a position to actually do something about it.

Only as a result of the two trials of Neville Husband where it was revealed that other officers suspected Husband was sexually abusing boys and found Dildo’s Vaseline and homosexual pornography being delivered to the Kitchen officer, officers had destroyed evidence on a number of occasion as well as conspiring to destroy evidence where it was found jointly as they were finding it giving no chance for any of the victims to prove a thing.

It must be remembered that this is not about what Husband did or didn’t do, but what the prison service allowed him to do which could only have been known by the victims after Husbands trials.

Lord Dyson:?

(a) That the injury in question was significant; and

(b) That the injury was attributable in whole or in part to the act or omission which is alleged to constitute negligence, nuisance or breach of duty; and

(c) The identity of the defendant;

And knowledge that any acts or omissions did or did not, as a matter of law, involve negligence, nuisance or breach of duty is irrelevant.

(2) For the purposes of this section an injury is significant if the person whose date of knowledge is in question would reasonably have considered it sufficiently serious to justify his instituting proceedings for damages against a defendant who did not dispute liability and was able to satisfy a judgment.

(3) For the purposes of this section a person's knowledge includes knowledge which he might reasonably have been expected to acquire-

(a) From facts observable or ascertainable by him; or

(b) From facts ascertainable by him with the help of medical or other appropriate expert advice which it is reasonable for him to seek;

but a person shall not be fixed under this subsection with knowledge of a fact ascertainable only with the help of expert advice so long as he has taken all reasonable steps to obtain (and, where appropriate, to act on) that advice".

This is the main points of the case really as all of the above when its considered that the victim did not have any knowledge of the facts leaned at the Husband case until the Husband case in 2003 fall flat on their face.

(a) That the injury in question was significant; this could not be known or quantified by the victims until he was seen by a competent psychologist post the Husband trial.

(b) That the injury was attributable in whole or in part to the act or omission which is alleged to constitute negligence, nuisance or breach of duty; the actions of alleged negligence, breach of duty was not learned until the Husband trial.

(c) The identity of the defendant; the identity of the defendants would be also not known until the defendant gave their testimony at the Husband trial.

And knowledge that any acts or omissions did or did not, as a matter of law, involve negligence, nuisance or breach of duty is irrelevant. The victims could not have known that any acts or omissions did or did not, as a matter of law, involve negligence; nuisance or breach of duty until 2003 is most relevant once again when this knowledge was not available to the victims at the time.

(2) For the purposes of this section an injury is significant if the person whose date of knowledge is in question would reasonably have considered it sufficiently serious to justify his instituting proceedings for damages against a defendant who did not dispute liability and was able to satisfy a judgment.

Yet again the simple facts stand for themselves.” When a person who was subjected to “Some of the most serious cases of sexual abuse Dr Elie Godsi Consultant Clinical Psychologist has heard of in 17 years of working with both offenders and victims of sexual abuse.”

Victims of this type of abuse generally take many years to come forward and this case takes on a gravity of its own when it is an institutional who is involved in the neglect of its care to children.

No sane person could call a victim or survivor of sexual abuse that involved some of the most soul destroying depravity and physical torture "A reasonable man" and this test applied by the Lords is beyond the ridiculous.

The significance of any injuries caused by Husband may well have been sub- consciously known by the victim deep within their fractured minds, however only after they had seen a qualified psychologist.

The actions at appeal were not against Husband but those who allowed Husband to do what he did. Which only came to light at Husbands trial, and the plaintiff can hardly be held responsible for not taking actions until they knew they could take actions.

(3) For the purposes of this section a person's knowledge includes knowledge which he might reasonably have been expected to acquire-

One can only acquire the relevant knowledge from the facts that arise from an action where a person who has stood trial and been found or pleaded guilty and duly sentenced to a term of imprisonment has taken place, whereupon testimony was given, and recorded, that states that others involved in the alleged negligence, nuisance, or breach of duty did act in a way that could only be construed as that of negligence, nuisance, or breach of duty.

This knowledge could not have been acquired by the victim, reasonably or otherwise until they were in a position to both mentally and physically be able to deal with the knowledge that they may have came into contact with due to any mental incapacity possession of that knowledge itself placed them under, which once again could only have been at the trial of Neville Husband.

(a) From facts observable or ascertainable by him; or

the facts available or ascertainable by the victim as before were only available or ascertainable after reading the documentation that arose from the trial of Neville Husband.

(b) From facts ascertainable by him with the help of medical or other appropriate expert advice which it is reasonable for him to seek;

the facts ascertainable by the victim of his actual abuse were known by the victim for a very long time. But placed in a secure setting in his mind in order to be able to function at a level where he could start to rebuild his life only to be shattered once again when he bumped into his abuser who was I believe dressed in his priests apparel which merely reinforced the victims mistrust of those who were meant to help, sending him into a deeper internalisation of his feelings and confirming his understanding that those who abused him were indeed all powerful still today.

Expert advice was sought by the victim only as a direct result of him taking the action which has landed him in an appeal court. This action is not against his abuser as the abuser has already been at court found guilty then been back to court for a second time and pleaded guilty to numerous other offences against inmates in the same institution.

This case is about the other crown officers, Governors and senior management of that institution and the home office, prison services negligence; nuisance or breach of duty in allowing these abuses to go unchecked for decades when they did have both constructive and actual knowledge of the facts that one of their prison officers should not have been of young boys and that he was a risk to them.

Men who you would expect could be called “Reasonable men” knew that Husband was a risk to young boys as early as 1967 when he was arrested for the importation of illegal pornography of men and boys taking part in sexual activities, it was later discovered by police that it was child pornography.

So Lord Dyson has himself made errors of judgement as well as in law.

Today it is customary, when one finds oneself compelled to acknowledge the logical impossibility of there being any other possible view for those who would purport themselves to be the “Law Lords” as it does at times actually seem as though they do not understand the laws themselves or make light of a situation where judge Cockroft said “These are serious crimes involving crown officers.”

(Notice the words chosen by this judge) “Serious crimes, crown officers.”

Not the crimes of one officer i.e. Neville Husband but crown officers meaning more than one and indeed we believe symptomatic of the whole system.

For more information, please visit our website at http://justice4survivors.org