Category: Ace News Room

Editors Notes:

I would remind you that this blog is produced free for the public good and you are welcome to republish or re-use this article or any other material freely anywhere without requesting further permission.

News & Views welcome always published as long as NO bad language or is not related to subject matter.

To keep online information secure, experts recommend keeping your social media accounts private, changing your passwords often, and never answering unsolicited emails or phone calls asking for your personal information. Need help and guidance visit https://acepchelp.wordpress.com and leave a comment

https://youtu.be/Bt7CVkYsnwE

Ace News Room

Niven Sinclair – Three times convicted Child Rapist worked for the BBC for 30 years

Post author By @ace101
Post date July 18, 2016
No Comments on Niven Sinclair – Three times convicted Child Rapist worked for the BBC for 30 years

There is no doubt that Niven James Sinclair was a very successful businessman. He built a specialist minicab business, a high end chaffeur firm for TV, from a single car, transporting guests for Panorama in 1977 to 150 cars in 2000 [11]. He ended up doing all the work for the BBC at Lime Grove.

The only trouble was he was a three times convicted child abuser, and multiple child rapist.

There are 3 court appeals with information about Niven James Sinclair and his child sexual abuse crimes. [17] [18] [19]

He sexually abused and raped several boys 12 -15 years old. His method of grooming was to offer boys money for doing odd jobs. He would meet some boys on Stanmore Common [18] near Harrow, which could have been a gay cruising ground [10].

He would also procure boys through other boys he knew. He would offer boys food and drink [17], then assault them. He was also known to threaten boys with an illegally held gun [19]. He had a violence conviction in Africa, though not sexually related [17]

He has traded under and used several different company names at different times, BB Communications Ltd 19/06/1984, B B Communications Ltd 06/12/1988, Lime Grove Cars Ltd 27/07/1988, B.B. Enterprises (Vehicles) 30/08/1990 [40], Niven Ltd 1717194 dissolved 2009 [34], Niven and Co, Helevision Ltd, Trident Heritage t/a Trident Niven [36]

Without more research it is uncertain whether Sinclair is still actually working for the BBC or one of these companies, or whether he has retired. However what is absolutely certain is that for nearly 30 years, from 1977 to 2005, a multiple child rapist was working for the BBC [1], and the BBC either still does not know or has kept this fact hidden.

In the seventies and eighties MI5 were vetting people at the BBC [20], although they say they have now stopped😉 .

Why did MI5 not find out that Niven Sinclair was a child abuser from basic checks?
Were MI5 hopelessly incompetent or did they know that he was a child rapist?
Did the “Security Service” MI5 know of his child abuse and realise this was another man that could be controlled by blackmail, to do as the controllers of MI5, whoever they are, wished?

It also a begs a host of questions about the BBC

Why did the BBC’s procedures not pick up that Niven Sinclair was a three convicted abuser?
Did the BBC know Sinclair was an abuser but not care?
Did Niven Sinclairs companies ever chauffeur children?
What safeguarding procedures did the BBC have in place for children at the time who used an approved BBC chauffeur company?
What safeguarding procedures are in place now?
Which companies are the approved chauffeur companies now and can the BBC guarantee that there are none who are run by convicted child rapists?
Were any children abused whilst being transported by a Sinclair company working for the BBC?
Given all the attention on the BBC and child abuse, and with reviews about Jimmy Savile, Stuart Hall, and re-examination of child protection procedures why has the fact Niven Sinclair, who worked for the BBC for over 30 years, not been identified as a convicted child abuser?
Does the BBC still have any business dealings with Niven Sinclair or his companies or companies or parts thereof that used to owned by him?
Which company did Dave Smith, Jimmy Saviles chauffeur work for? Did he work for Sinclairs company, or were there two chauffeur companies used by the BBC that had child abusers? Jimmy Savile chauffeur Dave Smith was ‘prolific paedophile’ with 22 convictions Telegraph [25]

The Janet Smith Review [29] [pdf download] includes information and her thoughts [29b][p461-p471 8.22] about the story of another chauffeur of 13 years who worked via a private hire company for the BBC.

This reveals that the chauffeurs did drive unaccompanied children, this particular child the driver having been suspected of being abused by Savile. The chauffeur felt pressure to hide any allegations for fear of the sack.

Who did he work for? Was he working for Niven Sinclair and was the sack a possibility as his own boss was a child abuser? This part is speculative but the BBC needs to come clean.

The story was originally from The Daily Mail[30] after the BBC had failed to publish an expose of Jimmy Savile on Newsnight. An expose eventually came a couple of days after the Mail article, from ITV in a programme called Exposure The Other Side of Jimmy Savile [32] and was perhaps the watershed moment for child sexual abuse in the UK.
Tony Hall, Director General at the BBC, made a statement in Feb 2016 after the Janet Smith Review [31] The following were some of the things he said that they were doing

We now have a new child protection policy, shared across the industry, and a detailed procedure for complaints.

We have child protection advisers, working together across the organisation.

We have also put in place an improved whistle-blowing policy, supported by an independent investigations unit.

And we’ve brought in a wide-ranging set of measures to encourage people to raise concerns about bullying and harassment – with a confidential hotline, independent experts assigned to cases and a service to allow mediation to take place wherever possible.

We’ve also wanted to make sure that these changes were achieving what we wanted them to do. So, in March 2014, we asked some external and independent experts – the GoodCorporation – to audit our policies, to make sure they were fit for purpose and to recommend improvements.

They found that the BBC has strong child protection policies in place and that our whistle-blowing policy ranks well compared to other organisations. But they also made 53 recommendations for improvement. Of those, 51 are now complete, one is underway and in one case we have agreed to take forward what needs to be done in a different way.

Dame Janet recommends, review all our policies and procedures in light of her report. I have asked Anne Bulford, the BBC’s Managing Director of Finance and Operations to lead this work, reporting to me. That work will identify any areas where we need to do more. Anne’s work will help us make sure that is the case. And we will publish our progress in full, in July, alongside our Annual Report.

On child protection, we will work with the NSPCC to get their advice on how to help us build on what we are currently doing.

And we will, as Dame Janet asks, commission another independent audit to assess our progress, to test our systems and to see how our policies are operating in practice. This work will report in the autumn and – whatever recommendations are made – we will carry them out.

I want the BBC to do more as a programme-maker

Dame Janet says we should look carefully at three areas – a lack of cohesion in the BBC, the hierarchical nature of the management structure, and our attitudes toward ‘the talent’. These are all crucial issues – ones we are thinking about already and which we will push forward on in the coming months.

..where everyone feels able to speak truth to power.

It was said by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Maria Miller in 2012 “It is now crucial that we understand what went wrong and how it can be put right.” Hansard [28]

Has that happened? We have had reviews, more reviews, audits, statements, changes, promised changes, but…. if we have not been told that a convicted child abuser was ferrying people round for the BBC for 30 years, then clearly we still cannot trust what the BBC has done to put things right.

If Niven Sinclair has not been identified as a convicted serial child rapist, or has been identified but that fact hidden from the public, the BBC has STILL not learnt the lessons. We still do not understand what went wrong in the BBC.

Anne Bulfords report having reviewed all BBC policies and procedures is due very soon any time now, in July
Independent Report testing systems and procedures is due to report in the autumn
NSPCC have/are advising BBC on child protection – What have they advised?
BBC to take lead on child abuse as aprogramme maker – what has happened?
Has the Good Corporation report audit been made public?
Child Protection Guidelines changed in 2002, as recorded in Hansard [28]. Child protection changes also in c. 2016 [31] They is available here [27] – Quite apart from the new guidelines, it would be helpful to show how they had changed and evolved over time.
Can people really speak Truth to Power? Perhaps the BBC would convince people if Meirion Jones was to be commissioned to make a programme on child sexual abuse, instead of sacking a whistleblower on the very programme that was to expose Savile, that senior management withdrew.

There are a plethora of stories about Niven Sinclair. How many are true, how many are exaggerations and how many are false is a matter of conjecture without further research. One member of the Sinclair family is reported to blame Niven for much of the myth [24]

Clan Sinclair Trust is a Limited Company with Charitable Status, Company number SC194021, [45] It was set up in 1998 by Niven Sinclair, Ian Sinclair, Euan Sinclair, The Earl of Caithness and The Viscount Thurso (aka John Thurso MP) [37] Niven was only a Director for only a short time 4 March – 18 July 1999 though he was still involved for several years afterwards. The library was named after him [45] . The Trust own Castle Sinclair [43] whose current patron, since 2010, is Prince Charles [42], who replaced the Queen Mother [44]. This story appears to be true.
Niven claimed to be a Major in the Seaforth Highlanders, and with the Kings African Rifles in Ethiopea and Burma in World War 2? [6] He was in the Seaforth in 1945 as a 2nd Lieutenant as an emergency commission [38] He was still in the Seaforth in 1951 and another emergency commission as a Hon Lieutenant. [39] So far there is no evidence that he became a Major, nor yet that he was in Kings African Rifles.
Did Sinclair spend a “large part of his post World War 2 life establishing a magnificent cashew plantation in Tanzania which employed 500 persons, until he was evicted at independence” [7]. Was Sinclair really farming in Tanganika for 30 years? [6]. He was still in the Seaforth Highlanders in 1951 [39] and he was in England in 1957, that only leaves a few years at most to be a farmer. During his time in Tanganika he was sentenced for actual bodily abuse [17] If the farming story is true at all, the length of time spent is vastly exaggerated.
Was he a member of the Bayeye, the secret snake society of the Basakuma tribe who lived near Lake Victoria? Did he have a snake named after him, the bitus gabonica sinclairi (A Gaboon Viper), of which samples were sent to the UK by the famous Big Game Hunter and herpetologist, Constantine Ionides [7]
Has he really found a Templars connection to his family which landed in America 100 years before Columbus? [3] [48]
Is he really a descendant of Jesus? [4]
Is he even really chair of the Friends of Rosslyn? [6]
Is there even a family tree to link Niven Sinclair to the Templars and Rossyln?
Is he a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries (Scotland) [6]
Does Niven Sinclair hold any offices now and if so, do the people responsible and around him know he is a serial child rapist?

What is the truth about this serial child rapist that worked for the BBC? Is he a psychopathic fantasist?

How much money does Niven Sinclair have? Perhaps it should go to some of his victims to help them heal.

Timeline of Niven James Sinclair

[There is also more information in the links below]

1924 Apr 3 Niven Sinclair born [8] [9] probable twin of John George Sinclair [8]

c. 1940 -1915 Sinclair claims he was a Major in the Seaforth Highlanders and Kings African Rifles in Ethiopea and Burma in World War 2 [6]

1945 The Gazette [38] – Niven is granted an “Emerg. Commn” from the ranks to 2nd Lieutenant

1951 The Gazette [39] – Sinclair was promoted to a Lieutenant

c.1946 -1976? Sinclair claims to have farmed in Tanganika for 30 years [6]

Whilst working in Tanganika he received sentences for actual bodily harm, but with no sexual element [17]

1957 Niven Sinclair came to London, held commercial posts with salaries in excess of £2,000 per annum, and was described during the later 1966 proceedings as a company director [17]

1961 Jun Sinclair Trial 1. He was sentenced to six months imprisonment for indecent assault upon two boys [17]

1963,1964,1965 Electoral registers showing Niven Sinclair is in England [9]

1966 Mar 10 Sinclair Trial 2 He was convicted of buggery on one boy and indecent assaults on the same boy and another, both 12 years old. Later sentenced to five years imprisonment [17]

1967 Oct 16 Niven James Sinclair Appeal 1 Court of Appeal Turned down [17]

1970 Offences of Sinclair and child sexual abuse [18]

1970 Sept 3 Police interviewed and arrested Sinclair [19]

1971 May 14 Sinclair Trial 3 After trial of 12 working days, Sinclair was sentenced to ten years imprisonment for buggery and indecent assault against four thirteen and fourteen year old boys. He had previously pleaded guilty on April 22nd to 3 offences of regarding possessing a Beretta automatic pistol without a firearm certificate [18]

1973 Feb 6 Niven James Sinclair Appeal 2 Court of Appeal Leave to Appeal Granted [18]

1973 Jul 23 Niven James Sinclair Appeal 3 Court of Appeal, Appeal against sentence dismissed [19]

c.1976 Released from Prison

1977 Sinclair began with a single car on a three day job driving guests to the BBC Lime Grove studios for Panorama. Before long his company Niven Limited was running all Lime Grove’s transport [2] [11]

1981 Sinclair claims to have transported Ted Heath after President Sadat was assassinated [2]

1986 approx -2004 Niven James Sinclair of 35 Lime Grove, London, W12 8EE [46]

1991 Sinclairs Hellevision Ltd Company dissolved [21]

1992 Sinclair donated £200,000 to the Orcadian Trust [48] He also claims Scotland visited America before Columbus

1999 Mar One of the Joint Founders of the Clan Sinclair Trust [37]

2000 Jul History of the Sinclairs by Marc Anderson [7] This states that Niven Sinclair has spent a large part of his post World War 2 life establishing a magnificent cashew plantation in Tanzania which employed 500 persons, until he was evicted at independence. It carries on “He was also a member of the Bayeye, the secret snake society of the Basakuma tribe who lived near Lake Victoria. It was from them he learned how to handle snakes with relative impunity and he had a snake named after him, the bitus gabonica sinclairi (A Gaboon Viper), which samples were sent to the UK by the famous Big Game Hunter and herptologist, Constantine Ionides”

2000 Aug 10 Guardian [11] Disgrace and favours Sinclair sidelined by Dyke to save money, but has to be brought back due to incompetence of cheaper companies. [11]

2001 Sept 3 Niven called a “progressive Islamic savant” [13] Also a reference to Niven Corporation

2002- 16 Sinclair living in South East England [23]

2004 Niven James Sinclair of Latheron House, Latheron KW5 6DL only in 2004

2005 May 13 Scotsman [3] Ship of Dreams Niven Sinclair claims that a Scottish Knight Templar landed in North America 100 years before Columbus

2005 Sept 20 BBC Ariel [2] via Clan Sinclair Still full of drive after all these years Niven Ltd moving from Lime Grove to White City.

2005 Sept 25 BBC [1] A driving force behind BBC shows

2006 Oct 6 Daily Mail [12] ‘Unclean’ guide dog banned by Muslim cab driver

2009 Sinclair’s company- Niven Ltd Dissolved in 2009 [34] (trading from 1983) Revolution House, Cumberland Park NW10

2009 Sept 14 [6] Zoom Info Mr. Niven Sinclair Claims to be Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries (Scotland)

2012 Oct 3 ITV [32] Exposure The Other Side of Jimmy Savile

2012 Dec Transdev plc website Trident Niven [26] Acquired by Transdev plc, Trident Niven is a London-based private hire company which uses chauffeured executive and ‘green’ saloon cars for corporate account work. They have a fleet of 100 cars, including a large proportion of hybrid vehicles which complements the greentomatocars philosophy.

Uncertain date, clip of National Geographic [4] uploaded onto You Tube 2016 Jan 27 Niven Sinclair claiming that he is a descendant of Jesus.

2016 Jul 9 Freedom of Information request [47] Niven Sinclair, Convicted Child Rapist working for the BBC

The vast majority of this article was researched by someone who wishes no credit. I merely put most of the information together in a blog.

Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. These links are generally UK based.

The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers.

National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups.

Other useful sites are One in Four [C]

and Havoca [D].

Useful post on Triggers [E] from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog.

Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G] and Meditation [H] may be useful.

Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma [J]

Survivors UK for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men [K]

Voicing CSA group [L] helps arrange survivors meetings in your area

Links

[1] 2005 Sept 25 BBC A driving force behind BBC shows http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_4260000/newsid_4267000/4267060.stm

[2] 2005 Sept 20 BBC Ariel via Clan Sinclair Still full of drive after all these years http://www.clansinclairsc.org/Niven%20Sinclair%20Article.htm

[3] 2005 May 13 Scotsman Ship of Dreams http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/the-ship-of-dreams-1-465432

[4] date? National Geographic via You Tube uploaded 2016 Jan 27 Niven Sinclair – A descendant of Jesus

[5] 1999 approx. History of Clan Sinclair http://sinclair.quarterman.org/history/

[6] 2009 Sept 14 Zoom Info Mr. Niven Sinclair http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Niven-Sinclair/45600099

[7] 2000 Jul Kingcrest.com History of the Sinclairs http://kingcrest.com/sinclair/Sinclair_History.html-ssi

[8] Find A grave Niven James Sinclair http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=133594423&ref=acom

[9] From Ancestry.com

[10] REPORT ON THE WEST LONDON GAY MEN’S PROJECT STANMORE COMMON PSE NEEDS ASSESSMENT pdf download 2010 http://www.gaymensproject.org.uk/resources/profs-reports/reports.html?download=25:stanmore-common-pse-2010

[11] 2000 Aug 10 Guardian Disgrace and favours .theguardian.com/theguardian/2000/aug/10/features11.g2

[12] 2006 Oct 6 Daily Mail ‘Unclean’ guide dog banned by Muslim cab driver http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-408912/Unclean-guide-dog-banned-Muslim-cab-driver.html

Niven’s and Co cab firm, now Trident Niven after being acquired in 2012

[13] 2001 Sept 3 Michael Bradley Info Esau’s Empire, Foundation: the psychobiology of religion http://michaelbradley.info/esau/esau-chapter2.htm Reference to Niven Corporation here, also called progressive Islamic savant

[14] British History website Great Stanmore http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/middx/vol5/pp88-96

[15] 2016 Nov 6 Get West London Former Stanmore man and ‘pillar of the Jewish community’ jailed for instructing child abuse over Skype http://www.getwestlondon.co.uk/news/west-london-news/former-stanmore-man-pillar-jewish-8064710

[16] Wikipedia Stanmore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanmore

[17] 2016 July 7 Cathy Fox Blog Court Appeal 1 Niven James Sinclair Appeal 1 16 Oct 1967 Court of Appeal

As to the application for leave to appeal against sentence, the appellant, now 43, is a single man. He worked in Tanganyika and he received 3 sentences there for assault occasioning actual bodily harm, but there is no suggestion of any sexual element at all. He came to London in 1957, and has held posts with commercial concerns at salaries exceeding £2,000 per annum. In June of 1961 at the London Sessions for indecent assault upon two boys of 12 and 13 he was sentenced to concurrent terms of six months’ imprisonment.

[18] 2016 Jul 7 Cathy Fox Blog Appeal 2 Niven James Sinclair 6 Feb 1973 Court of Appeal the Applicant, aged forty-six at the time, single, and who lived alone in a maisonette in Stanmore. … boys, some of whom he met on Stanmore Common. … offences c.1970

[19] 2016 Cathy Fox Blog Appeal 3 Niven James Sinclair 24 Jul 1973 Court of Appeal Police interviewed and arrested the Appellant on the 3rd September, 1970

[20] 2006 Jul 2 Revealed: how the BBC used MI5 to vet thousands of staff http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1522875/Revealed-how-the-BBC-used-MI5-to-vet-thousands-of-staff.html

[21] 192.com Niven Sinclair http://www.192.com/atoz/people/sinclair/niven/

[23] Company check https://companycheck.co.uk/director/903216741/MR-NIVEN-J-SINCLAIR/summary

[24] World News Research http://world-news-research.com/grail.html Niven Sincalir behind much of myth

[25] 2013 Oct 29 Telegraph Jimmy Savile chauffeur Dave Smith was ‘prolific paedophile’ with 22 convictions http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/jimmy-savile/10410614/Jimmy-Savile-chauffeur-Dave-Smith-was-prolific-paedophile-with-22-convictions.html

[26] Transdev plc http://www.transdevplc.co.uk/our-companies.jsp?companyID=13 Trident Niven Acquired by Transdev plc in December 2012, Trident Niven is a London-based private hire company which uses chauffeured executive and ‘green’ saloon cars for corporate account work. They have a fleet of 100 cars, including a large proportion of hybrid vehicles which complements the greentomatocars philosophy.

[27] BBC Child Protection Policy http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/howwework/policiesandguidelines/child_protection.html

[28] 2012 Oct 15 Hansard Sir Jimmy Savile (BBC Inquiry) Column 27 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm121015/debtext/121015-0001.htm#1210154000708

As the House will be aware, the BBC has launched three separate investigations. The first will look into the allegations with regard to the item on Savile which was inappropriately pulled from “Newsnight”. The second review, to be undertaken when the police advise it is appropriate to do so, will focus on Jimmy Savile himself. Thirdly, although the BBC’s child protection policy was overhauled in 2002, the review will also focus on whether its policy is fit for purpose and what lessons can be learned. This review will be assisted by an independent expert. An additional piece of work will look at the very troubling allegations of sexual harassment at the BBC that have come to light in recent weeks. The director-general will give further details later in the week. These are undoubtedly very serious matters, which have wide-ranging implications for a number of public institutions—not just the BBC. It is now crucial that we understand what went wrong and how it can be put right.

[29] BBC Janet Smith Review http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/dame_janet_smith

[29a] Janet Smith Review [of Jimmy Savile BBC] pdf Download http://downloads.bbci.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/our_work/dame_janet_smith_review/savile/jimmy_savile_investigation.pdf

[29b] Janet Smith Review pdf download p461 – 471 8.22 The Daily Mail – 1 October 2012 – Source Anonymous ‘A1’Chauffeur of 13 years worked for BBC via a private hire company

[30] 2012 Oct 1 The Daily Mail We were victims of Jimmy Savile http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2211463/Jimmy-Savile-As-pressure-grows-BBC-cover-women-come-forward-ordeals.html

[31] 2016 Feb 26 BBC Tony Hall response to the Report of the Dame Janet Smith Review http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/statements/tony-hall-dame-janet-smith

part edited..

Let me now turn to action – to what we have been doing and what we are going to do.

Dame Janet makes one overarching recommendation: for the BBC to review and independently audit all the policies we have in place that help people raise concerns and complaints. We will do that.

But let me also be clear: since I became Director-General, we haven’t been standing still – we have made this a priority – and there is much we have done already:

We now have a new child protection policy, shared across the industry, and a detailed procedure for complaints.

We have child protection advisers, working together across the organisation.

We have also put in place an improved whistle-blowing policy, supported by an independent investigations unit.

And we’ve brought in a wide-ranging set of measures to encourage people to raise concerns about bullying and harassment – with a confidential hotline, independent experts assigned to cases and a service to allow mediation to take place wherever possible.

We’ve also wanted to make sure that these changes were achieving what we wanted them to do. So, in March 2014, we asked some external and independent experts – the GoodCorporation – to audit our policies, to make sure they were fit for purpose and to recommend improvements.

They found that the BBC has strong child protection policies in place and that our whistle-blowing policy ranks well compared to other organisations. But they also made 53 recommendations for improvement. Of those, 51 are now complete, one is underway and in one case we have agreed to take forward what needs to be done in a different way.

So there are many things we have done, and there are many more things we will have to do. Because we must never be complacent.

We will, as Dame Janet recommends, review all our policies and procedures in light of her report, and that of Dame Linda.

I have asked Anne Bulford, the BBC’s Managing Director of Finance and Operations to lead this work, reporting to me. That work will identify any areas where we need to do more.

I am committed – we are all committed – to creating a more open BBC where everyone has the confidence to raise issues and believe that something will be done about them.

I want the BBC to be a great place to work, a place where people come to do the best work of their lives.

Anne’s work will help us make sure that is the case. And we will publish our progress in full, in July, alongside our Annual Report.

But there are some things we can commit to today.

On whistle blowing, we will launch a campaign to do more to raise the awareness of staff to what they can do – and must do – and also where they can turn to for help.

On child protection, we will work with the NSPCC to get their advice on how to help us build on what we are currently doing.

And we will, as Dame Janet asks, commission another independent audit to assess our progress, to test our systems and to see how our policies are operating in practice. This work will report in the autumn and – whatever recommendations are made – we will carry them out.

But I also want to make a further commitment. I want the BBC to do more as a programme-maker – following on from the fine work done in this area in the past by Dame Esther Rantzen with Childline. We will, for example, work with the National Association for People Abused in Childhood, NAPAC, to raise awareness of the issues surrounding abuse.

On BBC One we have already commissioned a documentary called ‘The Abused’. This gives the opportunity for many survivors who came forward as part of Operation Yewtree to share what happened to them. I want us to be a forum for a national debate about child abuse and about how we can do more to support survivors.

For me, reflecting on both these reports, the importance of getting the culture right in our organisation is key.

When I came back to the BBC three years ago, at a time of crisis – this crisis – I could see that we needed to change. I visited teams from all over the UK who told me how proud they were to work for the BBC. How committed they are to the BBC. But, they told me that we needed to change.

We have changed, we are changing. But we have more to do.

Dame Janet says we should look carefully at three areas – a lack of cohesion in the BBC, the hierarchical nature of the management structure, and our attitudes toward ‘the talent’. These are all crucial issues – ones we are thinking about already and which we will push forward on in the coming months.

We are, for a start, building a simpler BBC with fewer divisions, fewer boards and fewer layers between the top of the organisation and the front line, with senior leaders who are more visible, accountable and approachable.

Where we work together as one team – for one BBC – with management that’s enabling and supports creativity. Management that demonstrates zero tolerance of bullying and harassment. Where the values that all of us who work here believe in – are the values we live, day by day.

And where everyone feels able to speak truth to power.

[32] 2012 Oct 3 ITV Exposure The Other Side of Jimmy Savile http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xv03is_exposure-the-other-side-of-jimmy-savile-3th-oct-2012-full-documentary-itv_news

[33] Shield Mergers and Acquisitions Shield sells Radio Taxis Group’s private hire taxi firms to Trident Niven http://www.sellingabusinessformore.co.uk/RTG_deal.html

Trident Niven was in operation under that name in 2009 The BBC article about Sinclair mentions a move to NW10. If you Google “Niven NW10” up pops a lot for Trident Niven. It’s address is Revolution House, Cumberland Park NW10

[34] Nexok Niven Limited Private Limited Company https://www.nexok.co.uk/company/01717194/niven-limited This was Sinclair’s company- Niven Ltd. Dissolved in 2009 (trading from 1983) Revolution House, Cumberland Park NW10

[35] Company Director Check Andrew Iwanowski http://www.companydirectorcheck.com/andrew-iwanowski Trident heritage – Director Iwanowski

Trident Niven is/was definitely the same Niven outfit then. Trident Heritage was registered as a taxi business too. Andrew Iwanowski was also a director of Helevision.

[36] Linked In Thomas Gilder https://uk.linkedin.com/in/thomasgilder Trident Heritage T/A Trident Niven mentioned here. He also worked for TransDev plc

[37] The Clan Sinclair Trust http://www.castlesinclairgirnigoe.org/faq.html THE CLAN SINCLAIR TRUST What is the Clan Sinclair Trust? The Trust, a Limited Company with Charitable Status, was set up in 1998 by: Niven Sinclair; Ian Sinclair; Euan Sinclair;The Earl of Caithness; and The Viscount Thurso (aka John Thurso MP).

Who are the directors of the Trust? The Earl of Caithness, Viscount Thurso and Isla St Clair are the current directors/trustees.

[38] 1945 The Gazette – Niven is granted an “Emerg. Commn” from the ranks of 2nd Lt https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/37404/supplement/6278/data.pdf

[39] 1951 The Gazette – Sinclair was promoted to a lieutenant https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/39157/supplement/1036/data.pdf

[40] Companies House Niven Ltd http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk//compdetails
Previous Names: Date of change Previous Name 30/08/1990 B B COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED 06/12/1988 LIME GROVE CARS LIMITED 27/07/1988 BB COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED 19/06/1984 B.B. ENTERPRISES (VEHICLES) LIMITED

[41] Companies House http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk//wcprodorder?ft=1

August 2000 – the auditor’s resignation is possibly interesting. That was around the time the BBC contract was restored

[42] Castle Sinclair website http://www.castlesinclairgirnigoe.org/patron.html
Patron/president of Castle Sinclair – Prince Charles

[43] Castle Sinclair http://www.castlesinclairgirnigoe.org/

The castle is owned by the Clan Sinclair Trust (which Nevin Sinclair founded)

[44] Clan Sinclair website http://www.clansinclair.org/ClanSinclairTrust.htm

Princes Charles has been in this position since 2010. Previous to that the post was held by the Queen Mother

[45] Companies House Clan Sinclair Trust Company number SC194021 https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC194021/officers

Nevin Sinclair was in the Trust 4 March – 18 July 1999 after founding it. He was still involved for several years afterwards however- the library was named after him. Address 35 Lime Grove, London, W12 8EE

[46] Niven Sinclairs addresses [Current one redacted] HT @Mwalkerdine

NIVEN JAMES SINCLAIR of 35 LIME GROVE, LONDON W12 8EE aged 92 from 1986 approx to 2004

NIVEN JAMES SINCLAIR of LATHERON HOUSE, LATHERON KW5 6DL only in 2004
The Latheron House address appears to be that of the Clann Gunn heritage Museum [48] and could be a postal address?

[47] 2016 Jul 9 WDTK Cathy Fox Blog FOI Niven Sinclair, Convicted Child Rapist working for the BBC https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/niven_sinclair_convicted_child_r

[48] 1992 Caithness.org The Clan Gunn Heritage Museum http://www.caithness.org/caithnessfieldclub/bulletins/1992/clan_gunn_zeno.htm Niven donated £200k to the Orcadian Trust

[49] 2015 Oct 17 Mirror Jimmy Savile victim claims 5 more drivers linked to his abuse http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jimmy-savile-victim-claims-5-6654818#ICID=sharebar_twitter

[A] Sanctuary for the Abused http://abusesanctuary.blogspot.co.uk/2006/07/for-survivors-coping-with-triggers-if.html

[E] SurvivorsJustice Triggers post http://survivorsjustice.com/2014/02/26/triggers-what-are-they-and-how-do-we-work-through-them/

[F] SurvivorsJustice Blog http://survivorsjustice.com/

[G] Jim Hopper Mindfulness http://www.jimhopper.com/mindfulness/

[H] Jim Hopper Meditation http://www.jimhopper.com/mindfulness/#cultivate

[J] 2016 Jan 5 Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma https://hwaairfan.wordpress.com/2016/01/05/an-indigenous-australian-approach-to-healing-trauma/

[K] Survivors UK website for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men https://www.survivorsuk.org/ and twitter https://twitter.com/SurvivorsUK

[L] Voicing CSA website – http://voicingcsa.uk/ helps arrange survivors meetings in your area. Voicing CSA supports the IICSA and VSCP and works to help adult survivors of child sexual abuse find their voice

This is all written in good faith but if there is anything that needs to be corrected please email sinclair

cathyfox

the truth will out, the truth will shout, the truth will set us free

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing” – Edmund Burke

“He who does not bellow the truth when he knows the truth makes himself the accomplice of liars and forgers.” Charles Peguy

To sin by silence when we should protest makes cowards out of men – Ella Wheeler Wilcox

Original Article: https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2016/07/09/niven-sinclair-child-rapist-worked-for-the-bbc-for-30-years

Ace News Room

Editors Comments:

News & Views welcome always published as long as NO bad language or is not related to subject matter.

To keep online information secure, experts recommend keeping your social media accounts private, changing your passwords often, and never answering unsolicited emails or phone calls asking for your personal information. help and guidance visit https://acepchelp.wordpress.com and leave a comment

Ace News Room

Appeal 2 Niven James Sinclair 6 Feb 1973 Court of Appeal

Post author By @ace101
Post date July 18, 2016
No Comments on Appeal 2 Niven James Sinclair 6 Feb 1973 Court of Appeal

Sinclair applied for leave to appeal against those convictions of May 14 1971, which was granted.

Redaction

Some reports have had victims names and personal details redacted and some assault details redacted.

This is a difficult balance – normally I would think that I should not “censor” details but on consultation with various people I have taken the decision to redact. This is mainly to protect victims, their friends and relatives from unnecessary detail and to stop the gratification of those who seek salacious details.

In addition to the obvious “victims redaction” to protect victims, there may also be “assault redacted” across most of the spectrum of abuse. The assaults are left in the charges, but mainly redacted when repeated with reference to the individual.

Some redaction may obscure sometimes the legal reason for the appeal, but should make no large difference to the vital information for researchers that these documents contain. That vital information is mainly names of the perpetrators, past addresses, instituions where assaults occurred, the actual charges the perpetrators faced – on whichcorporate newspapers are pathetically inaccurate and this information enables the links between people and places and abuse at various times to be ascertained.

Some transcripts may have been subject to automatic reading software and whilst effort has been made to correct any inevitable errors, the text should not be regarded as definitive. Alias letters are not transferable between appeals.

If you think that the balance is not correct or that a particular redaction needs reconsideration, please say.

Cathy Fox Blog Index and Timeline of Court Appeals and Documentation [2]

[1973] EWCA Crim J0206-3

No. 2397/B/71

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Tuesday, 6th February 1973

Lord Justice Orr

Regina v James Niven Sinclair

(From the Shorthand Notes of Cherer & Co., 34 Essex Street, Strand, London, WC2R 3AT. Telephone No: 01-583 4121. Shorthand Writers to the Court.)

THE APPLICANT was not present and was not represented.

JUDGMENT

LORD JUSTICE ORR: On the 14th May, 1971 at the Central Criminal Court, after a trial lasting twelve working days, this Applicant was convicted of the following offences: four offences of buggery – two with a boy of fourteen and two with a boy of thirteen – for which he was sentenced on each to ten years’ imprisonment; four offences of indecent assault – two on a boy of fourteen and one on another boy of fourteen and one on a boy, [A], of fifteen – for each of which he was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment concurrent; and finally to an offence of attempting to procure the boy A to commit an act of gross indecency for which he was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment concurrent.

He had previously pleaded guilty on the 22nd April to three offences, one of possessing a Beretta automatic pistol without a firearm certificate, another of having that pistol in a public place and a third of possessing that pistol after a sentence of imprisonment, and on the 14th May at the conclusion of the trial he was sentenced for each of those offences to two years’ imprisonment concurrent and concurrent with the other sentences to which I have referred, making a total period of imprisonment of ten years.

He now, after refusal by the single Judge, applies to this Court for leave to appeal against those convictions, that is on the sexual charges, and the sentences, to call fresh evidence, to be present at the hearing and also for certain transcripts of submissions, applications and portions of the evidence given at the trial.

He had been given Legal Aid for his defence at the trial, embracing Leading as well as Junior Counsel, but shortly before the commencement of the trial he decided to defend himself and the Legal Aid Order was discharged, but it was later renewed so as to enable Leading Counsel to address the Court in mitigation on his behalf.

At the trial he cross-examined witnesses for the Prosecution but elected, instead of giving sworn evidence, to make an unsworn statement which occupied the whole of one day and substantial parts of two others. In the Court of trial he complained to the Judge that the boy [B], the brother of the alleged victim of two of the charges of buggery, was not on the list of witnesses and he was then told that the boy would be brought to the Court, but he then declined that offer and said that he had intended to call witnesses but no longer proposed to do so.

There was considerable delay after he had given notice of appeal in the obtaining of the short transcript due to illness of the shorthand writer and his subsequent giving up of his employment. The transcript, when obtained, was sent on loan to the Applicant’s former solicitors so that they might advise him as to grounds of appeal, but they were unable to act at that time and the Applicant dispensed with their services. In the result directions were sought from the single Judge and he decided to deal with the applications on the short transcript and on a letter from the Applicant setting out in general terms his complaints about conviction, and having considered those documents the single Judge refused leave. Thereafter the Applicant delivered his own detailed grounds of appeal comprising of 620 type-written pages and a further 36 pages subsequently supplied in which he sets out and elaborates 36 legal reasons and further factual reasons for acquittal, and he has sent further material to us up to and including yesterday.

Because he had submitted his grounds of appeal in so much detail, we did not give him leave to be present at this hearing, and in view of the trouble that he has taken over the preparation of these grounds and the fact that we have before us very much more lengthy grounds of appeal than were before the single Judge we propose to deal with this application at greater length than we would otherwise have thought appropriate.

The background of all the sexual offences charged is that the Applicant, aged forty-six at the time, single, and who lived alone in a maisonette in Stanmore, was on friendly terms with a number of boys, some of whom he met on Stanmore Common, others he found as a result of enquiries at the local newsagents and some were introduced by others. To these boys he offered Jobs such as exercising his Boxer dog or cleaning his flat, the standard rate of pay being £1.50 per week, supplemented by occasional visits to restaurants or the cinema and gifts of clothing or cash.

The first Count in point of time, Count 12, alleged an indecent assault on [C] , who was introduced to him by another boy who worked for the newsagent. C, at that time fourteen-years of age, was taken on by the Applicant at the end of March 1970 to exercise his dog. His evidence was that two months later the Applicant [assault redacted] and asked him to be his friend and keep it secret. C, however, told another boy, A, and his parents and wrote saying he would not work for the Applicant any longer.

Counts 13 and 14 related to the boy A, then aged fifteen, who was introduced to the Applicant by C and was taken on over about the same period to clean the flat during the holidays and exercise the dog. His evidence was that one evening when they were alone in the flat the Applicant said that he would like to [assault redacted], and he, A, refused. That is the subject of Count 14 of attempting to procure A to commit an act of gross indecency.

On a subsequent Sunday morning, according to A’s evidence, the Applicant [assault redacted] . He later gave him money. Shortly after that A left the Applicant’s employment because his parents moved away. The Judge told the jury that these two boys “had certainly put their heads together”, but that it did not necessarily follow that their stories were false.

Counts 1 and 2 alleged buggery of [D], fourteen years of age, and Counts 5 and 6 buggery of [E], thirteen years of age, in July and August of 1970. With these two boys the Applicant got into conversation on Stanmore Common and he offered them jobs cleaning the flat and exercising the dog. The mothers of these boys gave evidence of their receiving letters and telephone calls saying that the Applicant’s wife was in Scotland and asking their consent to his engagement of the boys. But that evidence, to which the learned Judge invited the jury to give considerable weight, the Applicant disputed.

Both these boys gave evidence that the Applicant had [assault redacted] them on more than one occasion but there were certain discrepancies between their evidence and in the case of each of them between his evidence and his written statement, of which discrepancies the learned Judge carefully reminded the jury. There was also, in relation to these charges, important medical and scientific evidence given by Dr. Martin that in his opinion each boy had been [assault redacted] gave it to Miss Howard, a scientific officer [details redacted]

This is a matter much relied upon by the Applicant in his grounds and it appears to this Court that at one stage in the summing-up the learned Judge wrongly suggested that Miss Howard had said in evidence that [details redacted] there for a week, whereas it was, in fact, Dr. Martin who had referred to that period, but the jury, after retiring, asked to be reminded of the medical and scientific evidence and the Judge then accurately reminded them of what Miss Howard had said both at the trial in evidence and previously at the Magistrates’ Court. At the trial she said that she could not say how long [details redacted] and at the Magistrates’ Court she had thought for a maximum of three days.

The Applicant, in relation to the evidence of Dr. Martin and Miss Howard, sought to show that the latest date on which he could have [assault redacted] with Parish was outside the limit adopted on the medical evidence. As to this issue in the case we are satisfied that the learned Judge fully and fairly reminded the jury of the evidence and properly directed them.

Counts 9 and 10 charged two indecent assaults in August of 1970 on a boy, [F], aged fourteen years. According to his evidence he went to the Applicant’s flat as a result of a telephone call from B and subsequently two indecent assaults took place, the Applicant [assault redacted].

The remaining Count, Count 11, concerned a boy [G] , aged fifteen, whose evidence was that he was followed in the street by the Applicant in his car, who offered him a job and invited him to call at the flat. He, G, told his father about this, who took him to the Police Station, but no immediate action was taken. Shortly after that the boy’s evidence was that he was picked up by the Applicant in his car and taken to his flat and there, according to him, the Applicant [assault redacted]. He then told his father about this matter, who took him to the Police Station again with the result that the Applicant was interviewed by Police Officers on the 3rd September and reliance was placed by the Prosecution on certain answers which he was then alleged to have given.

The Applicant, in the view of the learned Judge, had, not challenged these answers, that is the Police evidence as to these answers, in cross-examination of those Officers, but he made it clear during the summing-up that he was, in fact, challenging that evidence.

In addition to the boys who were the alleged victims of offences, three other boys were called for the Prosecution [H] aged fourteen, [J] and [K] – as to whom no charges were made in the indictment but whose evidence, in our judgment, was properly adduced under the principle referred to in R. v. Sims , reported in 1946 King’s Bench, p. 531 and R. v. Campbell , reported in 1956 2 Queen’s Bench, p. 432 . Devine said that on one occasion he was left alone in the flat with the Applicant, who took him into the bedroom, undressed to his underwear and pointed to the bed. H then went and locked himself in the” lavatory. J and K gave less specific evidence, but it was evidence which was capable of being considered by the jury as pointing away from an innocent association.

The Applicant in his unsworn statement denied that he had committed any of these acts that were alleged against him and his case was summarized by the Judge as being that the Prosecution evidence consisted of nothing more than surmise, innuendo and a pack of well-rehearsed lies. The learned Judge in summing-up warned the jury as to the possibility of some of the boys, having concocted a story to incriminate the Applicant, but rightly reminded them that on the evidence some of the boys did not know others.

As to corroboration it may well be, in the light of the decision of the House of Lords in the Director of Public Prosecutions v. Kilbourne reported in Monday’s Times and of which we have had a transcript, that the learned Judge’s direction based on the older authorities may have been more favourable than it ought to have been to the Accused when he told the jury that evidence of one boy that the Applicant had indecently assaulted him was no corroboration of the evidence of another that he had been indecently assaulted on another occasion. But the Judge correctly directed the jury in the terms of Campbell’s case that a series of incidents might help them to determine where the truth lay provided they were satisfied that there had been no collaboration between the boys to put up a false story.

It is impossible to refer in this judgment to all the grounds of appeal put forward by the Applicant. Many of his legal grounds proceed, and it is not a matter for which he can be blamed in any way, upon a misunderstanding of passages from Archbold, of which he cites a great number. Other of his grounds, both legal and factual, have been answered in the review that I made of the facts, in particular, for example, his complaint about the boy B not having been called when an opportunity had been given to him to have him called and others of these are contradicted by the transcript before us.

His grounds in relation to the medical evidence have, in our view, no merit, the Judge having fully and fairly reviewed the evidence as I have earlier stated. Having considered all these grounds, along with the further documents he has sent to us, we find no substance in any of them and we refuse leave to appeal on any of those grounds.

We have, however, come to the conclusion that there is a matter of law on which he is entitled to appeal as of right. The learned Judge, in what appears to us to have been an otherwise quite impeccable summing-up, used the formula in directing the jury that it would be safer and wiser to look for corroboration.

In the case of R. v. Henry and Manning , reported in 53 Criminal Appeal Reports, page 150 , it was laid down by this Court that: “What the judge has to do is to use clear and simple language that will without any doubt convey to the jury that in cases of alleged sexual offences it is really dangerous to convict on the evidence of the woman or girl alone.” In our view it is arguable that the use of the words “safer” and “wiser” did not satisfy that requirement.

On that point we would give leave to appeal if it were necessary to do so, but the point appears to us to be one of law. We consider that the Applicant should have Legal Aid, if he is willing to accept it, and we strongly advise him to do so, more especially since if the directions were held to be insufficient the question of the appropriateness of applying the proviso would inevitably arise. The subject matter of the appeal being law, we do not grant the Applicant leave to be present at the hearing. He also asks for leave to call further evidence and for certain transcripts, but we reject both these applications. E, whom he seeks to call for further cross-examination, was called and cross-examined at the trial. As to [L] , we have not been satisfied that he could give any relevant evidence. Further, if the Applicant wanted him to be there he should have made an application, as it seems to us, at the trial, as he did in the case of B.

Finally, there are no provisions which enable a medical export to be nominated by the Court in such circumstances as these. We refer the application for leave to appeal against sentence to the full Court.

2016 Cathy Fox Blog Index / Timeline of Court Appeals and Documentation [2]

Other articles relevant to child sexual abuse see [constantly updated] Index Timeline of Newspaper Articles on Cathy Fox Blog [4]

Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. These links are generally UK based.

The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers.
National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups.
Other useful sites are One in Four [C]
and Havoca [D].
Useful post on Triggers [E] from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog.
Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G] and Meditation [H] may be useful.
Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma [J]
Survivors UK for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men [K]
Voicing CSA group [L] helps arrange survivors meetings in your area

Links

[2] 2016 Cathy Fox Blog Index / Timeline of Court Appeals and Documentation https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/05/08/a-timeline-of-court-and-ewca-documentation-on-cathy-fox-blog/

[A] Sanctuary for the Abused http://abusesanctuary.blogspot.co.uk/2006/07/for-survivors-coping-with-triggers-if.html

[E] SurvivorsJustice Triggers post http://survivorsjustice.com/2014/02/26/triggers-what-are-they-and-how-do-we-work-through-them/

[F] SurvivorsJustice Blog http://survivorsjustice.com/

[G] Jim Hopper Mindfulness http://www.jimhopper.com/mindfulness/

[H] Jim Hopper Meditation http://www.jimhopper.com/mindfulness/#cultivate

[J] 2016 Jan 5 Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma https://hwaairfan.wordpress.com/2016/01/05/an-indigenous-australian-approach-to-healing-trauma/

[K] Survivors UK website for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men https://www.survivorsuk.org/ and twitter https://twitter.com/SurvivorsUK

This is all written in good faith but if there is anything that needs to be corrected please email sinclair

cathyfox

the truth will out, the truth will shout, the truth will set us free

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing” – Edmund Burke

“He who does not bellow the truth when he knows the truth makes himself the accomplice of liars and forgers.” Charles Peguy

To sin by silence when we should protest makes cowards out of men – Ella Wheeler Wilcox

Original Article: https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2016/07/09/appeal-2-niven-james-sinclair-6-feb-1973-court-of-appeal/

Editors Notes:

News & Views welcome always published as long as NO bad language or is not related to subject matter.

Ace News Room

Appeal 1 Niven James Sinclair 16 Oct 1967 Court of Appeal

Post author By @ace101
Post date July 18, 2016
No Comments on Appeal 1 Niven James Sinclair 16 Oct 1967 Court of Appeal

Application for leave to appeal against sentence when convicted on 10th March 1966 was dismissed

Redaction

Some reports have had victims names and personal details redacted and some assault details redacted.

If you think that the balance is not correct or that a particular redaction needs reconsideration, please say.

Cathy Fox Blog Index and Timeline of Court Appeals and Documentation [2]

[C}[1967] EWCA Crim J1016-2

No. 1258/67

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Monday, 16th October 1967

Lord Justice Edmund Davies

Regina v Niven James Sinclair

(From the Shorthand Notes of Cherer & Co., 34 Essex Street, Strand, London, W.C.2. Telephone Number: 01-583 4121. Shorthand Writers to the Court.)

MR. W. HOWARD, Q.C. and MR. BEVAN appeared on behalf of the Appellant.

MR. LEONARD appeared on behalf of the Crown.

JUDGMENT

LORD JUSTICE EDMUND DAVIES: On the 10th March last at the Central Criminal Court before Judge Rogers this appellant was convicted on two counts of buggery and one of indecent assault upon a 12-year old boy, whom we shall refer to as [A] He was further convicted of attempted indecent assault and on one count of actually indecently assaulting another 12-year old, whom we shall refer to as [B]. He was acquitted of indecently assaulting yet a third youth, [C], the 15-year old brother of A. He was sentenced to terms of five years’ imprisonment on the buggery counts, to two years’ imprisonment for the indecent assault on A and to six and twelve months’ imprisonment in respect of the offences on B, all to be served concurrently, totalling five years. With the leave of this Court he now appeals against those convictions and he also applies to this Court for leave to appeal against the sentences.

The facts of this most unhappy case may be summarised in this way. The appellant is a Company Director of 43 [years old]. A said he first met the appellant in October of 1965, the boy having gone to the appellant’s flat to deliver some cable for his father. Thereafter he became a regular visitor there, going two to three evenings a week, according to the appellant’s own evidence. The boy when called for the Crown at first said that nothing improper had happened between him and the appellant. Then leave was granted to the Crown to treat the boy A as a hostile witness, and when he was thereupon cross-examined he came out with evidence of a type extremely damaging to this appellant. The appellant used to give him sherry, and he was given money to buy food, which he then proceeded to cook in the flat. According to the boy, on his first or second visit the appellant [assault redacted] he was given money from time to time. There were other features of the case as admitted by the appellant to which we will shortly refer. According to the boy, he had been [assault redacted] about nine times by the appellant, the last occasion being about a week before the arrest of the appellant.

On the 14th June A took his 12-year old friend B to that flat. There the appellant gave the boys wine and a meal and, according to B, he tried to [assault redacted], and asked the boy if he was coming back the next night and said he would pay him well for a bit of fun. That was B’s evidence. The boys went back the next night when a schoolmaster friend of the appellant’s was also there. They were again given wine and, according to B the appellant in the presence of the schoolmaster tried to [assault redacted], and the appellant gave this boy B £1, the appellant apparently being under the influence of drink. A and the schoolmaster (A was called for the Crown and the schoolmaster for the defence) both said that they themselves saw nothing improper occur between the appellant and the boy B. When A was medically examined on the 16th June it was clear that he had been [assault redacted] on a number of occasions and that the last occasion was recent.

In the course of his evidence the appellant said that he first met the 15-year old C when that boy delivered the milk for the flat. Shortly afterwards he met the boy’s father and then the 12-year old A, who used to visit the flat two or three times a week. C used to clean his car for him, and another brother [D] used to drive for the appellant when he himself was disqualified from driving. A had a key to the flat and cooked and shared his meals frequently. He agreed B had been in the flat on the two occasions in June but denied he had ever indecently assaulted or buggered any of the boys of any occasion.

The schoolmaster said he had frequently seen A at the flat. He was there when A and B came in June but never saw anything improper between the appellant and either of the boys; and this grammar school master went so far as to say that, quite apart from observing nothing of an indecent character, he saw nothing at all unusual in the set-up. Speaking for my part, I regard that as remarkable evidence coming from a schoolmaster.

The learned Judge who dealt with this case was clearly troubled about the aspect of corroboration. In the absence of the jury he said (and this appears at page 11 of the transcript): “I have given this matter careful consideration, but the intervention of a short adjournment has assisted me to consult colleagues as to matters to reinforce my own opinion or otherwise on this matter. Unless I am persuaded to the contrary, I propose to direct the jury that the circumstances of this man’s association with the boy B and possibly the others are such as to enable them to regard that as being capable of being corroboration. I shall not, of course, tell them it is corroboration: but I propose to tell them that if they think it right they can regard it as corroboration of the boy’s story.” I should have prefaced that quotation by saying that when the Crown opened the case they did so on the basis that there was no corroboration. But, of course, frequently, as in the present case, the complexion presented by the evidence alters the attitude of the Crown.

When the learned Judge came to sum-up to the jury he, dealing with the case of A only, there is no doubt gave the jury a perfectly fair and adequate warning about the desirability of corroboration. He said: “Even if the boy’s story does seem to you to have the ring of truth, it is very dangerous to convict on that evidence alone”, and then developed the matter in a manner which has not been attacked and clearly is not open to criticism. Then lie said this: “the only evidence which I can suggest you might think corroborates the boy’s story is the whole circumstances of this particular man’s association with this small boy. I am not saying that does amount to corroboration of the boy’s story. I am going no further than saying it is a matter you may think does corroborate the boy’s story. This is an association of a 43-year-old company director with a boy of 12 when it started, whom he first met when running an errand, and he was then a boy on a milk round.” Then he developed certain other features of the case. “He is very shortly allowed to have a key to the older man’s flat where, on the older man’s own story, the boy visited regularly for something like a year, two or three times a week: that would be 100 or 150 times, perhaps. He is dined by the older man, and wined by the older man, and allowed to help himself to wine, and the boy had the run of the house even to the extent of bringing a friend along and letting the pair of them in – himself and his friend – with his own key. Now, what do you make of all that? Do you think it tends to support the boy’s story that this was not merely an innocent association but he was being treated in this way, and given money from time to time, as he says he was? Well, it is a question for you to consider whether this was innocent, or whether that may support the boy’s account. That is all I am going to say for the moment about A”

We have, of course, been reminded by Mr. William Howard of the essential ingredients of evidence which are properly to be regarded as corroborative and the well-known passage of Lord Reading in Baskerville , (1916) 12 Criminal Appeal Reports at page 91 , which has been once more and not without useful result brought to your attention. It is true that contrary to the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal in R. v. Gammon ( 43 Criminal Appeal Reports at page 155 ) the learned Judge here did not base his warning as to the desirability of corroboration on the three-fold ground (1) that the charges were of a sexual nature (2) that the complainant was of tender years and (3) that the evidence of A was that of an accomplice, but restricted himself to dealing with the first aspect of the matter only. Nevertheless, the warning was expressed in such clear terms that we consider that no injustice can possibly have resulted from that deficiency.

It is clear that proof of mere opportunity to commit the homosexual acts charged cannot amount to corroboration Burbury v. Jackson , 1917 1 King’s Bench at page 16 – neither can proof of the repetition of opportunities afforded by association over a period; nor can the mere proof that the association was between people of disparate years, otherwise men of mature age would (however exalted their motives) take an interest in the young only at their peril. Even suspicion that homosexual attraction was the mainspring of the association is insufficient, for what is required is evidence capable of corroborating the complainant that the accused is not only homosexual by inclination but that he committed the homosexual acts charged.

Nevertheless, while association per se does not afford evidence capable of amounting to corroboration, it may well be that, when all the features of the particular association are considered, their totality is such that a Judge can properly hold that in conjunction they afford evidence capable of amouting to corroboration, and the jury in its turn will be entitled to find that it does, in fact, corroborate the complainant.

In the present case, therefore, the Judge was entitled (indeed, he was compelled) to have regard not only to the fact of the association over a substantial period (indeed, roughly a twelve month) between this man of 42 and a boy of 12, but also to all the other features of that association. Despite the decision in Harvey v. Anning (1903 67 J.P. page 73) a decision on the bastardy laws that a difference in the social standing of the parties might afford material capable of amounting to corroboration, we do not in this case adopt the same attitude, and this Court has in this case ignored the fact that on the one hand here you have a company director and on the other hand a boy who ran errands for him. Let us recapitulate those salient features of the association over this long period that mere dealt with by the learned Judge. The boy was given the run of the accused’s flat; he held a key and could come and go as he pleased; he could apparently take with him anyone he chose; and in relation to the boy B when the appellant was asked about A bringing B there without as much as a by-your-leave, he used what, speaking for myself, I regard as the very curious expression: “It is not for me to stop his association with that pal”. The 12-year old boy was dispensed wine by the appellant and was apparently also free to help himself to it, although it is said that the glass in which the wine was dispensed was of minute proportions. It emerges also from the evidence that the accused usually, though not invariably, was in his ###query### and dressing-gown when the boy visited the flat. When all these unusual features, as we regard. them, of the association between this man and that boy A are borne in mind, we feel it cannot be said that they did not constitute material capable of amounting to corroboration of the complaint A’s story. There was, accordingly, no misdirection in that respect.

The jury so directed having convicted on those counts, there nevertheless remains the question of whether their verdict was (in the words of Section 4 (1) of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1966) “under all the circumstances of the case unsafe or unsatisfactory”. In this context it is not without materiality to observe that A was a most reluctant witness for the Crown, that he went back on his statement, and that lie eventually testified, as we have already said, against the accused only when cross-examined as a hostile witness. This was a matter to which the jury were entitled to have regard in assessing the weight of his testimony, and, in particular, whether he might have any animus against the accused. When that testimony is considered in conjunction with the damaging evidence which the accused himself gave, we are quite unable to say that the verdict in relation to A was either unsafe or unsatisfactory, and his appeal against conviction upon those counts is accordingly dismissed.

But the position in relation to the other 12-year old B is different. Not only was there no corroboration of the alleged acts of indecency on the 14th and 15th July in relation to him, but that fact was not brought out unfortunately by the learned Judge. The Court of Criminal Appeal in Goddard (1962, 46 Criminal Appeal Reports, 456) said (at page 461) dealing with the warning as to corroboration:

“Quite clearly, it is idle to give that direction simpliciter in a case where in fact there is no evidence capable of amounting to corroboration because the very fact that the direction is given would leave the jury to infer that there was some evidence capable of amounting to corroboration if they looked for it”.

This Court desires again to stress the desirability in cases where it is said that corroboration should be looked for that if no such corroboration exists the Judge should in express terms tell the jury and should employ some such words as ‘I direct you, Members of the Jury, that in this matter there is no corroboration’. In the absence of any warning of that kind the jury may be confused and misled into thinking that some corroboration does exist, the warning as to its desirability having been given.

No such warning having been given in relation to the counts involving B, this Court thinks it would be quite wrong to let the convictions on those two counts stand, and accordingly the appeal against those two convictions is allowed.

It was said in mitigation in the Court below, and it has been urged upon us here, that this man unhappily is afflicted by homosexual inclinations and has been so afflicted for many years, but he wishes to be cured and accepted recently has voluntarily accepted psychiatric help, It is said, further, that the boy A had been corrupted before he ever met the appellant.

Be that as it may, and accepting submissions which may be firmly based and what has been said on behalf of this appellant in this Court, in view of this long period of degrading association between this man of 43 and a boy of 12, this Court thinks it would be quite wrong in the discharge of its public duty that for offences of this kind inflicted on a boy of 12 to say that the sentence is too long, The application for leave to appeal against sentence is accordingly refused.

2016 Cathy Fox Blog Index / Timeline of Court Appeals and Documentation [2]

Other articles relevant to child sexual abuse see [constantly updated] Index Timeline of Newspaper Articles on Cathy Fox Blog [4]

Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. These links are generally UK based.

The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers.
National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups.
Other useful sites are One in Four [C]
and Havoca [D].
Useful post on Triggers [E] from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog.
Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G] and Meditation [H] may be useful.
Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma [J]
Survivors UK for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men [K]
Voicing CSA group [L] helps arrange survivors meetings in your area

Links

[2] 2016 Cathy Fox Blog Index / Timeline of Court Appeals and Documentation https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/05/08/a-timeline-of-court-and-ewca-documentation-on-cathy-fox-blog/

[A] Sanctuary for the Abused http://abusesanctuary.blogspot.co.uk/2006/07/for-survivors-coping-with-triggers-if.html

[E] SurvivorsJustice Triggers post http://survivorsjustice.com/2014/02/26/triggers-what-are-they-and-how-do-we-work-through-them/

[F] SurvivorsJustice Blog http://survivorsjustice.com/

[G] Jim Hopper Mindfulness http://www.jimhopper.com/mindfulness/

[H] Jim Hopper Meditation http://www.jimhopper.com/mindfulness/#cultivate

[J] 2016 Jan 5 Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma https://hwaairfan.wordpress.com/2016/01/05/an-indigenous-australian-approach-to-healing-trauma/

[K] Survivors UK website for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men https://www.survivorsuk.org/ and twitter https://twitter.com/SurvivorsUK

This is all written in good faith but if there is anything that needs to be corrected please email sinclair

cathyfox

the truth will out, the truth will shout, the truth will set us free

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing” – Edmund Burke

“He who does not bellow the truth when he knows the truth makes himself the accomplice of liars and forgers.” Charles Peguy

To sin by silence when we should protest makes cowards out of men – Ella Wheeler Wilcox

Original Article: https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2016/07/09/appeal-1niven-james-sinclair-16-oct-1967-court-of-appeal/

Editors Notes:

News & Views welcome always published as long as NO bad language or is not related to subject matter.

Ace News Room

EU, Croatia and #Brexit

The European Union has seen numerous crises come and go and some staying stubbornly put – e.g. last year’s rejection by many member states to take in EU-stipulated quotas of refugees/migrants, but the 23 June 2016 #Brexit vote in the United Kingdom has perhaps forced upon the EU the biggest crisis yet – bigger than was possible to imagine, perhaps? Brexit vote had within days of its results count heralded far-reaching consequences not only for the UK and the EU, but also for the countries seeking EU membership from the Balkans, Turkey etc.

Never before have citizens of an EU member state voted against remaining part of the Union and after more than four decades of its existence the problems of untangling many matters and connections within the EU network of member states are emerging as almost impossible to solve without causing serious damage to one or the other side and to individual people from both sides. By June 2016 UK had grown into and fused with EU flesh and the future of separating that EU flesh appears to entail serious repercussions for all involved.

Prior to Brexit vote the EU has been THE club to join particularly because of UK being its member. UK had been a draw-card for many from Eastern and Southeast Europe to vote “Yes” to EU membership at their own referendums. Arguably, many people from all countries of Eastern Europe and Southeast, such as Croatia in 2013, had held EU membership as an ideal club to aspire to precisely because UK was there, waiting in its desired modernity to embrace them as its own and lobbying for EU expansion. Now that Brexit vote assures UK’s departure from the EU these multitudes of people in these countries are bound to be asking themselves if it was worthwhile for their country to join the EU after all. The repercussions of Brexit vote will remain unclear for many weeks and months to come, as the implications are far reaching. Much will depend on decisions taken by British and EU leaders on a number of issues that will extend beyond the Brexit itself.

The EU, without the UK, is likely to see strengthened campaigns for it to become a union of sovereign states, rather than a federation of nation states that Brussels wants at this stage. Following Eastern European countries’ (e.g. Hungary, Slovakia, Poland…) stance in rejecting the housing of refugees and illegal migrants and in protecting their borders and the ever increasing height of the “national interests” (which by the way was at its highest in Wales and England, in particular, at the time of Brexit vote) suggest that the push for union of sovereign states is about to get heartier in EU.

dr Franjo Tudjman at UN on 22 May 1992

A quarter century after Croatia declared its independence from Yugoslavia, British voters have decided, albeit by a narrow margin, to leave the European Union. Throughout various media outlets in Croatia, Croats are currently pulling out of drawers president Franjo Tudjman’s words, even as far back as 1968 when as scientist and historian he wrote that “the European community in the shape of a union between European states could represent the most advantageous framework for a true revitalisation of the idea of co-existence in today’s world”.

“European politics can only be purposeful if it brings about the creation of such a European community which will have the capacity of free itself from intolerable tutelage under both super powers (USA and USSR) and become an independent actor within the international life. Such a community in Europe can only be achieved as a union of states of independent European nations who would retain their own national quintessence, the right independent socio-political development within their own borders and to sovereignty in international life. The fundamental European politics that aim towards European community joining its European people’s material and intellectual powers into the idea of active co-existence and unity of diversity are the only politics that have real prospects of success,” wrote Franjo Tudjman way back in 1969 and retained these opinions as to the dynamics and make up of the European community/union well into the 1990’s when he championed Croatia’s independence from communist Yugoslavia.

The largest political party, Croatian Democratic Union/HDZ, is currently preparing for its own leadership elections since Tomislav Karamarko resigned as leader last month; and, in the aftermath of the recent fall of government, snap general elections are due mid-September. Croatian political analysts and journalists are already asking the question: which leader of which party is likely to support an EU Federation of Nation States centrally governed from Brussels and which leader is likely to support an EU as Union of Sovereign States.

European Union is currently shaking from the rubbing of two tectonic plates against each other: the Euro-federalist one and the Euro-sovereignty one. Germany’s Angela Merkel and Brussels’ corridors of power are championing the former while the latter is strongly the agenda of Eastern Europe’s countries particularly the Visegrad Group (Czech, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia) to which Croatia has been aspiring for a while, at least since Kolinda Grabar-Kitarovic’s presidency took power in January 2015. Traces of leanings to a union of sovereign states in EU, or leaving the EU if membership means stripping of national sovereignty of state, can also be seen in Austria’s and Greece’s recent speculations as to a possible exit from the EU; Italy’s, Netherland’s and France’s conservatives increasing anti-EU sentiments and so forth…

The likely candidate for Croatia’s HDZ leadership elections in July, EUP Andrej Plenkovic, appears to support the EU Federation option and hence, the Visegrad Group lobby for a union of sovereign states would pose a problem for Croatia and lingering divisions and dissent. One cannot sit on both stools at the same time, as it were. It’s hard to imagine that majority Croats would want the European super state of federation where government is centralised in Brussels and sovereignty of each state erased as seems to be what Plenkovic as HDZ leader might support. It’s been said that such may be the case because EU protects its smaller member states but not all agree with such a view. While attaching oneself to a bigger and wealthier body might provide certain securities it certainly risks losing ones identity or much of it.

The remaining EU 27 members have been seeking a quick resolution, asking the UK to trigger Article 50 of the EU treaty that would manage the process of leaving the EU. However, the British government has been reluctant to trigger this ‘clean’ way out. Indeed with Prime Minister David Cameron resigning, with leaders of the Brexit campaign – Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage – leaving the Brexit train, not only does there seem to be no exit plan but also Brexit supporters are left holding the baby, looking down a “what now” abyss.

This puts the union in a state of uncertainty and Germany seemingly stepping up into the lobby for enlargement role UK played before – as exemplified by Angela Merkel’s swift statement on 4 July 2016 that Serbia may open its EU membership negotiation on Chapters 23 and 24 and that Croatia had agreed to this. Croatia had been stalling Serbia’s progress in opening Chapter 23 for EU membership negotiations with view to several important legal and judicial issues and missing persons matters outstanding from the 1990’s war against Croatia. The fact that these were issues to clear before Serbia is given a green light for Chapter 23 negotiations, and that green light to Serbia has now been given without adequate explanations in public as to what happened with Croatia’s issues, leaves one asking many distressing questions, particularly regarding justice for victims of Serb crimes in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. A logical and obvious explanation here is that the EU is working very hard to show the world that Brexit will not stop EU enlargement! However, the cost of such moves as opposed to the cost of nurturing the existing EU member states and leaving enlargement for a later time, could well prove to be too high for EU’s ambitions for the creation of a superstate of itself; member states may retaliate against such centralist decision-making as are those demonstrated this week regarding Serbia’s negotiations for EU membership. I mean, every “Tom, Dick and Harry” stood in Croatia’s way to negotiate its membership over many years and now, only three years after it achieved membership, the EU seems to have parked its criteria at an open town-market where EU membership desirous states can barter their way into membership whichever way and with whatever they want. So much for reasonable and needed criteria that guarantees at least some grassroots homogeneity in EU!

Whether Croats will fall into a position from which they’ll be happy to blindly and mutely listen to everything that comes out Brussels is the most burning question now. This week’s events that gave Serbia green light to open negotiations in Chapters 23 and 24 for EU membership have completely omitted to explain to the Croatian public why that is so and what happened with the issues of protests or requirements Croatia had put before the EU in this regard. I do not believe the Croatian public will wear this lightly and will want explanations. The wounds of the 1990’s War of Independence are still very raw, sacrifices made for freedom and sovereignty and self-determination – still felt heavily and deeply. No politician in Croatia is likely to survive for very long if he/she forgets this fact. EU or no EU. Ina Vukic, Prof. (Zgb); B.A., M.A.Ps. (Syd)

Original Article: https://inavukic.com/2016/07/06/eu-croatia-and-brexit/

Editors Notes:

News & Views welcome always published as long as NO bad language or is not related to subject matter.

Ace News Room

Croatian Government Falls – No Love In Politics

Post author By @ace101
Post date July 12, 2016
No Comments on Croatian Government Falls – No Love In Politics

Left: Domagoj Ivan Milosevic, Gen Sec. HDZ
Right: Tomislav Karamarko, President HDZ
Photo: Marko Prpic/Pixsell

What gigantic three days of last week in the political life of Croatia.
In the wake of the Commission for conflicts of interests decision that conflict of interest applied to him in the case of INA/MOL and his wife’s business dealings, the leader of the majority party in government, Croatian Democratic Union/HDZ Tomislav Karamarko on Wednesday 15 June resigned as First Deputy Prime Minister; but not without emphasising that HDZ, as relatively major seat holder in parliament, was not giving up its fight to form a new government within the 30 days defined by law after a fall of government and that new elections were the very last option HDZ would look to. Indeed, HDZ has been giving confident reassurances that it has decided upon its candidate for the new Prime Minister (current finance minister Zdravko Maric) and that it will in the ensuing legally defined period of 30 days from the fall of current government succeed in achieving 76-seat majority in the parliament.

Tihomir Oreskovic,
fallen Prime Minister of Croatia
Photo: Marko Lukunic/Pixsell

The current coalition government fell on Thursday 16 June after only five months in the throne as the Prime Minister Tihomir Oreskovic lost a confidence vote in the parliament.

Then in a move that evoked sizeable anger and resentment towards her seeming disrespect of rules and bias, president Kolinda Grabar-Kitarovic wasted no time in hogging the public microphone on Friday 17 June, saying that “nobody I spoke with has (during the consultations she had held with members of parliament since the day before) convinced me they enjoy the needed support of 76 or more representatives to achieve the status of Prime Minister.”

“I can confirm that a majority has expressed the opinion about the need for early elections,” she continued, adding that it was impossible to shorten the period of 30 days guaranteed by the Constitution and appealed to the president of the parliament Zeljko Reiner to bring the matter of dissolution of the parliament to its agenda as soon as possible! Reportedly most representatives she spoke to expressed the opinion that new elections should be held in early September, however, as per previous practice, one would expect that she would hold more than just one consultation within this important realm that gives her the responsibility to ensure Croatia has a government in place.

This is what’s on Croatia’s political plate at this moment:

• parliamentary relative majority party HDZ seeks to utilise its constitutional right of 30 days to form a new coalition government rather than go to snap elections;
• the country’s president appeals for the parliament to table the decision on its own dissolution prior to the expiry of those 30 days in order to make way for snap elections;
• HDZ leader Tomislav Karamarko has announced his appeal against the conflict of interest findings to the Administrative tribunal.

Kolinda Grabar-Kitarovic
President of Croatia
Photo: Marko Prpic/Pixsell

As one might expect, this president’s move is fanning ongoing speculations and political postulations as to whether and why in fact the parliament should be dissolved on the day when 30 days expire (15 July 2016). The president’s move appears to be feeding a good deal of members of parliament to keep driving loud opinions that HDZ should bow out of its right to 30 days to form a new government and simply join the rest in speeding up the dissolution. This, of course, is causing a good deal of distressing confusion in public as well as to a politically staged diversion from HDZ’s inherent rights to try and quell ruffled-up spirits and save the government without the need for new elections. The political platform is rife with a push for snap elections, which also reveals many a new political ambition for all-important thrones including the one of the Prime Minister. Even Zagreb’s mayor Milan Bandic, who has till “yesterday” supported Karamarko, has reveled his newfound (?) ambition to put forth his name as candidate for Prime Minister at snap elections, for which he is suddenly raising his other hand. Bandic comments on his stand with the worn-down cliché “…there’s no love (meaning lasting devotion) in politics.” (HRT TV news 18 June 2016)

As to the findings of conflict of interest against Tomislav Karamarko, leader of HDZ, these do not seem to have shaken HDZ’s resolve to keep him at the party’s helm for the time being, except with a number of members including Tomislav Tolusic, regional development and EU funds minister, and a political cadaver Vladimir Seks, who I think should have retired from HDZ a long, long time ago. A prominent founding HDZ member and former minister of science and technology dr Ivica Kostovic said for HRT TV news Saturday 18 June that his “experience since he had entered into the government was that he met perhaps 1% of people who were not in a conflict of interest”. (HRT TV news 18 June 2016)

Zeljko Reiner
President of Croatian Parliament
In response to president’s statement
Says that HDZ may succeed
in forming new government
and that new elections may not be needed

Indeed, being in conflict of interest seems to have been a dark legacy left from public office administration of former Yugoslavia. That, of course, does not excuse any continuance of operating with conflict of interest – it simply highlights the need to deal with it properly as cases arise and that seems to have been the spirit of Dr Kostovic’s comment.

Karamarko has wowed that he will take the Commission’s decision to the Administrative tribunal, as he believes he was not in conflict of interest as found by it. It would seem that the Commission had weighed against Karamarko a reported detail that he did not declare his wife’s business dealings with the Hungarian MOL at a reported government meeting, from which there are apparently no detailed minutes, when matter of arbitration regarding INA/MOL issue (i.e. taking back Croatian ownership prevalence in the company of national importance – INA) was discussed. But, reportedly he also did not participate in any decision-making at the said meeting, either. The latter then would raise some alarms regarding the credibility of the Commission’s decision itself. The Commission, as evidencing conflict of interest, reportedly also took into account Karamarko’s personal Facebook status, which said that he was personally committed to Croatia pulling out of arbitration with MOL!

Karamarko commented that his personal opinions are well known to the public but that he has never imposed them upon third persons. “I have never had a single meeting on the Government premises with the arbitration on the agenda … It’s possible that I have had meetings outside the Government with Josip Petrovic (MOL’s consultant) but INA and MOL have never been the topic of those meetings.”

Dalija Oreskovic
Photo: Dalibor Urukalovic/Pixsell

The Commission’s head, Dalija Oreskovic, commented that “Karamarko cannot separate his private opinions from himself as a public figure and that, in that sense, he fell into conflict of interest.” She added “he used his political influence in connection to his opinion about arbitration, so that the potential or possible conflict of interest in these personal opinions and public intercessions point to the finding that the official found himself in a situation where conflict of interest was realised…”

In defending himself against the motion of no confidence last Wednesday, Prime Minister Tihomir Oreskovic told the parliament that the real reason for his ouster was that he started resolving the dispute between INA and MOL, adding that someone was not pleased with it (evidently alluding to Karamarko). It will be interesting to see what the Administrative tribunal will decide regarding private vs public lives (opinions) of a public official. At this stage HDZ wants to reshuffle the government with a new prime minister (Zdravko Maric), with Karamarko remaining as the party leader and digging its heels in at this may work, but it also may not. Next week or so will show whether the worn-down cliché “there’s no love in politics” is actually a double-edged sword that can either damage or benefit HDZ’s efforts to survive in parliament without snap elections. Ina Vukic, Prof. (Zgb); B.A., M.A.Ps. (Syd)

Original Article: https://inavukic.com/2016/06/19/croatian-government-falls-no-love-in-politics/

Editors Notes:

News & Views welcome always published as long as NO bad language or is not related to subject matter.

Ace News Room

Janners’ Evidence At Kirkwood Inquiry

Post author By @ace101
Post date July 1, 2016
No Comments on Janners’ Evidence At Kirkwood Inquiry

The Janner documents referred to in this Mirror article [5] from Apr 4 2016 Lord Janner paedophile inquiry chief in ‘cover-up deal with MP‘ have now been released in a public FOI request [3] and are available on the following links:-

Janners oral examination [1] by Justice Pauffley at the Leicestershire Inquiry aka the Kirkwood Inquiry in 1992.

Janners written evidence [2] at the Kirkwood Inquiry.

They are also available at the minute from Leicestershire County Council FOI publication site [4]

I have not read the documents yet, so any comments would be useful.

Cathy Fox Blog links on Janner [6], Frank Beck [8] , Leicestershire child sexual abuse [7] , the Kirkwood Report [9] and a useful timeline [10]

Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. These links are generally UK based.

The Sanctuary for the Abused [A]has advice on how to prevent triggers.
National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups.
Other useful sites are One in Four [C]
and Havoca [D].
Useful post on Triggers [E] from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog.
Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G] and Meditation[H] may be useful.
Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma [J]
Survivors UK for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men [K]
Voicing CSA group [L] helps arrange survivors meetings in your area

Links

[1] Janner oral redacted https://cathyfox.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/janner-oral-redacted.pdf

[2] Janner written Redacted https://cathyfox.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/janner-written-redacted.pdf

[3] Cathy Fox FOI Request Leicestershire County Council re Janner evidence in Mirror https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/janner_papers_released_to_the_mi#followup

[4] 2016 Apr 27 Leicestershire Request Number 7664 received 27/04/2016, resolved 04/05/2016 08:37:00 Description: Janner papers released to the Mirror http://axlr8.leicsfoi.org.uk/disclosureLogMonth.asp?npr=1&year_value=2016&month_value=04#rn7664

[5] 2016 Apr 4 Mirror Lord Janner paedophile inquiry chief in ‘cover-up deal with MP’ http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/lord-janner-paedophile-inquiry-chief-7689805#ICID=sharebar_facebookBombshell papers show Lord Janner was quizzed about his relationship with a boy during a private hearing of a 1992 probe into abuse at children’s homes.

The head of a public inquiry colluded with Greville Janner by allowing him to cover up child sex claims, bombshell documents reveal.

Previously unseen papers show Janner was quizzed about his relationship with a boy during a private hearing of a 1992 probe into abuse at children’s homes.

At the time he told reporters he did not face that line of questioning and transcripts show inquiry chief Andrew Kirkwood QC gave the lies his blessing.

The inquiry followed the trial of Frank Beck, a sadistic paedophile who ran children’s homes in Leicestershire.

During that case a witness accused Janner of abusing him at the age of 14.

Janner told Kirkwood: “I would like to say to them [the Press] – because they have already been asking me – that the questions had nothing to do with the allegations made by Beck [victim’s name redacted] against me.

The papers, released by Leicestershire County Council at the Mirror’s request, also reveal Janner gave a statement admitting the boy travelled with him on a lecture tour to Scotland, stayed overnight at his home and at a hotel.

“May I have your permission to say that?”

The judge, who has since died, replied: “Of course, Mr Janner.”

At the end of Janner’s evidence, Kirkwood told the former Leicester West MP he would not publish the abuse allegations in his final report.

Janner told him this was “much appreciated”.

His statement will be examined by the national inquiry into child abuse, led by Justice Lowell Goddard.

Janner was charged with 22 offences dating back to the 1960s, but died last year, aged 87.

His family deny the allegations.

[6] Cathy Fox Blog posts on Janner https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/?s=janner

[7] Cathy Fox Blog posts on Leicestershire https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/?s=leicestershire

[8] Cathy Fox Blog posts on Frank Beck https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/?s=beck

[9] 2013 Jul 22 Cathy Fox Blog Report of the Leicestershire Inquiry 1992 by Kirkwood, A. (1993) (aka Frank Beck Report) https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2013/07/22/report-kirkwood-a-1993-the-leicestershire-inquiry-1992/

[10] 2015 Apr 19 Cathy Fox Blog Leicestershire Child Abuse 1 – Frank Beck -working document https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/04/19/child-abuse-in-leicestershire-working-document-frank-beck/

[A] Sanctuary for the Abused http://abusesanctuary.blogspot.co.uk/2006/07/for-survivors-coping-with-triggers-if.html

[E] SurvivorsJustice Triggers post http://survivorsjustice.com/2014/02/26/triggers-what-are-they-and-how-do-we-work-through-them/

[F] SurvivorsJustice Blog http://survivorsjustice.com/

[G] Jim Hopper Mindfulness http://www.jimhopper.com/mindfulness/

[H] Jim Hopper Meditation http://www.jimhopper.com/mindfulness/#cultivate

[J] 2016 Jan 5 Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma https://hwaairfan.wordpress.com/2016/01/05/an-indigenous-australian-approach-to-healing-trauma/

[K] Survivors UK website for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men https://www.survivorsuk.org/ and twitter https://twitter.com/SurvivorsUK

This is all written in good faith but if there is anything that needs to be corrected please email jannerevidence

cathyfox

the truth will out, the truth will shout, the truth will set us free

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing” – Edmund Burke

“He who does not bellow the truth when he knows the truth makes himself the accomplice of liars and forgers.” Charles Peguy

To sin by silence when we should protest makes cowards out of men – Ella Wheeler Wilcox

Original Article: https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2016/05/07/janners-evidence-at-kirkwood-inquiry/

Editors Notes:

News & Views welcome always published as long as NO bad language or is not related to subject matter.

Ace News Room

Alerted to Danger, New York City Failed to Curb Harm at Group Homes

Post author By @ace101
Post date June 29, 2016
No Comments on Alerted to Danger, New York City Failed to Curb Harm at Group Homes

In March 2013, New York City’s child welfare agency put a Staten Island group home for troubled youngsters on notice. The home for children who had been convicted of minor crimes had become the scene of repeated violence and vandalism. Often, children at the home would simply run off for days or longer.

The agency, that March, placed the home on “heightened monitoring status”— an arrangement where a home’s administrators must provide and execute a plan to improve staff training, tighten security, and engage in frequent face-to-face meetings with child welfare officials.

But records show that, despite the city’s clear concern, little seemed to change: A security guard missed key training sessions because two residents assaulted him, breaking his hand. That May, more than half the residents fled the home at one time or another, disappearing into the local community. A number of workers were fired, but no one was hired to replace them. Through it all, the city did not act to intervene further.

Finally, that June, three months after the city required improved performance by the home, a 17-year-old fled the Staten Island facility, and later killed another young man with a knife in Jamaica, Queens. The city agency, known as the Administration for Children’s Services, and New York Foundling, the Catholic charity that operated the group home, soon agreed to close it.

The events at New York Foundling’s home on Staten Island are made clear in records obtained by ProPublica from ACS and the city’s Department of Investigation. Those records show that what happened on Staten Island occurred at other facilities operated under the city’s “Close to Home” program, an effort to offer juvenile offenders an alternative to violent and failed detention facilities far from New York City.

Under Close to Home, again and again, at facilities where the city had ordered more aggressive oversight, there was little curbing of additional harm and violence. Indeed, three home operators placed under heightened monitoring ultimately continued to have serious enough problems that their contracts wound up terminated altogether.

ProPublica requested an array of records from ACS after a situation not unlike the one on Staten Island unfolded at a Brooklyn home operated by Boys Town, a national nonprofit organization. Three teenagers at that home ran away in June 2015. They wound up in the Chinatown section of Manhattan and brutally robbed and raped a 33-year-old woman. The records show that homes run by Boys Town had been on “heightened monitoring status” for a year, only to have it lifted with further damage to public safety following afterward.

It took nearly a year, some 50 emails and multiple phone calls to get ACS to supply its records. And they released them only after the city’s Department of Investigation issued a damning report detailing an array of shortcomings in ACS’s oversight of the Close to Home program. Investigators found that ACS inspections of the homes were infrequent and ineffective, and that it failed to give home administrators proper guidance on how to reliably comply with regulations.

According to the 24-page report, six of nine organizations providing care at the homes had been found wanting by the city– placed on either “corrective action” or “heightened monitoring” status at some point in the four years of the program’s existence.

Asked for comment, a New York Foundling spokeswoman referred ProPublica to a statement made by the organization’s president and chief executive, Bill Baccaglini, when its contract with ACS ended in 2013. “At this time, we have made a determination that the fit of the Close to Home program with our other community and evidence-based programs is not optimal, and so we have voluntarily decided to end our participation in the program,” Baccaglini said. “In no way should the recent tragic incident be interpreted as an indictment of the Close to Home program, a very smart and most welcome policy shift in the treatment of juvenile delinquents.”

The tragedy involving the boys who fled the Boys Town home in Brooklyn provides perhaps the most startling example of the failings of ACS’s heightened monitoring system.

In January 2014, more than a year before the woman was raped in Chinatown, ACS sent Boys Town a letter saying it had “serious concerns” regarding safety and security lapses at the four homes run by the organization. Workers at the homes were poorly trained, the letter said; violence between staff and residents erupted frequently; teenagers often absconded in large groups. The homes, ACS informed Boys Town, would be under “heightened monitoring status” – first for three months, then for a full year.

Throughout that year, the same problems resurfaced again and again.

Boys Town lost numerous workers, leaving new, ill-equipped staff, some with just weeks of training, to watch over children with severe emotional problems. In July, five youngsters were arrested following a dispute with staff at one of the homes. In September, the number of runaways at a Boys Town home on St. John’s Place in Brooklyn had more than tripled. In November, Boys Town reported that residents were tampering with alarms and windows at the St. John’s Place home. In December, they managed to steal keys from a staff office.

But in December 2014, ACS saw fit to remove Boys Town from “heightened monitoring status” anyway. In a letter to Boys Town, ACS noted that, overall, violent incidents and runaways had decreased. City officials were still concerned that Boys Town lacked sufficient staff, but they approved of the organization’s plans to hire more and discipline those that were ineffective.

“We acknowledge and thank you for your engagement and commitment during this process,” a December 2014 ACS letter to Boys Town said. “And we look forward to continuing our collaboration to promote the safety, well-being and success of our youth back into their communities.”

Further, the city then allowed Boys Town to reopen another home, one it had closed a year before on Sixth Avenue in Park Slope, Brooklyn, due to a rash of violent episodes. The Sixth Avenue home would come to care for just three 16-year-old boys. Each had entered the Close to Home system in November 2014, court records show.

A ProPublica reporter intervieweds one of them on Rikers Island last summer. That boy said it did not take long for him and the others to rig the alarm systems at the Sixth Avenue home. He said they had done the same at the home on St. John’s Place.

From March through June, he said they fled the home, undetected, regularly. He said they would stuff their beds with pillows, climb out of a window onto a fire escape, get onto the roof of another building, and climb down another fire escape onto the street. They would stay out all night, the boy said, often using an assortment of drugs, including ecstasy, Xanax, ketamine, cocaine and marijuana.

How a City Agency Dragged Out a Request for Public Records for Nearly a Year

After eight proposed delivery dates, the Administration for Children’s Services still had not provided public records we asked for. Read the story.

‘No Place for a Kid to Go’

In Long Beach, California, a group home for troubled children sinks into crisis. Read the story.

Finally, in June 2015, the three boys were arrested for raping and robbing the woman in Chinatown after meeting her at a Internet café. Boys Town was forced to terminate its contract with the city a month later. Earlier this year, all three boys pleaded guilty to a variety of rape and robbery counts.

Kara Neuverth, a Boys Town spokeswoman, issued a brief statement: “Boys Town has consistently been committed to serving youth in New York and across the country. While we have decided to shift our work toward what we do best, we are glad that the city has developed new systems to provide these children with the care and support they need.”

When the Department of Investigation concluded its investigation of the Close to Home program last month, it said the violence was all “but inevitable,” and that, “Absent significant additional changes, there can be no further guarantee against such incidents.”

According to the most recent figures available, there are currently about 30 homes caring for more than 150 boys and girls each month.

ProPublica sent ACS a number of questions regarding its heightened monitoring system and the grave problems at some of the homes. Carol Caceres, deputy press secretary for ACS, said that between 2013 and 2015 the agency had made considerable progress in dealing with children fleeing the homes, implementing a number of measures that reduced the number of runaways. One step involved hiring former New York City Police Department detectives to help locate youngsters who had run off. Those efforts, Caceres said, had been enhanced this spring, when the agency increased its inspections of the homes, facilities fixed alarm systems, and New York police conducted security assessments of every facility.

Asked why ACS had allowed Boys Town to come off heightened monitoring, Caceres said that when Close to Home providers show improvement and complete their corrective action plans, they are removed from formal monitoring.

“Boys Town was a troubling example of a case in which the provider had complied with required improvement plan but continued to have practice gaps in other areas,” she added. “While a provider agency is on Heightened Monitoring Status, they must make measureable improvements in the areas of concern. If they do not, ACS will place the provider on a higher level of scrutiny and offer additional support. However, if they fail to make improvements, their contract may be terminated.”

Help us investigate: If you have experience with or information about Close to Home, child welfare or children’s mental health email joaquin.sapien

by Joaquin Sapien

Original Article: http://tracking.feedpress.it/link/9499/3310855

Editors Notes:

News & Views welcome always published as long as NO bad language or is not related to subject matter.

Ace News Room

THE MACUR REVIEW — Part Two: THE £3m WHITEWASH

Post author By @ace101
Post date June 29, 2016
No Comments on THE MACUR REVIEW — Part Two: THE £3m WHITEWASH

Rebecca’s assessment of the Macur Review continues…

REBECCA

FOR DECADES North Wales Police have been accused of covering up a child abuse scandal.

Critics say the force failed to investigate allegations that residents of care homes were being sexually abused in the 1970s and 1980s.

Britain’s only child abuse inquiry — the 1996 Waterhouse Tribunal — was set up to examine these claims.

The Tribunal gave the force a clean bill of health:

“ … there was no significant omission by the North Wales Police in investigating the complaints of abuse to children in care.”

Rebecca has long argued this conclusion is suspect.

The Tribunal did not consider the testimony of a witness who claimed he reported the most serious abuser in the scandal — John Allen — to police in 1980.

This was 15 years before Allen was gaoled.

In 2012 David Cameron ordered two new inquiries into the scandal.

One was a police investigation, Operation Pallial: the…

View original post 2,930 more words

Original Article: https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2016/05/10/the-macur-review-part-two-the-3m-whitewash/

Editors Notes:

News & Views welcome always published as long as NO bad language or is not related to subject matter.

Ace News Room

THE MACUR REVIEW — Part One: BLOODY WHITEWASH

Post author By @ace101
Post date June 29, 2016
No Comments on THE MACUR REVIEW — Part One: BLOODY WHITEWASH

Rebecca analyses the Macur Review..

REBECCA

THE REPORT of the Macur Review — an examination of the work of the 1996-99 North Wales Child Abuse Tribunal — is a whitewash.

Lady Justice Macur’s report was finally published on March 17 this year — nearly three and a half years after it was commissioned.

She concludes:

“I have found no reason to undermine the conclusions of the Tribunal in respect of the nature and scale of the abuse.”

She brushes aside evidence submitted by Rebecca — one of the Tribunal’s major critics.

She also rules out the existence of a national paedophile ring:

“Neither is there evidence of the involvement of nationally prominent individuals in the abuse of children in care in North Wales, between 1974 and 1996.”

“Consequently, I do not recommend the establishment of a further public or private inquiry.”

But Lady Justice Macur is also highly critical of the Tribunal.

Her team has done…

View original post 2,341 more words

Original Article: https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2016/05/09/the-macur-review-part-one-bloody-whitewash/

Editors Notes:

News & Views welcome always published as long as NO bad language or is not related to subject matter.