Establishment tries to cover up child abuse – Michael Murrin’s letter to Lowell Goddard




0795 – 142 – 6617


Hon. Justice Lowell Goddard.

Independent Panel Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse,
2 Marsham St,
SW1P 4DF.                                                                                                        14th April 2015



Dear Justice Goddard,



I am involved in investigating child sexual abuse linked to politicians at Westminster.  This letter should be read in conjunction with the attachments listed below.


I became involved in the issue of child sexual abuse when the Jimmy Sa-vile story broke during 2012.  I noted that the press had not linked Sa-vile to the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) which operated as a pressure group from 1974 – 1984. PIE sought to reduce the age of consent to five and it had significant support within Parliament and among Left wing political activists. It was affiliated to the National Council of Civil Liberties – NCCL – (Now called Liberty) when Harriet Harman (Deputy leader of the Labour Party), Patricia Hewitt (Former Secretary of State for Health {2005-2007} – Labour) and Jack Dromey (Labour front bench MP) were involved with the NCCL(1).  


I ran an investigation into political corruption in the North West of England. During 1984 I was offered a copy of the PIE membership list. I was not in a position to purchase the list at that time but as “a taster” I was given the names of two people alleged to be on it. One was a senior Labour politician now sitting in the House of Lords, the second name was Jimmy Sa-vile. During 2012 I sought to bring the association between Sa-vile, senior politicians, and PIE into the mainstream media. This objective was secured during 2014(2) when extensive coverage appeared in the national press.


I have sought to secure the investigation of PIE by the Child Abuse Inquiry from the beginning.  This proposal has been strenuously resisted by the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister. The reasons for this are clear. PIE was so deeply rooted in the realm of the social elite and the political establishment that it had extensive influence. To have these links fully examined now would lead to the exposure of many highly influential individuals as being either practising paedophiles or the promoters of paedophilia. It has to be remembered that Roy Jenkins (Home Secretary & the “Architect of the permissive society”) expressed support for PIE. The organisation also came close to having a private members bill to have the age of consent reduced to just five years of age introduced into Parliament. PIE was also linked to the security services. Some speculate that the security services used PIE to entrap, for the purposes of blackmail, people of influence. I believe that there is now sufficient circumstantial evidence in the public domain to support this assertion.  I did write to David Cameron to ask him to bring forward legislation to bar the security services from using child sexual abuse as a tool of their trade as they did at the Kincora Boys School in Northern Ireland.  Mr Cameron’s response was contemptuous. 


I am still of the opinion that no Inquiry can get to the bottom of this issue if it does not investigate PIE.


On March 14th 2015 Theresa May was reported in The Daily Telegraph as saying “that the trail will lead into schools, hospitals, churches and youth clubs as well as ‘many other institutions that should have been places of safety but instead became the setting for the most appalling abuse’. She described revelations up to this point as ‘just the tip of the iceberg’ “. What Mrs May has failed to say is that the trail leads deep into the heart of the political and security service establishment.  This is the fact that Mrs May and Mr Cameron, et al, seeks to bury and shield from public scrutiny. 


It is a fact that the political Left were also instrumental in the promotion of paedophilia. Ms Harman, Ms Hewitt and Mr Dromey might not have openly promoted PIE but they gave it a veneer of social acceptability by allowing PIE to affiliate with the NCCL.  None of them took the step of resigning in protest. They helped to create the political climate within which PIE could operate and paedophilia could flourish in this country. These are the harsh and brutal realities which these politicians are not yet capable of facing up to. Mr Milliband recently put forward Mr Dromey as a Labour Party spokesman on a Radio 4 item focused on child sexual abuse. This demonstrates a disturbing level of detachment from both the facts and the realities of the NCCL relationship with PIE. The political Left must be forced to acknowledge the part they played in the propagation of this evil within British society.  PIE has to be subject to forensic examination if your Inquiry is to mean anything.


I have also campaigned for the Inquiry to be established as a Royal Commission.  This proposal was put forward because it would ensure that once the Inquiry was established it would be beyond the control of the political executive which is riddled with corruption, graft and malpractice.  The Inquiry would report directly to Parliament. It would also have the gravitas to ensure that the true importance of this issue is registered in the minds of the public. Again Mrs May and Mr Cameron sought to ignore this proposal and sabotage the establishment of any form of Judicial Inquiry. It is only after extreme pressure, and after the public exposure by the national media of two attempts to manipulate and corruptly establish non-judicial inquiries, that the current situation has been reached.


On January 25th of this year I wrote to my MP, Mr Ben Wallace. In that letter I stated that “I can now state that there is sufficient prima facie evidence to suggest that the Prime Minister, Mr Cameron, has acted corruptly in the matter of the proposed Inquiry into child sexual abuse. There is also evidence in the public domain which states that he has a personal relationship with Mr Derek Laud.  There are allegations in the public domain that Mr Laud has been connected to paedophilia. I have spoken to sources connected to the security services who allege that Mr Laud was connected to the child brothel known as the Elm Guest House.”  Mr Wallace failed to respond to the letter or address the content.  The fact that Mr Laud is a friend of Mr & Mrs Cameron is a matter of public record, he attended their wedding.  The question of Mr Laud’s alleged involvement in paedophilia has not been responded to.  Until such time as a denial is issued I think it is reasonable to assume that the reports are credible. This then connects the Prime Minister directly with a man who is deeply involved in paedophilia.  This could explain why Mr Cameron has been so obstructive when faced with demands for the issue of child abuse involving politicians to be properly investigated. It could also explain why his government is implementing policies which amount to the furthering of a pro-paedophile agenda. A copy of the letter is attached.


You will also find attached a copy of an email sent to Mr M. Rahman of the Independent Police Complaints Commission. The contents are self explanatory. I am now seeking to verify reports that Mrs May has been aware of the allegations concerning Sir Bernard since 2011. This poses the question why was Sir Bernard appointed to such a high profile position if these allegations were known about before he was appointed?  Was the vetting deficient or is a process of reverse vetting in operation? Is it the case that anyone with a clean record is being locked out of high profile appointments?  To rise to the top in the UK government machine do you now have to have a past that allows you to be “manipulated and blackmailed.”? There is now a situation where the Prime Minister is linked to a man alleged to be deeply involved in paedophilia. The Home Secretary has sought to corruptly manipulate the process of establishing an Inquiry into child sexual abuse and now seeks to curtail its remit so that it cannot effectively investigate the political links to paedophilia. The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police is now being openly accused in the national media of having suppressed previous child abuse investigations. I repeat what I have said above – the political executive is riddled with corruption, graft and malpractice. The issue of the links of mainstream political party’s to drugs money is something I have raised in previous correspondence with my MP – he failed to respond. I will bring forward further allegations, supported by documentary evidence, of corruption involving drugs and paedophilia before the end of April. The report will be sent directly to the DPP.


Many government files have either been shredded or ‘lost.’  The destruction of documentary evidence by the political executive and the BBC has been undertaken on an industrial scale since 2012.  For this reason I have campaigned for the removal of the threat of prosecution under the official Secrets Act for any government employee who gives evidence to the Inquiry.  There have been moves within Parliament in recent weeks to table an amendment to the Official Secrets Act to enable police officers and security service personnel to give evidence unfettered by the Act.  This amendment was defeated by the government. Theresa May voted against it. This demonstrates her continued corrupt and duplicitous behaviour concerning this matter.  Despite her public statements to the contrary her actions demonstrate that she is determined to subvert any inquiry into the political and security service connections to paedophilia. She seeks to shift the focus away from these connections and is prepared to act corruptly and dishonestly to do so. 

On March 17th the Guardian reported that(3):“Conservatives have rejected suggestions that the law needs to be strengthened to protect police whistleblowers who fear they will be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act for exposing a cover-up of a paedophile ring in the 1970s.

Damian Green, the former Home Office minister, said he believed the home secretary, Theresa May, had already given former police officers sufficient comfort by promising in the House of Commons they would not be prosecuted for revealing a cover-up.” If you examine the circumstances concerning the ‘letters of comfort’ given by the Blair government to Irish terrorists and the threat to now rescind them it becomes clear that nothing less than protection written into law will suffice to protect these people. I make the point again – the political executive is fundamentally corrupt and fundamentally dishonest. The Home Secretary’s words of assurance are worthless. The adage that ‘a verbal agreement is not worth the paper it is written on’ applies here with a vengeance.

In other correspondence attached to this letter I have raised the issue of individuals seeking to manipulate this issue for party political advantage.  I have personally spoken with activists who have said to me “this is a class war.”  Others have expressed their determination to use this issue to “bring down the Conservative party and the Monarchy.”  These comments might seem like the verbal rants of a few extremists but I would caution against dismissing them so lightly.  I recently published a series of reports focused on the on-line news agency, Exaro.  This agency has been very active in the area of the allegations focused on child sexual abuse. A key director is Mr Timothy Pendry (The nephew of the Labour Peer, Lord Pendry) Mr Timothy Pendry states that his experience has included senior communications advice in some of the most significant takeovers & mergers in British corporate history as well as an advisory role during the Russian Mass Privatisation programme. Since the mid-1990s, he has dealt with reputational issues arising out of private sector collateral damage during the ‘war on terror.’”Clearly Mr Pendry is no fool and cannot be considered to be from the lunatic fringe. On September 10, 2009 at 4:44 pm Mr Pendry wrote the following on an internet blog:


 “Unfocused Groupthink (whoever you are) – politics is a cesspit on all sides. We have not had a Revolution since 1688. One is overdue and it should sweep away the whole political class which probably includes 85% of those anonymous persons who regularly comment on Guido Fawkes’ blog and earn their living giving ‘advice’ to ease the paths of special interests to policy or are ambitious for their scribbling to gain the approval of other self-referential scribblers in the dying print media (perhaps not you and many others but these political molluscs infest the damp back garden of our democracy, you cannot deny)”


I think that talk of “revolution” is irresponsible and demonstrates an adherence to an ideological agenda which is designed to subvert the national interest.  Whilst I would agree with Mr Pendry that “politics is a cesspit on all sides” that is as far as our consensus goes. My objective is to exorcise the corruption from our political, economic and social institutions. I want reform and not revolution.


I have sought to engage in a dialogue with the Labour MP’s who have been campaigning on this issue but they have not responded. I have also sought to open a dialogue with Church of England representatives including The Bishop of Durham and The Archbishop of Canterbury.  The impression I have is that the various motives of these people might be less than altruistic. I think there is a hidden agenda which is political and ideological.  I would like to suggest that some of the protocols of the South African Truth & Reconciliation Commission be incorporated into the Inquiry.  This would, I feel, enable these destructive elements to be neutralised and allow the moderates to prevail.


It is a fallacy to assume that paedophilia is a purely British problem. It is an issue which affects every country.  For this reason I have suggested that any Inquiry should look at the international perspective of this issue. Britain is an outward looking country, we should not be narrow and parochial when examining this issue.


We have nothing in common and it is unlikely that we will ever meet but there is one thing we do have in common as far as the political and social elite in London are concerned – We are viewed as being the Oikes from the provinces.  To them we are the unsophisticated, naive and parochial people who are looked down upon. Flattered and humoured – perhaps? But behind our backs we are viewed with contempt. We both know that this is far from the truth.  You have power beyond that which Theresa May has sought to confer upon you.  The government cannot afford to lose another Chair to this Inquiry. I repeat again that any Inquiry that does not forensically examine PIE is nothing other than a whitewash. If police officers are not released from the threat of prosecution, now or in the distant future, under the Official Secrets Act then you cannot get to the truth. If the security services are not opened up and their part in the use of paedophilia as a tool for manipulation and control of persons of influence is not brought into the daylight, then the Inquiry will not have got to the truth.


I would urge you to ferociously guard your independence. I would suggest that you should make a point of meeting with campaigners without the impediment of an entourage of officials from the Home Office, the security services or the police. Do not become a prisoner within a gilded cage.


I look forward to your response in due course.


Yours sincerely,



Michael .H. Murrin















5 Responses to “Establishment tries to cover up child abuse – Michael Murrin’s letter to Lowell Goddard”

  1. A document future generations will look back on as a major contribution to investigate CSA.

  2. Steve says:

    Very well put! I am glad to have informed my MP, Andrea Leadsom, when she came to my door, campaigning, that in my view the politicians are the pawns of the banks, and that involvement in paedophilia appears to be the price of admission to the big club – assertions that she did not care to challenge.

  3. Have yet to see a more worthy piece of correspondence on the issue of CSA.

  4. scrunger says:

    Latest from Exaro News concerning Janner. Police voicing fury ? Which police are these ?

  5. Cador Pendry says:

    Just to paraphrase your comment in response to Mr Tim Pendry… ” in thinking that talk of “revolution” is irresponsible and demonstrates an adherence to an ideological agenda which is designed to subvert the national interest. (that’s a lotta words!)..Does that mean you think that this is somehow ‘unpatriotic’? The reality is that a complete change of direction would in no way effect our ability to defend ourselves from any outside aggression. This scaremongering attitude is not only helping feed the corruption from our political, economic and social institutions. But hiding the fact that revolution IS reform.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.