30 January - Where’s the evidence?
Yesterday evening I considered deleting
that day’s blog because what did it
say? It did not directly accuse anyone currently at Bexley Council of wrong
doing and degenerated into a re-run of what it was like when it would rather
employ paedophiles than whistleblowers, protect senior managers with a long
track record of failure in Children’s Services and when forced by law to
investigate, employ an old mate to do the job. Bexley Council being crooked a
decade or so ago is not really news any more.
An undercurrent of paedophilia in Bexley was however something different and
questions remain. The manager of the Thames Innovations Centre - now Engine House -
was not sacked until he went to prison and
the abuse in the Hoblands childrenְ’s home has been officially hushed up for another 50 years. Is
Bexley like my workplace in the 1970s and 80s where a huge
proportion of the junior staff was gay? The word had got around that it was a safe
place for such people to work. Maybe Councils and Social Services attract a certain sort of person too.
Then the following email arrived to which the straight answer is No, the redacted
name is not Rory Patterson. Firstly it is too long for the blackout and four
lines down it offers the only clue. The name is female.
The four redactions are of only one name.
While
searching the web for anything useful I stumbled across the comment that
was published here in 2013. At the time I tracked down the author and discovered
that her son had been snatched by Bexley Social Services and she was understandably very annoyed about it.
The mother claimed that Bexley Council was funding illegal activity and she had had a Super
Injunction placed upon her when she tried to reveal it and its Irish staffְ’s links to the IRA. For refusing to give up fighting
Bexley Council she was Sectioned and put in what she called “The Nut House”.
One of her emails includes the word ‘chokey’ which may provide a clue to the source of yesterday’s email.
Perhaps the corrected typo is significant too.
Anonymous messages such as these are a minefield and I took the precaution of
checking the source IP addresses of both. They were different but owned by the
same ISP so it is possible they share an author. But if so why did the
second message ask for the redacted name if the same author had written the first one too?
The correspondence with the author of the comments about Suffolk University came
to an abrupt end when I refused to publish her allegations about Bexley
Council without supporting evidence for which I was called a Fuckwit and worse.
Having a child stolen by a Council may well cause rage which escalates to the
verge of insanity but there can be little doubt that Bexley Council was involved in child abuse
and neglect scandals in the past and some
of it has appeared on these pages but evidence is paramount. Allegations are not
enough and without it BiB must find a new subject.
A link to the the High Court order would be a start.