WE NOW HAVE A NEW NON GOOGLE WEB PAGE
and our back up
did not have names; they did not know who their parents were, or where
they came from, and they were completely terrified.”
He recounts that at the time, he was “deeply suspicious” of this
practice, and had a strong feeling that the children did not have the
proper permissions to travel. Since then, he has been likened to Jimmy
Savile, although to his credit, he does say his rap sheet is worse.
Savile was responsible for abusing 300 children – Blackheath facilitated
the abuse of 2,500 vulnerable minors, none of whom knew where their
parents were, or what was happening to them. They were completely alone
in the world. And yet Blackheath, with his strong suspicions, which
included the belief that what he was being asked to do to those children
was in fact illegal, chose to keep quiet.
You would think that after such an admission, Blackheath would be a
little more introspective. Not a bit of it. No longer speaking in the
first person he tells us:
“It involved many tens of thousands of children over 15 years; we should be deeply ashamed of it.”
The rest of Blackheath’s statement is equally interesting. He details
how these children were shipped off to Australia (careful to mention
this happens during a Labour government – Blackheath is a Tory boy); how
the courts there refused to sanction any adoptions involving these
children; and how subsequently, they all ended up on the streets. 2,500
children. On the streets. All on their own.
And then, he goes on to share his knowledge, common knowledge as it
turns out, that many of these children over time were picked up by so
called religious organisations who were in fact abusing children
emotionally and physically. Two of these organisations appear to be
infamous – The Sisters of Mercy, who were Catholic nuns, and the
Christian Brothers, who were already known in government service as the
“Christian buggers”. “Already known in government service”. How about
Blackheath also tells us:
rules of a Christian Brothers home were that if you were abused by one
of the holy fathers, that was an act of god, and if you complained about
the holy father, that was a sin against god and you would be flogged
for it. By the way, the flogging was with a metal hacksaw replacement
blade. It did not leave much of a kid… Any ship that was allowed to sail
from that date on was allowed to sail in the knowledge that the inmates
were going to be raped and abused.”
And yet Mr Blackheath did nothing. He did not utter a word.
A group of social workers at the time, though, did. And of course, they were ignored.
Blackheath goes on to detail separate accounts from this period of time,
but his statement, which clearly goes off at a long and winding tangent
– the Lords are supposed to be discussing amendments to the Bill – is
cut short by time watching peers.
(1) A person commits an offence if the person arranges or facilitates the travel of a child (“C”) with a view to transferring C’s permanent residence unless the person reasonably believes that—
(a) C’s parent or guardian consents,
(b) it is necessary for securing compliance with an order under section 8 of the Children Act 1989, or
(c) it is necessary for securing compliance with an order of a court in a foreign jurisdiction.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) “permanent residence” shall not include any detention under a sentence that is imposed by a court after a conviction for a criminal offence.
(3) A person may in particular arrange or facilitate C’s travel by transporting or transferring C, harbouring or receiving C, or transferring or exchanging control over C.
(4) A person arranges or facilitates C’s travel with a view to transferring C’s permanent residence only if the person knows or ought to know that C is travelling in order to live for a substantial or indeterminate period of time in a different location to the one in which C lived before the travel.
(5) “Travel” has the same meaning as in section 2.
(6) A person who is a UK national commits an offence under this section regardless of—
(a) where the arranging or facilitating takes place, or
(b) where the travel takes place.
(7) A person who is not a UK national commits an offence under this section if—
(a) any part of the arranging or facilitating takes place in the United Kingdom, or
(b) the travel consists of arrival in or entry into, departure from, or travel within, the United Kingdom.
(8) For the purposes of this section, a “person” shall include a public body.”
Was it a guilty conscience, perhaps? A fear that he might find himself
under scrutiny? After all the amendment if enacted might in some way be
retroactive. And with the nation’s Inquiry into child abuse he may be
feeling a little nervous about being thrust into the spotlight.
Nevertheless he’s done that for himself, by telling the world what he
did in a public debate in the House of Lords. Whilst we appreciate that
there may be a trace of contrition in that act, it’s hard not to feel
disappointed by those who choose not to do the right thing when it comes
to protecting children from being exploited.