Correct me if I am wrong but isn't the purpose of a cover up to cover up some dreadful wrong doing so no one will find out. Well is it any surprise that we can't find evidence of a cover up on this most dreadful of crimes? Its been COVERED UP for God's sake! (scratches his head wondering what has happened to IQs in recent times)

Judge the IQ of politicians by the number who could only take PPE degrees.

However, statistics still works. If 114/11 files have gone this century, unless they were deliberately destroyed, the chance that they would all go is vanishingly small. A banker should know that.

We can all smell the BS!

See this: "[...] the report has uncovered the incompetence surrounding recording of child abuse allegations and says there was no system in place for recording what was received by the department and what action was then taken. Even now there is no proper recording system, something the Home Secretary Theresa May has promised to deal with."

Yeah right. Nobody knew, nobody knows, nobody cares - and Ms May 'promises' to deal with it - when exactly? Some time after the next elections? Because she's had sooo much work to do dealing with the EAW? After all, having Brits extradited "painlessly" to any EU country is so much more important than dealing with child sex abusers, especially if they're to be found in the high ranks of the Westminster "elite"!
FFS - they aren't even dealing with the very low ranking Pakistanis doing it in Rotherham and other places!

This whole Westminster Bubble must be burst, and it's up to us to do it!

Vote UKIP - get UKIP.

Vote anybody else and best keep your kids chained up at home because they're not safe!

colliemum, your summary could not be any better. 1,000 up's would be nowhere near enough. Keep thinking and keep writing.

Thank you - you've made me blush now!
I certainly shall KBO, in Churchill's immortal words.

Mmmm... rather like Woodward and Bernstein handing their Watergate dossier to Richard Nixon.

You didn't really expect any of these disgusting, filthy establishment perverts to ever come to trial, did you?

The time has now come for everyone to accept that everything is completely above board and the government and administrators are not at fault.

"wink wink, nudge nudge"

Why are we being distracted looking for this historic dodgy dossier when the nation is a hotbed of curried paedohiles flouting the law daily and with impunity?

So, no evidence of the dossier, no evidence about it's location and/or destruction, no evidence who lost/destroyed it, no evidence of a cover up, no evidence of who was mentioned in it, and no desire to ask any questions outside the closely defined remit, even when other people say they have relevant information.
Either the enquiries are too narrow to do any good, or they are too wide to catch everything in its net. Get rid of these useless idiots.

It was given to Brittan, he must have read it to have passed it on so ask him for a few names. I can remember names from my chilhood so a couple of names from a dossier shoudn't be to difficult.

Better idea. Ask the Police. They got the dossier from the Home Office.

Evidence? Oh, that - no, we ditched that a long time ago - can't have it falling into the "wrong" hands, can we?

Who would have guessed that this would be the result?

Foregone conclusion, like the "enquiries" into climate change.

Super quick white wash, this one. They couldn't even be bothered to drag it out and pretend they were investgating.

They've become complacent. Since we haven't taken to the streets in any significant numbers they think they've got away with it, hence the disregard towards anything, ie the EAW, that the people disagree with.

We'll see how right they are in May.

Paedophiles always cover each other's tracks, that's how their networks survive.

I suspect the truth will only come out when all of the alleged perpetrators are no longer of this world.

Like Fatboy Smith probably.

now then now then, how's about that guys n gals?

What a surprise; I would dearly like that a copy of the file now emerges.

You'd be disappointed. Any real evidence and Dickens would have handed it directly to the police.

David Dickinson is an English antiques expert, television presenter and entrepreneur.

Does this answer your puerile question?

If South Yorkshire police are already shredding files relating to allegations made in or about Rotherham, could we really expect anything from so far back, especially as there has been a PIE-loving LieMore government since then.

When I was in the RAF if a technical book was amended the amender had to sign for the destruction of removed papers. I conclude that if a file has been destroyed someone some where must have signed for its destruction. If that has not been done then the person doing the destroying did it unofficially. So start with Brittan find out who he gave the files to and keep going until there is no one left. Bingo

I was in the RAF too - and had charge of updating the standing and local orders book, and then 15 years in archiving after that. Ditto your comments.

Not correct. Files are destroyed after a certain number of years unless they are designated to retain. It depends on what type of file it was. If it was a correspondence file they are usually destroyed after 2 years. My understanding is that some file titles appear on a index but the files themselves cannot be found because they are assumed to have been destroyed. It also depends on when a file was opened. Just because Dickens went to see the Home Secretary in 1983 does not necessarily mean that the papers would be filed in a 1983 file: it could have been in a 1976 file.

As to the final bit of your post, Lord Brittan would have passed Dickens 'dossier' to the Principal Secretary - in other words to the Civil Servants - and the dosser was then forwarded to the Metropolitain Police. All that seems to survive is a letter from Lord Brittan to Dickens.

How can the police find criminals when they can't find files? I was told by a serving police officer in the London Met. about 1984 that they have a file 'this big' on Cyril Smith... peculiar people as he called that sort. So is that file keeping a door closed rather than open in New Scotland Yard?

Ah so you were told by 'a serving police officer in teh London Met. about 1984. . . ' Please give a more exact date and please name the officer.

PC Dixon of Dock Green ... 5pm just after Countdown. Now don't ask silly questions!

I'm sure I read somewhere that Mr. Dickens' son said he had a copy of the dossier. We can only speculate as to whether anyone involved in the enquiry thought to ask him if he could help.
Battling Barbara Castle's dossier certainly still exists, the bloke who holds it has said so. There was apparently an overlap in the information covered by the two, but I guess that carefully framed 'scope' of the inquiry excluded looking at other sources that might corroborate the Dickens allegations

There were three. An original and two copies but Dickens accusations were shaky. Hear say is not evidence and the age of consent in those days was different.

Exactly. The 'dossier' was forwarded to the Police. As Dickens died in 1995 and remained an MP, he seems to have been satisfied with the actions of the Home Secretary. Unfortunately many on here seem to believe they know more of the matter than Dickens. Be handy if they actually took their evidence to the Police.

NewsLight and Andy,
Fair points but the issue here is not what was in the dossier but can we believe it is pure coincidence that it go lost, exactly the same thing as happened to the file presented by Barbara Castle the former Blackburn MP. Coincidence? I think not.
As for the shakiness of Dickens allegations Newslight, as they have never been published how do you know? Hearsay by any chance?

You make me laugh. The facts are actually quite simple. Dickens went to see the Home Secretary in late 1983 carrying with him a 'Dossier'. The Home Secretary passed this to his Principal Secretary who forward it to the CPS. They sent the relevant sections to the Police to investigate. The Home Secretary wrote to Dickens in March (I think) 1984 outlining this and Dickens thanked him for all his help in these matters. FACT - Dickens was satisfied with the actions of the Home Secretary.

But somehow for you this isn't good enough. On the strength of nothing at all you seem to believe that there is some vast conspiracy. As the Dossier was actioned as above, and found to have no relevant material why would it be 'retained' ? The Dossier hasn't been 'lost': it was actioned and has since been destroyed because there was nothing in it that warranted its retention. I say again Dickens, who complied the bloody thing, was satisfied with what was done with it. If you have any evidence whatsoever that the Dossier contained some killer facts perhaps you would share it with us all. If you do not then you should accept what Dickens himself said.

Your version of events is completely different to the one told by Dickens before his death.
I'll bet you believe Dr. David Kelly committed suicide by hitting himself on the back of the head with a blunt instrument too. Far more evidence than is necessary to refute your claims is already in the public domain, if you are too lazy to look it up for yourself why should I waste my time.

Lies, lies, and more lies. The facts are that Dickens went to see the Home Secretary in November 1983 and the following year (March 20th) a letter was sent to him from the Home Office stating that any relevant information had been passed to the Police. In Parliament Dickens acknowledged that he had always found the Home Office very cooperative and on 31 March 1987 said “I should like to place on record my thanks to the Home Office and the departments within the Home Office for following up the many cases that I keep sending to it. I should also like to thank the Attorney-General. They have been very helpful and a strength to me in my campaigns.”

As Dickens remained a member of the Commons until he died in 1995 and at no time (as far as I can see) did he object to the way the Home Secretary had acted. As you give no evidence to refute this your comments must be regarded as rubbish.

If you really believe there is a scrap of truth in your idiotic ravings would you care to tell us (with particular attention to grammar and spelling), why are police currently investigating organised abuse rings centred on Dolphin Square and Elm House and why these investigations based on similar allegations to those contained in Dickens dossier and the one compiled by Barabara Castle now turned into a triple murder enquiry?

An establishment troll such as yourself may be able to prestend these things are not happening, but I assure you here in the real world most sane people are aware the establishment are in a blind panic about what may be revealed.

You never mentioned Dolphin Square: you mentioned Dickens. I quoted to you what Dickens himself said in the House - see Hansard. You are saying that Dickens held different views, which he expressed before his death, but you give no quotes nor sources. Kindly do so.

As to Dolphin Square and Elm House I shall wait until the Police produce a body or two.

So it was up to me to mention Dolphin Square. I was right then, you don't read newspapers or watch television news. Why is it my responsibility to make sure you are well informed on current affairs Andy?
You can do what you like and I will keep raising the issue of the cover up culture which is what concerns most people.

Another MP has now come forward and said he passed evidence of abuse crimes to the police and nothing was done. So here's another case you can be in complete denial about.

Are you winding people up again Ed? This other MP wouldn't by any chance be John Mann, MP for Bassetlaw would it? He had some interesting things to say to his local paper about evidence he passed to the police going astray. He also said this:
"“I have also been shown evidence of two murders in Lambeth where the victim was about to speak out, I have been given lists from many sources, most highly credible, of names of prominent people involved. These allegations are as mind-blowing as the list of MPs and prominent people named. It is a who’s who of politics."
That can be found here ...
http://www.retfordtimes.co....

So no wrong doings at the Home Office found?

But why is it that the government (part of the Establishment) always draft in one of their own to review possible cover ups. For Wanless is a former career senior civil servant having been Principal Private Secretary to three Cabinet Ministers (one at least with underlying rumours of child abuse). Therefore it appears that we could have yet another establishment appointee with too many establishment ties. Indeed so that total commitment to find out the truth is fully the case and to be seen the case, Wanless was clearly not the man for the job, just like Butler-Sloss and Fiona Woolf with their establishment connections. But the Home Office it has to be said is also the most corrupt government department -
http://worldinnovationfound...

and where the Establishment never changes its spots, now does it ? -
http://worldinnovationfound...

Will we ever know the real truth, I very much doubt it. Indeed I can hear the whitewash being mixed as I write this view on the situation. Watch out for Wanless getting a knighthood to add to his CB over the next few years or earlier.

The kindest spin you can put on Wanless is that he is just part of the establishment. These days I wonder exactly how many kiddy fiddlers there are in our 'upper' echelons.

The mess in the Home Office seems to tally with what Dominic Cummings reveals in his blog about Education.

Local authorities have to retain documentation on children in care for 100 years under instructions from government. My wife when working in one saw files from the 1950's.

If the missing documents had been seen this century it seems strange that they all disappeared, if only from a statistical point of view. With 11 files going missing, even if the Home Office get rid of 50% of documents, there is only a one in two thousand chance that all would go. One would expect that files would be kept at least a lifetime for obvious reasons.
Are there not logs kept about who is handling particular documents? Strange, as well, that government forces everybody else to keep full records but does not bother itself.

I cannot see underlings destroying such contentious documents.
Stinks.

State bureaucracy filth protects Westminster filth.

Like Rotherham and many other places, little kiddies are fair game because claims of abuse can be dismissed as lifestyle choice, poor witness material, liars, fantasists, bad
families or anything else that can be put near a ticked box, in fact all denial that helps perverts and their type of friends sleep easily.