|
« The royal Peat bog
Main |
November 12, 2003
The minister for child betrayal
Daily Mail, 12 November 2003 When Margaret Hodge was made Minister for Children in June, a lot of people could scarcely believe what was happening. For it was Mrs Hodge who, as leader of Islington council from 1982 to 1992, spectacularly failed to deal with a paedophile ring abusing children in her council’s care. Heavily criticised for presiding over lethal chaos and a climate of intimidation in the town hall , she later tried to pass the buck onto her officials, claiming to have known nothing about the abuse at the time – a version of events her former staff have vehemently contested. With such a grossly inadequate record in local government, anyone with a smidgin of shame would have quietly bowed out of public life altogether. Making a person with such a history Minister for Children instead was therefore a bit like having the late Robert Maxwell made Governor of the Bank of England. Aware of the furore over this appointment, Tony Blair was forced to keep his new Minister for Children well away from the launch of his policy designed to protect children from debacles such as the killing of Victoria Climbié. Yet despite having to go to such embarrassing lengths, he made feeble excuses on her behalf and kept her in office. Now, however, she has been caught out in a flagrant abuse of her position. Demetrious Panton, who was abused by a paedophile in charge of an Islington children’s home, tried during the 1980s to alert Islington social services to what was happening but was given the brush off. Alerted to his story, BBC Radio 4’s Today programme tried to discover whether Mrs Hodge had been made personally aware of the case. When she learned of the BBC’s inquiries, however, she wrote a letter of complaint to the BBC’s chairman Gavyn Davies, copying the letter to the Director-General Greg Dyke, the director of news Richard Sambrook, Today editor Kevin Marsh, and a legal firm. In that letter, she also claimed that Mr Panton was ‘an extremely disturbed person’. By such a response to Mr Panton’s revelation of abuse, Mrs Hodge was thus herself guilty of gross abuse of her position as a minister. For faced with a perfectly legitimate inquiry, given the deplorable history of what happened in Islington under her leadership, she tried to use her personal influence to browbeat the BBC into not running the story. Even worse, she resorted to smearing a victim of abuse whose only crime lay in having tried to alert her administration to what was going on. Far from being extremely disturbed, Mr Panton not only has a degree in philosophy and is studying for an MBA, but he is actually an adviser to the government on the New Deal for Communities, with John Prescott as one of his clients. As the police officer who dealt with his case remarked, Mr Panton is not the slightest bit disturbed. He merely wanted the paedophile who had abused him and countless other children locked up. Mrs Hodge says she didn’t know of Mr Panton’s case until after she had left the council. Maybe so, since her administration was mired in chaos; if she didn’t know about it, she should have done. To add insult to injury, when he finally wrote her a six-page letter in 1996, she sent back a dismissive four-line reply referring him to Islington council. This from the Minister for Children, who says piously that since 1992 she has been ‘listening’ to children who were abused. Faced now with Mr Panton’s bitter reproach, the least she could have done was apologise. Yet not only did she express no apology for failing to know something she jolly well ought to have known. Not only did she evince no concern whatsoever for his welfare. Instead -- unbelievably –she resorted to smearing him, thus adding character assassination to the abuse he had suffered, and attempting to bully the BBC into keeping it all quiet. But then, she has form in behaving in such a way. In 1992, the London Evening Standard first revealed the paedophile scandal of Islington’s children’s homes. Mrs Hodge dismissed this as politically motivated 'gutter journalism'. Her instinctive reaction was not to find out whether the story was true, but to ridicule, deny and intimidate – the very techniques used against Mr Panton and the BBC. Eventually, these reports were proved correct when an official inquiry concluded that the town hall had been 'paralysed by equal opportunity and race issues', which had prevented any proper investigation of complaints. That climate of fear was the direct responsibility of Mrs Hodge. Yet she has never acknowledged her part in creating that particular lamentable state of affairs. Moreover, after her appointment as Minister for Children two horrified Islington social workers claimed that she had been told children were being sexually abused in the council’s homes two years before the Evening Standard’s disclosures. According to one of these workers, he had been so concerned that he had circulated a warning about paedophile abuse in council care. But Mrs Hodge, he said, had ‘screamed and shouted’ at him and refused to discuss it. Mrs Hodge has never taken responsibility for what happened in Islington. The most she has done is to express ‘regret’ for the abused children, and to claim she has learned the lessons of such an experience. But the main lesson is that someone who presided over such a disaster should not hold office. Yet outrageously she has said instead: ‘I think that equips me better than most, having been through that experience, in thinking about how we now create a safe environment for those children at risk’. One might well ask how such a person can possibly have been appointed to any ministerial office, let alone to being in charge of child welfare. The answer is bound to lie in that lethal mix of the personal and the ideological which so characterises this government. For Mrs Hodge is not only an old chum of the Blairs -- she is a key figure in the ministerial sisterhood, that group of long-standing feminist friends who have managed to network their way into the very heart of government. They appear to exercise a considerable hold over the Prime Minister – no doubt because no-one else in his inner circle is prepared to criticise them for fear of falling victim themselves to New Labour’s deadly charge of ‘sexism’. Like several of her feminist colleagues, Mrs Hodge has successfully transformed herself from someone who flew the Red Flag over Islington town hall -- and epitomised the Labour party that Blair pledged himself to destroy -- to appearing the very model of moderation. Until now, she has got away with it. But now, through her own behaviour, she has made her ministerial position completely untenable. It is an insult to the children who were abused in her care. It is an insult to the staff of Islington council, whom she has wronged. And it is an insult to the electorate. The Prime Minister’s indulgence of his old friend has been a serious error of judgement. He must now sack Margaret Hodge without further ado, before outrage and disgust at her turns into contempt for his weakness in the face of a grotesque abuse of power. Posted by melanie at November 12, 2003
Comments
The allusion to Captain Bob, 'the bouncing Czech' was unfortunate; we should let him rest in peace on the Mount of Olives. As for Margaret Hodge FOT (friend of Tony), what other qualification does she need to sustain a career of incompetence at public expense ? It is hardly reassuring that her other half is i/c of Immigration Appeals adjudication; but she is merely a rich woman, imperfectly educated at LSE, after private schooling; who seems to think children of others are playthings for her crackpot schemes........if Imelda Marcos, Evita Peron, and Isabel Peron can have the run of the country with public funds, obviously Margaret Hodge has to play her role as Lady of the Manor dispensing high-flown rhetoric.......and using the back-channels to neuter the bad memories reminding her of her inglorious past. Posted by: Peter Williamson at November 12, 2003 11:54 AMI am at a loss as to how to react to this outrage, this hideous betrayal of a solemn trust by Tony Blair. One sees this horror and says he has seen everything, until tomorrow, when some even more appalling tale will emerge. Posted by: Ken Besig at November 12, 2003 02:44 PMI wrote to my MP when Margaret Hodge was appointed, to express my dismay. I tried to show how strongly I felt and what a bad choice she was for this post, without ranting and raving, using measured language. But all I got back was a letter saying that my MP could not think what on earth I meant, that there was no more fitting person for the job, MH's commitment to children was second to none etc etc. Then read an interview with her where she says it's her "dream job" - we should all leave the past behind us and move on eh!!! Sadly I think that if her appointment was considered appropriate in the first place given her appalling record, a trifle such as the letter to Gavyn Davies is not going to make any difference. Posted by: sally at November 12, 2003 02:57 PMDear Melanie, Thank you for your clear and honest articles in support of a childs right to see both parents. it's wonderful to see in print all the things that many fathers have said for years, only to find nobody was listening. I echo Tracy Hollowood's comments of today's date. Would like to see your distinguished colleague, Mr Simon Heffer, really sink his teeth into the barbaric practices of the family courts: all done under the umbrella of "in the child's best interests." Please, please don't give up the ghost on this issue. Posted by: Jean Miller at November 12, 2003 04:23 PMand her daughter is now a Congratulations on your campaign to oust Margaret Hodge, Melanie. The country has had enough of such paternalist toff Socialists. There is also child abuse still going on in the primary schools, in the form of the irrational and unresearched literacy teaching methods that you exposed a few years ago in your "All must have Prizes". The NLS "mixed approach" guarantees that 20% minimum (and 80% maximum in progressivism-dominated schools) of kids will be functionally illiterate at the age of 11. In last week's Moral Maze you agreed that a school could be avoided if its teaching quality was low. With the knowledge you have, couldn't you have been that bit more specific, and said that the teaching of the most essential skill - literacy - is still in the hands of treacherous lefty ideologists in many (mainly inner-city) schools? That such ideologists, like Hodge, have no conception of the torment that their charges are suffering? Those seeking the solution to this problem should view the RRF website: rrf.org.uk. Posted by: Brian King at November 12, 2003 11:30 PMFrightening that so called Leaders won't take responsibility for their actions or in this case no action. But then this is true of so called Leaders the world over at present. The mantra of the neo-socialists has been give me " Power & Authority without Responsibility " These episodes clearly disqualify Margret Hodge from a role involving responsibility over other lives, but to do that Tony would have to admit He, made a wrong choice. Dear Melanie, Thank you for another eloquent and convincing article on the ills of this society resulting from poor leadership, self-serving interest of Tony Blair, all couched and anchored in a strong feminist and leftist agenda whose aim is the destruction of family structures and children in this country. Your ongoing support, and fight for the cause of children and familes in this country should be recognised by the Queen. The abuse of children and fathers by this adminsitration, and the Family Courts must STOP NOW. Thank you again for trying to keep the issue of child abuse by the government and judiciary alive! Posted by: Randy at November 13, 2003 05:28 PMHi Melanie Philips I am a student at Bradford college. Thanveeer, if Melanie does not get back to you please contact me. Regards Alan Hodge makes a public apology, but it is not enough? She should have done the honourable thing and resigned. Mind you, if she is successfully sued won't she have to go then? This govenment is filled with brazen-faced hypocrites! Posted by: Frisbee at November 14, 2003 01:56 PMOur Prime Minister of Oz has demonstrated himself to be a VERY BIG man despite his relatively short stature. In calling for an Inquiry into Shared Custody, he stood up to the political incorrectness of opposing the radical misandrist feminism that has hijacked the Family Law arena. Soon will come his moment of truth. He appointed Ms Pru Goward as Sex Discrimination Commissioner, but she has shown herself to be a blatant misandrist and is using her position of power to drive her own anti-male gender agenda. I believe John Howard will sack this monster and will admit his error (in hindsight) Time will tell. Margaret Hodge has "apologised" - or at least, she has written a letter of apology which doesn't mean diddley - so that's all right then in the happy-clappy world of Tony Blair. She broadcast this man's personal history all over the British media and presented him as a pathetic failure when, in fact, he has been strong enough to overcome what was done to him as a child and gone on to become an achiever. How dare this woman spew his private history all over British breakfast tables and accuse him of being damaged and then "apologise" and think she's "done the right thing". Given the reluctance of incompetent socialist ministers to resign and given the reluctance of Tony Blair to make an enemy, the British public is left paying taxes to be misgoverned and insulted by a nest of slithering, hissing vipers. It is unconscionable. This tenth-rater with a history of ineptitude should be shoved off the Blair lifeboat. Posted by: Caroline at November 15, 2003 03:53 PMDear Melanie John Kelly - It would indeed be most interesting to see all these pieces of this puzzling jigsaw clicked into place. I for one am baffled about how a small coterie of women have managed to debase and disempower men in such a short period of time. Also, what is the motivation behind the Tony Blairs of this world who are helping them along? I believe it is part of the programme to complete the disintegration of the family so the state can take over, as was the Soviet Union's goal, as well. Take the children (metaphorically) from the parents and bring them up to be good little cogs in the state wheel. To me, this proves what a hard leftwinger Blair is, no matter how many people he inveigles into thinking he's really, deep down, a Conservative. I have never bought that. I've always felt that both he and his wife are Marxists. Posted by: Caroline at November 16, 2003 02:37 PMWell Carloine I don't think that T Blair is a Marxist, opportunist and careerist more like. Though it does seem that his government operated like a Communist one with constant streams of achievement propaganda, new initiatives from Agitprop, and a chancellor who thinks he is running Gosplan setting norms and targets and then adjusting them when they are not met. The son of Communist Ralph Miliband now suggests holiday camps for the nation's youth, and I cannot work out if this is Young Pioneers or Junge Pioniere or Freie Deutsche Jugend.......still they want to means-test it forb the middle-class so their children can be spared State indoctrination. The fact is that the populace has been rendered unconscious by a campaign of consumerism and a deluge of trivia in their newspapers which fail to report on matters of substance.......and signing up to things like EU Directives or even Regulations (which do not require Parliament)and then the Euro Treaties/Constitution which greatly extend the PC agenda...........while the Law Commission produces papers or Angela Mason, the Stonewall head of the Women's Unit in Hewitt's DTI coven dream up new agendas, most voters are watching Eastenders or doing crosswords on crisp packets. Posted by: Peter Williamson at November 16, 2003 06:37 PMwell done everyone for your heartfelt comments on this issue - however you must understand that good people like yourselves put Blair & Co. in the position of power they now abuse. I hope you will NOT be voting for new labour - or the tories/libdems - save your vote for an independent, non-party political honest local person, who has some integrity/decency. Otherwise dont vote for anyone - they dont deserve the legitimacy of your vote. Posted by: jimmy at November 16, 2003 08:43 PMThe highest majority in the House of Commons is I believe held by an Indepenent....is it Wyre Forest ? Posted by: Peter Williamson at November 17, 2003 08:22 AMWyre Forest Votes Share Peter Williamson, you say you don't think Blair is a Marxist - and then run through the Marxist agenda he has set the inept, cackhanded gang that can't shoot straight and is otherwise known as the British government... His wife is also a Marxist - I think even more toxic than he is. Look at the radical lefties he has in his cabinet, including Tessa Jowell or whatever her name is, who dubs herself "minister of free time". Harriet Harmon? Give me a break! The UK's First Caravanner Margaret Beckett? Slithy Jack Straw? Margaret Hodge, another champagne marxist who will not get her comeuppance - because in this government, you can get away with anything. The prime minister calls the prime minister of Lithuania and advises him to sell the country's steel company to an Indian national who employs about 10 people in the UK and around 20,000 others all over the world, and who causes Corus workers to be laid off - in return for a donation to the Labour party. He's prissily against cigarette advertising unless you contribute a million pounds to the Labour party. They're a nest of Marxists. Does anyone know Margaret Hodges' email address? I would like to make my thoughts about her known to her personally. Posted by: Caroline at November 18, 2003 06:23 PMI sincerely hope Margaret Hodge does not resign. The days of the child-abuse industry and reactionary Daily Mail homophobes running the show need to be well and truly part of history. Posted by: Mike H at November 26, 2003 12:33 AMIf you're going through hell, keep going.Everybody is a star with the potentiality to shine in the infinite sky of eternity. Posted by: Sicherman Miriam at December 10, 2003 09:41 PMGenerosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need. Posted by: Millman Cindy at December 21, 2003 02:05 AMThere was no immunity to cuckoo ideas on Earth. Posted by: Berglin Deb at January 9, 2004 05:10 PM |
