NORTH WALES POLICE COVERED UP GORDON ANGLESEA’S LIES

December 12, 2017

rebecca_logo_04

NORTH WALES POLICE deliberately with-held sensational evidence about Gordon Anglesea from the North Wales Child Abuse Tribunal.

The force suppressed the fact that the retired police superintendent lied when he was questioned under caution about an alleged indecent assault.

That’s the revelation which emerges from the updated version of the Macur Review, headed by Lady Justice Macur, released on December 5.

The Review — launched in 2012 by then-Home Secretary Theresa May — examined the workings of the 1996-2000 North Wales Child Abuse Tribunal headed by Sir Ronald Waterhouse.

The case of Gordon Anglesea was central to the Tribunal’s hearings.

Anglesea’s name was removed — “redacted” is the technical term — from the Macur Review when it was published in March 2016 because he was due to stand trial on historic child abuse charges.

He was convicted at Mold Crown Court in October 2016 and died in prison shortly after he began a 12 year prison sentence.

The new version of the report — which follows a Rebecca campaign to have the redactions removed — adds to the growing body of evidence showing North Wales Police (NWP) was determined to  protect Anglesea.

It reveals that in 1997 a woman made an allegation that she had been indecently assaulted by Gordon Anglesea.

uISgKo6q_400x400

ALUN CAIRNS
THE WELSH secretary released the revised Macur Review — a report jointly commissioned by the Wales Office and the Ministry of Justice — in a statement to the House of Commons on December 5. For more than a year Rebecca has been calling for an unredacted copy of the report. In the days after Anglesea was convicted, we asked the Ministry of Justice if it would provide an updated version. A spokesman said no. In August this year we made a Freedom of Information request. This was refused – a refusal confirmed by an internal review which added that the information “was intended for future publication”. The Rebecca appeal to the Information Commissioner was being processed when the government decided to publish the amended report… 

The Review says that the woman — “an adult acquaintance of the family” — reported the matter to the North Wales Police.

The force submitted a file to the Crown Prosecution Service which decided there was “insufficient evidence” to prosecute.

The North Wales Police did not tell the Tribunal — still sitting at this point — about the allegation.

However, there were brief reports about the case in the national press which alerted the Tribunal.

The Macur Review notes that the Tribunal’s legal team wrote to the chairman, Sir Ronald Waterhouse:

“… we have requested sight of the NWP file in respect of the allegation of indecent assault …”

“The NWP’s legal representatives are concerned that this allegation (of indecent assault upon an adult) is entirely irrelevant to the issues before the Tribunal. “

“We believe that we should at least see the file, and unless you take a contrary view, we propose to insist upon its production to us.”

Lady Justice Macur notes that the words “justification needed” were written on the note.

She adds:

“ …  it does not appear that the matter was taken any further.”

The new version of the Macur Review makes it clear that North Wales Police deliberately covered-up a critical element of the case.

Lady Justice Macur reveals that Anglesea had “lied when first questioned under caution” about the alleged offence.

She notes:

“I regard the evidence that Gordon Anglesea had lied when first interviewed under caution about the allegation of indecent assault against an adult acquaintance of the family was relevant to the issue of his credibility.”

“Counsel to the Tribunal do not appear to have been made aware of this fact and would have been at a disadvantage in justifying their request for disclosure.”

“This information may have been significant in the Tribunal’s appraisal of his [Anglesea’s] credibility and would have been ‘fresh’ evidence to that which had been available in the libel trial.”

North Wales Police did not want this damaging piece of evidence to come out.

The force was covering up for Gordon Anglesea …

♦♦♦ 

THE REVIEW also reveals that other important information was kept from the Tribunal.

Lady Justice Macur reveals the existence of an internal memo written by government law officers in May 1993.

This noted that “ … enquiries have also been made concerning Anglesea’s behaviour in other areas of his life.”

This revealed:

“One or two minor items of gossip concerning him have been reported to the investigating officers. For example … seen him at a local homosexual club … not been confirmed.”

These inquiries also included his “domestic life” which “also failed to reveal any indication at all of any homosexual inclinations on his part …”

macur_lj1

LADY JUSTICE MACUR
THE JUDGE, who headed the four year £3 million Macur Review of the Waterhouse Tribunal, revealed an enormous amount of new information. Although much of it was critical of Tribunal chairman and fellow judge Sir Ronald Waterhouse she still decided there were no grounds to overturn his conclusions. Rebecca has challenged her verdict in two articles  — Bloody Whitewash and The £3m Whitewash.

This memo was never mentioned in any of the public hearings of the Tribunal.

Nor was the fact that it was common knowledge among police in Wrexham that Anglesea was having an affair with a young woman police constable (WPC) in the 1980s.

The Macur Review is also silent on this relationship.

The WPC made — but later withdrew — an allegation that Anglesea raped her during a night shift at Wrexham police headquarters.

Rebecca knows her name but is not revealing it — our investigation into this continues.

From 1979 Anglesea was in charge of the Bromfield division which covered outlying districts of Wrexham.

The WPC lived in this area and officers on patrol regularly saw Anglesea’s car outside her home.

The significance of this was to become clear in 1994 when Anglesea sued four media companies for libel.

They accused him of abusing three boys.

During the court case, Anglesea’s defence team portrayed him as a happily-married man.

Many North Wales Police officers will have known that this picture was false.

Yet these officers stood by and watched as the jury found for Anglesea by 10 votes to 2.

He walked away with £375,000 in damages.

♦♦♦ 

THE REVISED version of the Macur Review is also silent about another example of North Wales Police protecting Anglesea.

At the time the Review was established, in 2012, a new police investigation was launched — Operation Pallial, carried by the National Crime Agency on behalf of North Wales Police.

There was an agreement between Operation Pallial and the Macur Review “governing how the two teams would work in tandem”.

anglesea

GORDON ANGLESEA
FROM THE moment allegations of abuse surfaced about the police superintendent in the early 1990s, North Wales Police failed to investigate him properly. In the years that followed the force launched a sophisticated — and successful — operation to cover up its shortcomings. It wasn’t until an outside body — the newly-formed National Crime Agency — was called in that Anglesea was finally brought to book…  
Photo: Trinity Mirror

This means the Macur Review should have been aware of a highly significant incident which took place in April 2002.

Two North Wales Police detectives interviewed a man in Liverpool’s Walton Prison who gave them information about an alleged abuser with a distinctive birthmark.

This man — who can’t be named for legal reasons — gave evidence when Anglesea stood trial in the autumn of 2016.

The jury found his evidence convincing and convicted Anglesea of indecently assaulting him in the 1980s.

Back in 2002, North Wales Police detectives interviewed this prisoner as part of Operation Angel, an investigation into further allegations against already convicted child abuser John Allen.

Internal North Wales Police records show the prisoner handed detectives a piece of paper with the names of three of the men he said had abused him.

The third name on the list consisted of a Christian name: “Gordon”.

The witness noted that “Gordon” was “prim and proper dressed, birthmark on face …”

There followed an exchange of emails which reveal senior officers were aware “Gordon” could well be Anglesea.

One of these emails talked of “keeping quiet”.

A decision was taken not to investigate further.

None of this was known until the National Crime Agency (NCA) began investigating Anglesea in 2012 as part of Operation Pallial.

The NCA were concerned about the way North Wales Police had dealt with this matter and made an official complaint to the force.

Only the two officers who interviewed the prisoner — a detective sergeant and a detective constable — were investigated.

When Anglesea was convicted last October, North Wales Police told Rebecca:

“We can confirm that North Wales Police Professional Standards Department have received a complaint as a result of Operation Pallial that is being investigated.”

North Wales Police have now told us the investigation was “finalised” in October 2016:

“ … there was no case to answer for the two officers; one of whom had retired some time ago.”

 

♦♦♦ 

THE PROTECTION of Gordon Anglesea continued even after he started his 12 year prison sentence.

His conviction meant that his considerable police pension — perhaps as much as £25,000 a year, all fully funded by taxpayers — was potentially forfeit.

This decision was in the hands of the Police and Crime Commissioner for North Wales, retired police inspector Arfon Jones.

arfon-jones

ARFON JONES 
THE POLICE and Crime Commissioner for North Wales, Arfon Jones is a retired police officer who worked under Gordon Anglesea in the 1980s. He was a prosecution witness in Anglesea’s criminal trial in 2016. Anglesea claimed he rarely visited the Bryn Estyn children’s home but Arfon Jones told the court he often dropped his boss at the complex.  
Photo: Police & Crime Commissioner’s Office

Under the Police Pensions Regulations 2015 a former police officer can be stripped of his pension if the offences were

“ … committed in connection with the [officer’s] service as a member of a police force and in respect of which the Secretary of State for the Home Department has issued a forfeiture certificate.”

After Anglesea’s conviction, Arfon Jones “concluded this was a case where the forfeiture of pension was appropriate.”

However, he had not applied to the Home Office for a forfeiture certificate by the time Anglesea died in prison on 15 December 2016.

After Anglesea’s death — but without consulting the Home Office — he decided that his widow Sandra should receive half of his pension.

Jones noted:

“There is no precedent in law to with-hold that 50 per cent especially as the beneficiary has not been convicted of any offence.”

♦♦♦ 

NEXT
GORDON ANGLESEA & ARFON JONES: UNANSWERED QUESTIONS
NORTH WALES Police Commissioner Arfon Jones has declined to answer Rebecca questions about his role in the Gordon Anglesea affair. Jones, a former North Wales Police inspector, won’t say why he allowed Anglesea’s widow to keep half of his pension without consulting the Home Office. Nor will he explain why his damning testimony against Anglesea in last autumn’s trial did not feature in the hearings of the North Wales Child Abuse Tribunal in 1996-97. And he won’t say if he made a statement when North Wales Police originally investigated abuse allegations against Anglesea in the early 1990s …

♦♦♦

NOTES

1
The revised Macur Review can be found here.

2
Rebecca has published many articles about the North Wale Child Abuse Inquiry — see the Child Abuse and Gordon Anglesea pages for more details.

3
The paragraphs from the Macur Review which relate to this story are:
INDECENT ASSAULT 
7.18
I am aware that an allegation of a relatively minor indecent assault was made against Gordon Anglesea by an adult acquaintance of his family prior to the commencement of the Tribunal hearings. It appears that Counsel to the Tribunal was informed that “the CPS had decided to take no further action in the case on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to support criminal proceedings”, but apparently not of the fact that Gordon Anglesea had lied, on his own subsequent admission, when first interviewed under caution about the allegation. A note to the Chairman from Mr Gerard Elias QC and Mr Treverton-Jones indicates that, “we have requested sight of the NWP file in respect of the allegation of indecent assault …The NWP’s legal representatives are concerned that this allegation (of indecent assault upon an adult) is entirely irrelevant to the issues before the Tribunal. We believe that we should at least see the file, and unless you take a contrary view, we propose to insist upon its production to us.” However, a manuscript annotation reads “justification needed” and it does not appear that the matter was taken any further.
7.19
I wrote to the present Chief Constable of the NWP [Mark Polin] on 15 May 2015 in relation to this non disclosure. The Chief Constable responded indicating that there is no material in the possession of the NWP to indicate why the file was not disclosed, but that it is possible that the file’s relevance to the issue of credibility was overlooked. Having looked into the matter, the Chief Constable noted that Gordon Anglesea had been interviewed during the course of the investigation into the indecent assault and an advice file submitted to the CPS, who decided to take no further action.
7.31
I regard the evidence that Gordon Anglesea had lied when first interviewed under caution about the allegation of indecent assault against an adult acquaintance of the family was relevant to the issue of his credibility. Counsel to the Tribunal do not appear to have been made aware of this fact and would have been at a disadvantage in justifying their request for disclosure. It is likely that the NWP overlooked the issue of credibility in favour of considering whether the facts of the alleged offence constituted similar fact evidence. This information may have been significant in the Tribunal’s appraisal of his credibility and would have been ‘fresh’ evidence to that which had been available in the libel trial.
INTERNAL MEMO
5.39  

I have seen the further faxed memorandum from [name redacted] to the Legal Secretariat’s officials on 10 May 1993 dealing at greater length with issues of discrepancy and credibility. It concludes, “although not directly relevant, enquiries have also been made concerning Anglesea’s behaviour in other areas of his life. One or two minor items of gossip concerning him have been reported to the investigating officers. For example … seen him at a local homosexual club … not been confirmed … [enquiries into his] domestic life have also failed to reveal any indications at all of any homosexual inclinations on his part …” A background note briefing the AG [Attorney General] subsequently in July 1993 assessed Gordon Anglesea to be of heterosexual orientation.

♦♦♦ 

© Rebecca 2017
Published: 12 December 2017

DONATIONS
If you would like to support the work of Rebecca, you can do so by clicking on the DONATE button.

Donate Button with Credit Cards

CORRECTIONS
Please let us know if there are any mistakes in this article — they’ll be corrected as soon as possible.

RIGHT OF REPLY
If you have been mentioned in this article and disagree with it, please let us have your comments. Provided your response is not defamatory we’ll add it to the article.


THE GREAT WELSH WATER POVERTY RACKET

October 15, 2017

15 October 2017

rebecca_logo_04

WELSH WATER is increasing poverty in Wales.

Nearly 400,000 low-income customers are being failed.

They have lost more than £80 million since the not-for-profit company ended its “customer dividend” in 2010.

The company is also secretly adding an extra £4.90 to their bills this year.

This is to help pay for the company’s range of “social tariffs”.

A Rebecca investigation shows these policies mean:

— just one in seven of the eligible low-income customers are being helped

— Welsh Water is reducing its contribution to social tariffs

— the policies are justified by a bogus consultation exercise

— they help boost the bonus of chief executive Chris Jones.

First Minister Carwyn Jones and the Labour administration in Cardiff Bay signed off the policy.

The water regulator, Ofwat, did nothing to prevent the company introducing a discriminatory pricing regime.

Rebecca exposes the great Welsh Water poverty racket.

♦♦♦ 

WELSH WATER’S strategy for dealing with poorer customers is simple.

Any household earning less than £15,000 a year can apply for its flagship HelpU social tariff which caps bills.

The scheme was introduced in 2015.

WELSH WATER LOGO

WELSH WATERGATE
THIS IS the third instalment of a Rebecca investigation that began in 2014. The first article — The Great Welsh Water Robbery — revealed the scale of directors’ pay. We compared Welsh Water’s salaries with the publicly-owned Scottish Water. Welsh Water, half the size of its Scottish cousin, is paying its directors twice as much. 
The piece also claimed that the company’s decision to end its “customer dividend” in 2010 cost consumers £250 million. 
The second instalment — The Great Welsh Water Conspiracy — revealed that water regulator Ofwat effectively fined the company £85 million for a £234 million overspend on its capital expenditure programme between 2010 and 2015. This was the money Rebecca claimed should have gone to customers in the form of reduced bills. 
The article also investigated the company’s use of the Cayman Islands tax haven to borrow money. It raised the possibility that some foreign companies were using the system to avoid paying UK tax.
Rebecca is independent and does not take advertising or sponsorship. Her only income comes from donations …

Originally, the threshold was £12,500 — close to the government’s “relative income poverty” level.

But the company raised the ceiling because:

“… there was a slow uptake of the tariff and analysis of the applications showed that there were a lot of customers who were not eligible as their income was over £12,500 but below £15,000.”

Customers accepted on the HelpU tariff have their bills capped at £190.

The average bill is £439.

By March 2017 the company claimed to have 66,000 customers either on this or one of its other social tariffs.

This is a major boost to low-income families — and Welsh Water is more generous than any of the privately-owned water companies.

But it is a fraction of the numbers who need help.

Welsh Water does not know how many of its 1,442,000 domestic customers are eligible for its social tariffs.

It has only recently commissioned research to try to pinpoint the exact number of vulnerable customers.

But Ofwat, the water regulator, has already done some of the work.

In a 2015 report it concluded that “affordability risks emerge when a household spends more than 3 per cent” of their income on water bills.

Ofwat calculated that nearly a third of Welsh Water’s 1.4 million customers — 32 per cent — were in this category.

This is 460,000 of the company’s domestic consumers.

The earnings of these 460,000 customers was less than £13,300 a year, according to Ofwat’s research.

This is well below Welsh Water’s own £15,000 eligibility figure for its flagship social tariff.

It is also close to the Welsh government’s poverty line.

The company’s says 66,000 of these customers were benefiting from its raft of social tariffs by March 2017.

It means that almost 400,000 are not.

To see what this means in practice, imagine a typical street of terraced houses.

Call it Water Street.

Seven of the households in the street earn less than £15,000 a year and are eligible for reduced bills.

But only one actually receives the social tariff.

This is because customers have to apply for the scheme.

cwmcarn_171014_01_a

WATER STREET
IN OUR fictional street of terraced houses, just one of the seven low-income households who qualify for Welsh Water’s main social tariff actually receive it. There’s also some doubt about the quality of Welsh Water’s figures: its claim that 66,000 customers benefit from the tariffs includes many thousands of consumers with small discounts that are self-funding. For example, customers paying their bills through the benefits system get a discount and the company gets it back because it saves the cost of chasing them for payment. Welsh Water declined to give Rebecca detailed figures for this article.
Photo: Rebecca (this picture of a street in the Valleys is used for illustrative purposes only)

Many are not aware of it — and some, especially pensioners, resent the idea that they’re poor.

So one householder gets £190 off their bill.

The other six are playing the full bill — on average £439 a year.

♦♦♦ 

UNTIL 2010 all low-income households benefited from Welsh Water’s “customer dividend”.

The company is a “not-for-profit” business which claims to operate solely for customers.

This allowed the company to hand back some of its profits to customers.

Between 2004 and 2010 more than £150 million was distributed equally to all consumers.

In 2010 every customer received a £22 rebate.

This was especially valuable to low-income customers.

But in 2010 the company abandoned the customer dividend and has never restored it.

In previous articles Rebecca has argued this was a mistake.

We estimate the company made more than £300 million in profits in the seven years since 2010.

The company used these profits to reduce its debt.

Rebecca says these profits should have been handed back to customers.

This would have meant that the 400,000 vulnerable customers who currently do not benefit from the social tariffs would have shared more than £83 million.

They would have shared this sum equally — over £200 over the seven years.

To go back to Water Street, our street of terraced houses.

This year only one will be on the social tariff — a reduced bill of £190.

But, with a restored customer dividend, the other six would also have received a reduction this year.

Each would have got £29.

♦♦♦

IT GETS worse.

In 2015 Welsh Water tried to reduce the cost of its social tariffs.

These were the only direct financial benefit any customer gained from the company’s operations.

Between 2010 and 2015 the cost of the scheme was borne by the company at a cost of £22 million.

But in 2015 the board of directors decided to force customers to shoulder some of the burden.

PA-8806261

PROTECTION RACKET
MENNA RICHARDS, the £70,000 a year senior independent director of Welsh Water, is part of the reason why Welsh Water has escaped proper scrutiny. Ever since it was formed in 2001, the company has enjoyed close links with BBC Wales. A former Director of BBC Wales, Menna Richards joined the company even before she stepped down from the broadcasting post in 2011. When she left the Corporation, her place was taken by her protégé Rhodri Talfan Davies. He’s the son of Geraint Talfan Davies who, after he stepped down as head of BBC Wales in 2000 was succeeded by his protégé, Menna Richards. Geraint Talfan Davies was a founding non-executive director of Welsh Water and served for nearly a decade. This means that Welsh Water has always had a powerful media player on its board. There’s no suggestion BBC Wales has been influenced by these connections. 
Photo: PA

It voted to introduce a one-off increase of £13 for every customer.

It claimed this was to cover the cost of taking over private sewers back in 2011.

At the time, the company — like many other water companies — had agreed to absorb the cost.

Now — four years later and completely out of the blue — the company decided to impose the charge.

The charge would have raised an additional £17 million.

Pressure from watchdogs and the regulator Ofwat forced the company to abandon the idea.

But the board of directors remained determined to reduce the cost of the social tariffs — and had another plan up its sleeve.

Back in 2010 the government introduced new legislation — the Flood and Water Management Act.

This allowed water companies to charge some customers to help pay for social tariffs.

For five years, Welsh Water didn’t use this cross-subsidy.

In 2015 it changed its mind.

In that year it secretly added £1 to every customer’s bill to help pay for the social tariffs.

Last year the figure jumped to £2.55 — and this year the figure has risen to £4.90.

The impact on Water Street has been dramatic.

In three years, the six low-income households in Water Street have each been forced to pay an extra £8.45 to subsidise their neighbour’s social tariff.

water_graph_03

SECRET CHARGES 
FOR THE last three years Welsh Water has been secretly adding an additional levy on 1.4 million customers. Already the hidden tax has raised more than £12 million and Rebecca estimates the total will exceed £42 million by 2020.
Graphic: Rebecca

Customers have not been told about these increases — they do not appear on the annual bills.

By March next year, the company will have raised more than £12 million from these extra charges.

The additional revenue raised from customers means the company has reduced its contribution to its social tariffs.

Last September Welsh Water produced a report for its bondholders — the financial institutions which lend the company money.

It noted that its support for the social tariffs will have dropped from an average of £6.5 million in 2017 to £3.6 million by 2020.

Welsh Water also has ambitions to increase the number of people on social tariffs to 100,000 by 2020.

The company told Rebecca this could mean customers being charged the maximum cross subsidy — £12 per customer — in order to fund some of the additional costs.

We can see what this will mean for the terraced houses in Water Street in 2020.

The increased uptake in the social tariff means two households will now be on the social tariff.

The remaining five, though, will now be paying an extra £12 to help subsidise them …

♦♦♦

WELSH WATER claims a major consultation in 2015 approved its current strategy.

Called “Your Company, Your Say” it generated nearly 12,000 replies and forms the basis of the company’s policies for the five years between 2015 and 2020.

Welsh Water claims this survey backed its proposals.

But the consultation was a carefully contrived public relations stunt.

Neither the 40 page outline of the five year plan nor the 12 page questionnaire were honest.

There’s no mention that the company expected to make a surplus of £40 million a year over the five years.

There is no mention of the possibility of using these profits to restore the customer dividend.

The only question which touched on this issue was on the level of bills.

The question asked was “Investment vs Bills”:

“We want to get the balance right between doing more to prepare for … future challenges and keeping your bills affordable.”

“Which would be your preferred option?”

Four options were then given: reduce bills by £10, keep them the same, increase them by £10 or £20.

INVESTMENT vs BILLS JPEG

LOADED QUESTION
THE QUESTIONNAIRE used by Welsh Water included only one option for reducing bills. Cutting bills by £10 is equal to a “customer dividend” of £14 million. Yet the company makes at least £40 million profit every year. An option to reduce the bills by £20 or £30 should have been included… 
Illustration: Welsh Water

Only the £10 reduction involved a partial restoration of the customer dividend.

It would have cost the company £14 million.

But the questionnaire was not enthusiastic about the option, warning those who ticked this option:

“ … this means doing less to prepare for future challenges.”

In a report on the consultation the then company chairman Robert Ayling said

“Your feedback told us that we’d generally struck the right balance between investment and bills, whilst you didn’t want to see a deterioration in service, even if that could lead to a lower bill”.

He added:

“However, you also told us that keeping bills low is a big priority, and some customers said that a reduction in bills would be welcome.”

Rebecca asked the company for details of the voting on this question.

Welsh Water declined to provide them.

♦♦♦ 

ON THE question of how to handle low-income customers — “helping people who struggle to pay their bill” — the company was even less transparent. 

The questionnaire stated:

“We would spend more to help these people, but it would mean that most of our customers would be paying a little extra on their bill to help those struggling the most”.

It then asks:

“How important is this to you and your community?”

No options were given about the amount of any possible increase.

Instead respondents were given the opportunity of expressing a feeling about it by choosing one of five faces.

Four of them were approving — from happy right through to ecstatic.

Only one of them was neutral.

HAPPY EMOJIS JPEG

LAUGHABLE
IN ITS questionnaire Welsh Water gave customers five choices. One of the five was neutral, the next was happy, followed by very happy and ultra happy. The final choice looked like a character who’d taken magic mushrooms. A balanced survey would have had a neutral option in the centre with two negative faces on the left and two positive faces on the right.
Illustration: Welsh Water

There was no negative option.

A genuine survey would have given concrete examples of what “a little extra” would actually mean.

This should have included a range from paying nothing right up to the legal maximum of £12.

Once again, Welsh Water would not give us the detailed responses to this question.

The company believes this survey — of less than one per cent of its customer base — gives it a licence to charge right up to the £12 maximum.

But, in practice, the vast majority had no say in the process.

And, until this article, they have not even been told the level of the charges they’re being forced to pay.

We could find no evidence the scale of charges has ever been published.

We asked the company if this was correct.

Its reply was:

“As far as we are aware.”

♦♦♦ 

WELSH WATER’S squeeze on the poor is taking place against a background of growing austerity.

The company’s average £439 bill is £44 more expensive than the England and Wales average.

At the same time Welsh average earnings are among the lowest in the UK.

Research by the Wales TUC says that, after inflation, average pay in Wales actually fell by more than 8 per cent between 2010-2014.

In 2013 the water regulator Ofwat realised its 2010-2015 price review had been too generous to water companies, including Welsh Water.

They were making greater profits than expected because of higher inflation and lower interest charges.

Ofwat chairman Jonson Cox wrote to all the companies in October 2013 .

He said:

“ … having compared the harsh pressure on customers and the generous returns to water company shareholders from macro-economic factors over recent years, I … have been banging the drum about customers and water bills for most of the last year.”

He urged them to consider forgoing all or part of the price increase for the year 2014-2015.

JOHNSON COX

JONSON COX
THE CHAIRMAN of the water regulator Ofwat, Jonson Cox tried — unsuccessfully — to persuade Welsh Water to hand back some of its profits to consumer in 2013.  But why did he make no attempt to stop the company introducing its discriminatory cross-subsidies in 2015? We asked him — he didn’t answer.
Photo: Ofwat

Five of the ten companies did so.

Welsh Water was not one of them.

♦♦♦ 

THE SITUATION for poor customers is set to get worse.

Back in 2014 the Consumer Council for Water produced a report called “Living with water poverty”.

It noted that new factors were making it harder for poorer households to meet their bills:

“… these are the rise of payday lending and zero hours contracts and the changes to welfare and benefit payments.”

It added that this was forcing some customers to use food banks.

By the time Welsh Water axed its “customer dividend” in 2010, there were 16 food banks in Wales.

By December 2015 the number had jumped to 157.

In February this year a study by the Resolution Foundation found that low income families are facing a triple whammy.

Rising inflation, falling wages and £12 billion in welfare cuts as Universal Credit is rolled out would slash their income over the next four years:

“A typical family with children is set to have a lower disposable income … in 2020-21 … than a typical family this year …”

These families, it concluded, would lose £600.

♦♦♦ 

THERE’S ANOTHER twist in this tale.

Welsh Water’s chief executive Chris Jones has a complex pay package.

On top of his £292,000 basic salary he has a bonus scheme.

The scheme — which takes up 13 pages of the annual report compared to just a couple of paragraphs on the social tariffs — is complex.

Part of the bonus is based on the increase in the company’s reserves.

GDP_2633 - Chris Jones

JONES THE MONEY
WHILE THE poor get poorer — and most of the rest of Wales treads water financially — austerity hasn’t touched chief executive Chris Jones. Last year his salary was £292,000 — but that’s just for starters. Bonus and pension contributions take the total to £773,000. It would take a Welsh Water customer on the company’s main HelpU tariff half a century to make that much money.
Photo: Welsh Water

These have been growing mainly because Welsh Water doesn’t give customers a dividend.

It is also higher because the company has shunted some of the cost of the social tariffs onto customers.

In the last two years Chris Jones has earned at least £130,000 from this element of the bonus scheme.

We asked Welsh Water exactly how much of this was earned as a result of axing the customer dividend and making most customers pay extra for the social tariffs.

The company told us:

“You are misinterpreting the way the scheme works and this is misleading for readers.”

It insisted the scheme:

“  … actually rewards the total value created for customers, including the value of social tariff subsidies made as well as the growth in reserves.”

We asked the company for evidence of this — we could find no reference to the social tariffs being part of the scheme.

The company declined to provide it …

♦♦♦ 

ON THURSDAY we sent Welsh Water an online of this article.

On Friday the company gave us a long statement.

It did not challenge our analysis of the cross-subsidies or the fact that the majority of low-income customers are not helped.

The statement insisted:

“The article is fundamentally wrong and paints an inaccurate and distorted view of the help we offer those customers who genuinely struggle to pay.”

“Needless to say, we strongly disagree with it.”

“We are currently helping almost 90,000 customers and have committed to increasing this to over 100,000 by 2020 – more than any other water company.”

“At the moment, we are currently signing up on average 160 customers a day to one of our assistance plans and working with around 160 organisations to identify those that we can help”

“As a company, we are committed to helping those customers who genuinely struggle to pay and are proud of the extensive range of support we offer.

“We have no intention of capping the figure at 100,000 when it is reached.”

“We know that at least almost 41,000 customers already save at least £250 on their bill through our HelpU tariff.”

In answer to our criticism of the consultation process which led to cross-subsidies being introduced, the statement noted:

“The claim that our assistance scheme has been implemented in secrecy is wrong.”

“Customer, media and stakeholder engagement has regularly referred to the assistance we provide.”

“The level of support from Welsh Water customers to support those customers who genuinely struggle to pay has always been higher than the level of support seen by other companies in the sector across the UK.”

“Indeed, research commissioned in 2014 looking specifically at the levels of support for assistance tariffs, found that 75% of our customers supported a contribution of up to £15 for supporting those genuinely struggling to pay.”

We asked to see this research but the company declined to provide it.

♦♦♦ 

WE ALSO wrote to First Minister Carwyn Jones.

His Labour administration in Cardiff sets water policy for Wales and was involved in setting Welsh Water’s social tariffs.

We asked the First Minister if he was aware that the company was now charging a large number of poor customers for the privilege of helping a much smaller number of low-income families.

“It’s robbing Peter to pay Paul,” our letter noted.

Joint ministerial council summit

NO REPLY
FIRST MINISTER Carwyn Jones did not answer our email asking him about the Welsh government’s apparent support for Welsh Water’s discriminatory social tariffs.
Photo: PA

“By allowing the many to pay for the few, it goes against the policy of Labour nationally”.

The letter urged him

“— to put a stop to the cross-subsidies

— to force the company to repay the £8.45 as soon as possible

— to restore the customer dividend so that those not on the social tariffs at least get some financial benefit.”

Mr Jones did not reply.

♦♦♦ 

Published: 15 October 2017
© Rebecca

♦♦♦ 

NOTE

Statement from Dŵr Cymru Re: Welsh Water
13 October 2017

The article is fundamentally wrong and paints an inaccurate and distorted view of the help we offer those customers who genuinely struggle to pay. Needless to say, we strongly disagree with it.

As we have already pointed out to you, the interpretation of how our Long Term Variable Pay Scheme (LTSVP) is operated is fundamentally wrong. To begin with, any insinuation that the LTVPS is designed in a way that gives a personal disincentive to fund social tariffs is simply wrong. You are misinterpreting the way the scheme works and this is misleading for readers. Our LTVPS actually rewards the total value created for customers, including the value of social tariff subsidies made as well as the growth in reserves. What this means is that we are equally as incentivised to pay social tariffs as we are to retain reserves.

We are currently helping almost 90,000 customers and have committed to increasing this to over 100,000 by 2020 – more than any other water company. At the moment, we are currently signing up on average 160 customers a day to one of our assistance plans and working with around 160 organisations to identify those that we can help. As a company, we are committed to helping those customers who genuinely struggle to pay and are proud of the extensive range of support we offer.

As a company we are proud to be able to say that we do more than any of the companies in our sector to help those customers who genuinely struggle to pay. Indeed, some companies have set a cap on the number of customers they support and only allow new customers to join their assistance schemes when another customer come off it. We have no intention of capping the figure at 100,000 when it is reached. We know that at least almost 41,000 customers already save at least £250 on their bill through our HelpU tariff.

The level of support from Welsh Water customers to support those customers who genuinely struggle to pay has always been higher than the level of support seen by other companies in the sector across the UK. Indeed, research commissioned in 2014 looking specifically at the levels of support for assistance tariffs, found that 75% of our customers supported a contribution of up to £15 for supporting those genuinely struggling to pay.

To conclude:

—  Any insinuation that Chris or any of the company directors are benefiting financially from money that would otherwise be used for assistance tariffs is wrong.

— The interpretation of LTSVP as diverting profit to increase reserves is wrong

—  The claim that the number of customers actually benefitting from the support we offer is below 66,000 is wrong. We are supporting almost 90,000.

— The claim that our assistance scheme has been implemented in secrecy is wrong. Customer, media and stakeholder engagement has regularly referred to the assistance we provide.

— The claim that the company’s contribution to social tariffs is decreasing is wrong.

—  The interpretation of our customer engagement and research is wrong.

Ends

♦♦♦ 

NEXT
GORDON ANGLESEA & ARFON JONES: UNANSWERED QUESTIONS
NORTH WALES Police Commissioner Arfon Jones has declined to answer Rebecca questions about his role in the Gordon Anglesea affair. Anglesea died last year after he was gaoled for 12 years for historic child sex abuse. Jones, a former North Wales Police inspector, won’t say why he allowed Anglesea’s widow to keep half of his pension without consulting the Home Office. Nor will he explain why his damning testimony against Anglesea in last autumn’s trial did not feature in the hearings of the North Wales Child Abuse Tribunal in 1996-97. And he won’t say if he made a statement when North Wales Police originally investigated abuse allegations against Anglesea in 1991 …

♦♦♦ 

DONATIONS
If you would like to support the work of Rebecca, you can do so by clicking on the DONATE button.Donate Button with Credit Cards

CORRECTIONS
Please let us know if there are any mistakes in this article — they’ll be corrected as soon as possible.

RIGHT OF REPLY
If you have been mentioned in this article and disagree with it, please let us have your comments. Provided your response is not defamatory we’ll add it to the article.


GORDON ANGLESEA: APPLICATION FOR £150,000 PROSECUTION COSTS DROPPED

October 1, 2017

1 October 2017
rebecca_logo_04

A COURT application to make Gordon Anglesea pay £150,000 towards the cost of his prosecution last autumn has been abandoned.

The retired North Wales Police superintendent was given a 12 year prison sentence in November for sexually abusing two boys in the 1980s.

After the trial an application was made that he should pay £150,000 towards the cost of the prosecution which included a six-week trial at Mold Crown Court.

Anglesea died in prison in December.

The National Crime Agency (NCA) has told Rebecca the application has now been withdrawn.

However, a separate investigation into Anglesea under the Proceeds of Crime Act continues.

Gordon Anglesea

GORDON ANGLESEA
THE DISGRACED police superintendent died before he could be stripped of his publicly-funded police pension. His death meant that his estate has also avoided a possible £150,000 bill to cover part of the costs of the prosecution against him. However, the National Crime Agency have confirmed that an investigation under the Proceeds of Crime Act is continuing.
Picture: © Daily Mirror

The NCA also confirmed that Operation Pallial, its investigation into historic child abuse in North Wales, is investigating a further 31 suspects.

Fifteen of these suspects are the subject of advice files currently being considered by the Crown Prosecution Service.

The remaining 16 are the subject of ongoing investigations which are expected to take more than a year to complete.

The NCA also confirmed that “a number of matters” — understood not to involve child abuse — are also being considered by CPS Wales.

As Rebecca reported last month, Operation Pallial had cost £4.3 million up to the end of March.

A further £1.2 million will be spent this year.

To date nine men have been convicted and eight have been gaoled.

A total of 361 complainants came forward and 143 suspects were investigated.

♦♦♦ 

Published: 1 October 2017
© Rebecca 2017

♦♦♦ 

NEXT
GORDON ANGLESEA & ARFON JONES: UNANSWERED QUESTIONS
NORTH WALES Police Commissioner Arfon Jones has declined to answer Rebecca questions about his role in the Gordon Anglesea affair. Jones, a former North Wales Police inspector, won’t say why he allowed Anglesea’s widow to keep half of his pension without consulting the Home Office. Nor will he explain why his damning testimony against Anglesea in last autumn’s trial did not feature in the hearings of the North Wales Child Abuse Tribunal in 1996-97. And he won’t say if he made a statement when North Wales Police originally investigated abuse allegations against Anglesea in 1991 …

♦♦♦ 

DONATIONS
If you would like to support the work of Rebecca, you can do so by clicking on the DONATE button.

Donate Button with Credit Cards

CORRECTIONS
Please let us know if there are any mistakes in this article — they’ll be corrected as soon as possible.

RIGHT OF REPLY
If you have been mentioned in this article and disagree with it, please let us have your comments. Provided your response is not defamatory we’ll add it to the article.


OPERATION PALLIAL COST RISES TO £4.3 MILLION

September 15, 2017

15 September 2017
rebecca_logo_04
THE COST of Operation Pallial — the police investigation
 into historic allegations of child abuse in North Wales — has risen to £4.3 million.

The figure, obtained by Rebecca under a Freedom of Information request, was the total at the end of March this year.

A further £1.2 million has been earmarked for this financial year.

The inquiry, carried out by the National Crime Agency on behalf of North Wales Police, is largely underwritten by the government.

The Home Office has paid 85 per cent of the cost — leaving the North Wales force with a bill of £671,000.

An additional £278,000 has been spent by the National Crime Agency.

♦♦♦

SO FAR nine men have been convicted and eight have gone to prison as a result of Operation Pallial.

One was gaoled for life and the others for a total of 55 years and 9 months.

They are:

Gordon Anglesea 

The retired North Wales Police superintendent is the most controversial figure in the child abuse scandal.

He was first accused a quarter of a century ago.

At the time the Crown Prosecution Service decided there was insufficient evidence to prosecute him.

Anglesea then successfully sued two national newspapers, the magazine Private Eye and HTV in 1994.

He received £375,000 in damages.

In November 2016 he was gaoled for 12 years after new witnesses came forward.

A jury unanimously found him guilty of four counts of indecent assaults on two boys in the 1980s.

anglesea

GORDON ANGLESEA
THE TRIAL of the former North Wales Police superintendent took place at Mold Crown Court last autumn. The jury of five woman and six men found him guilty of indecently assaulting two boys in the 1980s but cleared him of buggering one of them. He died at Rye Hill prison in Warwickshire in December 2016.
Photo: Trinity Mirror

He died in prison after serving 42 days of his sentence.

John Ernest Allen 

In 2014 John Allen, the former head of the private Bryn Alyn Community complex in Wrexham, was sentenced to life for sexually abusing 19 children in the 1970s and 1980s.

It was his second conviction — in 1995 he was gaoled for six years for abusing six residents of Bryn Alyn.

Allen is the most prolific child abuser in the North Wales scandal.

Roger Griffiths 

The former head of Gatewen Hall, part of the Bryn Alyn Community, was gaoled for 9 months in April this year.

He admitted possessing 51 indecent images of humans and animals engaging in sexual acts.

In June 2015 he was acquitted of two counts of historic indecent assault.

In 1999 he was gaoled for eight years for a serious sexual assault on a boy, an indecent assault on another boy and several counts of child cruelty.

Keith Alan Evans

The former care-worker at the Bryn Alyn Community was given an eight months suspended sentence in March 2016 for a physical assault on a resident in 1983.

He was cleared of physically assaulting six other boys.

Gary Cooke

A serial sex offender, Cooke was gaoled in October 2015 for 14 years on 15 counts of indecent and sexual assault.

The court heard five vulnerable young boys were lured to his home in Wrexham and plied with alcohol and other drugs before being abused by Cooke and others.

Cooke has used many aliases during his long career — he now calls himself Mark Grainger.

He has convictions for child abuse stretching back to the 1970s.

006_ALLEN

JOHN ALLEN
CURRENTLY SERVING a life sentence handed down in 2014. In total, he abused 25 children in his care at the private Bryn Alyn Community. The complex of care homes around Wrexham was an immensely profitable business — local authorities in England and Wales paid him more than £30 million between 1974 and 1991 to look after problem children.

David Lightfoot

The former Wrexham publican, an associate of Gary Cooke, was sent to prison for 10 years on eight counts of indecent and sexual assault.

Roy Norry

An ex-local radio reporter, Norry was another of those involved in Cooke’s paedophile ring.

He was gaoled for 11 years on six counts of indecent and sexual assault.

Neil Phoenix

Gaoled for three and a half years on one count of sexually abusing a boy at Gary Cooke’s home.

Julian Huxley

The former Metropolitan Police officer was gaoled for four and a half years on two charges of indecent assault.

Huxley was working as a civilian at Wrexham Barracks at the time of the offences.

♦♦♦

THE CPS are considering files on further suspects.

Operation Pallial continues to investigate other historic abuse allegations.

 

♦♦♦
Published15 Sept 2017
© Rebecca
♦♦♦

COMING
THE MYSTERY OF ARFON JONES 
THE POLICE COMMISSIONER for North Wales has declined to answer Rebecca questions about his role in the case of Gordon Anglesea. He has refused to ask the Home Office to strip the disgraced former superintendent of his fully-funded police pension. And he won’t explain why his damning testimony against Anglesea at last year’s trial never surfaced in the 1996-2000 North Wales Child Abuse Tribunal …

♦♦♦

rebecca_logo_04

DONATIONS

If you want to make a contribution towards the work of Rebecca, just click on the DONATE button.

Donate Button with Credit Cards

CORRECTIONS

♦♦♦

CORRECTIONS

Please let us know if there are any mistakes in this article — they’ll be corrected as soon as possible.

♦♦♦

RIGHT OF REPLY  
If you have been mentioned in this article and disagree with it, please let us have your comments. Provided your response is not defamatory we’ll add it to the article.

 


THERESA MAY — CEREAL KILLER

June 6, 2017

CONFLAKES MASTER


REVIEW — UNTOLD: THE DANIEL MORGAN MURDER EXPOSED

May 18, 2017

 

rebecca_logo_04

Untold: The Daniel Morgan Murder Exposed
Alastair Morgan and Peter Jukes
(Blink Publishing, hardback £14.99, ebook £9.99)
Reviewed by Paddy French

♦♦♦

ONE OF the reasons why the 1987 murder of Daniel Morgan has not been properly covered by Britain’s national media is the fact he was part-Welsh.

After nearly two decades involved in this story, I’m convinced Daniel’s Welsh background is a significant factor.

His father John — a native Welsh-speaker from Pontardawe — was wounded and captured at Arnhem in World War 2.

After the war he was commissioned a captain and posted to Singapore.

There he met Isobel and their two sons, Alastair and Daniel, were born in the British colony.

Daniel was premature and there were problems with one of his legs.

John Morgan resigned his commission to bring him back for treatment in the newly-created NHS.

The family lived for many years in Llanfrechfa near Cwmbran.

John, who had worked as a coalminer on his return from Singapore, died of emphysema at 41.

Daniel didn’t reach that age.

He was just 37 when he was axed to death in the car park of a south London pub.

The private investigator was married with two small children.

The prime suspect has always been Daniel’s business partner, Jonathan Rees.

One of the Scotland Yard detectives who investigated the murder, sergeant Sid Fillery, was kicked off the inquiry when it emerged he was a close friend of Rees.

Within a year Fillery retired — and stepped into the dead man’s shoes as Rees’ new partner.

Both were finally charged in 2008 — Rees with the murder, Fillery with attempting to pervert the course of justice.

The case collapsed.

For three decades the scandal was under-reported, especially in the broadcast media.

Just compare the hours of television devoted to another south London murder — that of the black teenager Stephen Lawrence.

One reason for this, I’m convinced, is Daniel’s Welsh connections.

The evidence is compelling: between 1987 and 2004 the only serious television documentaries on the murder were made by the Welsh current affairs strand, Wales This Week.

England — and especially London — has always had a problem with the Welsh.

It’s hard to put your finger on what it is exactly.

Partly, it seems to be indifference — “they’re not the same as us and some of them even talk another (foreign) language” sort of attitude.

FINAL BOOK JACKET

For some, though, there’s an active dislike of the Welsh — captured in the saying: “Taffy is a Welshman, Taffy is a thief.”

By the time I joined Wales This Week in 1999, the series had already made several programmes on the murder.

I picked up the baton and went on to make several more programmes.

In 2004 I helped persuade our sister series at ITV London to carry out a joint investigation into the murder — the first time an English broadcaster had taken any interest.

I got to know — and admire — Alastair Morgan and his partner, BBC journalist Kirsteen Knight, for their relentless dedication to securing justice for Daniel.

They’re ordinary people who have dedicated their lives to a single cause at an unimaginable cost.

The results, though, have been extraordinary …

♦♦♦

THE BOOK published today is the fusion of two projects.

For many years Alastair has been writing a book on the saga but there never seemed to be a natural end.

For example, the independent inquiry into the murder commissioned by Theresa May in 2013 — and chaired by Baroness Nuala O’Loan — has yet to publish its report.

Then author, screenwriter and playwright Peter Jukes became interested in the murder as a result of his research into the hacking scandal.

Jukes had chalked up a first with his crowd-funded live-tweeting of the dramatic Old Bailey trial of Andy Coulson and Rebekah Brooks in 2014.

When he realised the prime suspect in the Daniel Morgan murder case, Jonathan Rees, was also a major player in supplying illegal information to the News of the World, he was hooked.

The result is the award-winning Untold podcast — co-produced with Deeivya Meir — which has attracted more than 4 million listeners around the world.

That success — it was iTunes Best Podcast of 2016 — persuaded Peter Jukes and Alastair Morgan that a book was timely.

The result is a forensic account of a scandal that has tarnished the reputation of Scotland Yard, added another sorry episode to the history of the Murdoch press – and shamed the establishment into action.

It reads like pulp fiction — a dark tale of bent cops, murderous criminals,
unscrupulous hacks, self-serving police chiefs and devious politicians.

But it’s all true.

In nearly 400 pages, the book charts the unfolding scandal with Alastair — and his partner Kirsteen Knight — telling the chilling story from their point of view

Peter Jukes takes up the narrative between the sections of their personal testimony.

It’s a format that works well: the style is crisp and the result is an important book about the interaction between organised crime, corrupt police and illegal journalism.

Of course, some of the story still remains untold — after thirty years of twists and turns, it’s clear there’s more to come.

One area, for example, that has never been explored is the role of freemasonry.

Rees and Fillery were masons yet virtually nothing is known about their masonic connections.

The only criticism I have of Untold is the lack of an index — it means the book cannot become the work of reference it deserves to be.

Hopefully, the updated edition promised after the report of the Daniel Morgan Inquiry Panel is published, will add one.

♦♦♦

NOTES
1
The sister website to Rebecca — Press Gang — has reported extensively on the murder. See the Daniel Morgan page for more information.

♦♦♦

rebecca_logo_04

DONATIONS

If you want to make a contribution towards the work of Rebecca, just click on the DONATE button.

Donate Button with Credit Cards

CORRECTIONS

Please let us know if there are any mistakes in this article — they’ll be corrected as soon as possible.

RIGHT OF REPLY  
If you have been mentioned in this article and disagree with it, please let us have your comments. Provided your response is not defamatory we’ll add it to the article.


EXCLUSIVE — GORDON ANGLESEA: THE FINANCIAL REWARDS OF CHILD ABUSE

February 2, 2017

anglesea_head_rewards
INCOMPETENCE BY North Wales Police and Crime Commissioner Arfon Jones led to convicted paedophile Gordon Anglesea keeping his police pension.

The Commissioner has acknowledged Anglesea deserved to lose his pension but, in the eight weeks between Anglesea’s conviction and his death, failed to ask the Home Office to revoke it.

Rebecca understands the pension — which is fully-funded from the public purse — is worth up to £25,000 a year.

Jones’ inaction meant that Anglesea was being paid some £500 a week while he was in prison.

Jones has also decided that his widow, Sandra, should receive a widow’s pension  of 50 per cent.

She will receive up to £12,500 a year for the rest of her life.

Rebecca has also discovered the Commissioner did not consult the Home Office over this decision.

We have written to policing minister Brandon Lewis asking him to issue a “forfeiture certificate” under the Police Pensions Regulations 2015.

This would automatically revoke Anglesea’s pension — and prevent his widow from enjoying the proceeds of his child abuse.

♦♦♦ 

THE CONVICTION of Gordon Anglesea on October 21 last year immediately placed his police pension in jeopardy.

He was gaoled for 12 years after a jury unanimously convicted him on four counts of indecent assault on young boys in Wrexham in the early 1980s.

He was a uniform inspector in the North Wales force at the time.

Under the Police Pensions Regulations 2015 a former police officer can be stripped of his pension if the offences were

committed in connection with the [officer’s] service as a member of a police force and in respect of which the Secretary of State for the Home Department has issued a forfeiture certificate.

anglesea

There are compelling reasons to believe Brandon Lewis, the current policing minister, would have issued the certificate.

The first is Gordon Anglesea’s high profile.

When he was first named as a child abuser in the early 1990s, he successfully sued four media organisations, including HTV, and accepted damages of £375,000.

Concerns that his success may have been assisted by North Wales Police and fellow freemasons were important factors in the setting up of Britain’s only child abuse Tribunal in 1996.

The £14 million inquiry, headed by Sir Ronald Waterhouse, expressed “considerable disquiet” about Anglesea’s testimony but decided there wasn’t enough evidence to brand him a child abuser.

The second powerful reason why Anglesea would have been stripped of his pension lies in the nature of his offences.

Three of these took place while he was in charge of the Wrexham Attendance Centre.

This was part of the youth justice system and was a Home Office initiative staffed by serving officers of the North Wales Police.

Anglesea wasn’t just abusing one of the boys at the centre — he was abusing his position as a police officer, abusing the youth justice system and abusing the trust placed in him by the Home Office.

It’s clear Commissioner Jones also felt Anglesea’s offences merited the revocation of his pension.

After Rebecca — and local journalists — asked a series of questions, Arfon Jones issued a statement on January 26:

“I concluded this was a case where the forfeiture of pension was appropriate.”

A great deal of money was at stake.

The pension scheme Anglesea was part of when he resigned from North Wales Police in 1991 was far more generous than it is today.

It was a fully-funded scheme and officers were not allowed to make personal contributions of their own.

For every year of service Anglesea was entitled to one sixtieth of his pensionable salary.

Rebecca understands it could have been worth as much as £25,000 a year.

♦♦♦ 

AS SOON as Anglesea was convicted, there were two reasons why the issue of his pension became a matter of urgency.

The first was public confidence.

Many people in North Wales would find it morally wrong that a paedophile who used the cloak of public office to conceal his offences should be rewarded for his crimes.

(It was, of course, part of Anglesea’s defence that his victims invented their allegations to gain compensation.)

arfonjones

The second was a matter of financial efficiency: if Anglesea didn’t deserve his pension, the sooner he was stripped of it the better.

In the event he enjoyed his full pension — perhaps as much as £4,000 — in the eight weeks he was in prison.

Rebecca investigated further.

We asked the Home Office if Commissioner Jones had applied for the all-important “forfeiture certificate”.

A spokesman told us:

“the Home Office does not comment on individual pension forfeiture cases or requests made by Police and Crime Commissioners.” 

We put a similar question to the Commissioner.

A spokesman said the answer was “no”.

In other words, even though he considered Anglesea should lose his pension, Commissioner Jones did not ask for the forfeiture certificate.

His only explanation was:

“Gordon Anglesea passed away before the process was concluded and the agreement of the Home Secretary was secured.”

He then makes it clear that the decision to grant Sandra Anglesea 50 per cent of her husband’s pension was his alone.

gordon

Anglesea’s death, he said

“meant his wife was granted a widow’s pension …”

“There is no precedent in law to with-hold that 50 per cent especially as the beneficiary has not been convicted of any offence.”

Rebecca asked if Arfon Jones had consulted the Home Office before making this decision.

Again, the answer was “no”.

The Commissioner says he took legal advice before making his decision.

♦♦♦

WE HAVE written to policing minister Brandon Lewis asking him to issue a forfeiture certificate.

Having decided Anglesea’s pension could be revoked, Commissioner Jones was morally bound to refer the matter to the minister.

The issue of whether Sandra Anglesea should receive a widow’s pension should have been irrelevant.

If Arfon Jones had done his job properly Gordon Anglesea would have been stripped of his poension long before he died – and his widow would have automatically lost her entitlemnent.

♦♦♦

Note
1
The Commissioner would not reveal the details of Anglesea’s pension. It was a fully-funded, final salary scheme but officers were allowed to take a substantial amount as an initial lump sum. The current salary level for superintendents is between £63,000 and £75,000.

COMING
A FORCE FOR EVIL
HOW DID Gordon Anglesea get away with it for so long? 
The answer is he used the cloak of public office to conceal his crimes and counted on protection from North Wales Police. This forthcoming article lays bare the conspiracy hatched at the highest levels of the force in the early 1990s to cover up its failure to investigate child abuse — and to protect Anglesea at all costs. In the process, the force helped Anglesea win a famous libel case and made a mockery of the £14 million North Wales Child Abuse Tribunal …

♦♦♦

rebecca_logo_04

DONATIONS

If you want to make a contribution towards the work of Rebecca, just click on the DONATE button.

Donate Button with Credit Cards

CORRECTIONS

Please let us know if there are any mistakes in this article — they’ll be corrected as soon as possible.

RIGHT OF REPLY  
If you have been mentioned in this article and disagree with it, please let us have your comments. Provided your response is not defamatory we’ll add it to the article.


%d bloggers like this: