Calls for inquiry into abuse at Maidenhead children's home in 60s

Councillors are calling for a public inquiry into the alleged child abuse at a Maidenhead children's home which occurred in the 1960s.

Greenfield House's manager, Don Prescott, is accused of running a paedophile ring from it between 1964 and 1970.

It was run by the now-defunct Berkshire County Council as a boarding home for 'maladjusted' boys, who were experiencing problems at school or at home.

But Prescott - who died in the 80s - allegedly rented out the boys to paedophiles in the area and as far as Leicester and Cambridge. He was never charged.

The abuse came to light in 2000 when one of the men suffered a nervous breakdown and went to the police, who investigated, but no charges were filed at the time due to a lack of evidence.

Eventually, nine men came forward an out-of-court settlement was reached with them.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead have now backed a councillor's call for a government-led inquiry into why no action was taken to stop it.

Councillor Neil Knowles, who is leading the call for an inquiry, said the Royal Borough doesn't have 'extensive archives' about the home as it was never in charge of it.

But he told the BBC the council must find out how the authorities allowed the abuse to continue.

He said: 'Sadly none of this can bring the childhood back for these boys and I don't think it will bring closure, but it might provide answers to questions in the minds of each of them.'

Councillor Carole Da Costa, who is a survivor of abuse at a different home, said the inquiry might help boys to 'heal'.

In 2010, former resident of the home John Affleck threw petrol over another member of staff when he appeared in court in a dramatic attempt to force him into a confession. 

Affleck pounced on Oliver Gilbart-Smith moments after he had been cleared at Reading Crown Court of 17 counts of sex assaults on boys at the children's home in the 1960s.

He jumped from the public gallery as Mr Gilbart-Smith left the dock. He pulled a bottle of petrol from his pocket and doused the man he had accused of raping him during a five-week trial.

Affleck then shouted at Mr Gilbart-Smith as he was being restrained: 'This is just the beginning for you.'

The dramatic outburst came as Judge Stephen John told Mr Gilbart-Smith he was a free man after the Crown Prosecution Service said it did not want to pursue a retrial on two child sex charges which a jury had been unable to decide upon.

The same jury had earlier cleared the defendant on 15 of the 17 charges he faced which alleged sexual abuse on eight boys between 1967 and 1970.

During that time the court heard residents were subjected to sustained, systemic abuse at the hands of the home's managers and numerous visitors.

The youngsters were repeatedly raped and even 'loaned out' to other paedophiles elsewhere, it was alleged.

Mr Gilbart-Smith, a successful businessman, was accused of being one of those who took part in the sex attacks.

Affleck from Southampton, Hants, had been sitting in the public gallery to see whether there would be a retrial on the two remaining counts, when Judge John told Mr Gilbart-Smith he was a free man.

Affleck then lunged forward with a canister of petrol and threw its contents over the former defendant.

After his outburst, police arrested Affleck, who was found in possession of a faulty lighter, and took him to a cell.

Judge John ordered Affleck, a regular church-goer who runs a company selling Bible teaching resources, be charged with contempt of court. He admitted the charge when he appeared three hours later in front of Judge John.

Affleck, whose wife sat in the public gallery, had given evidence during the trial of the abuse he suffered at Greenfield House.

He had attended Reading Crown Court to hear whether Mr Gilbart-Smith would face a retrial for the two charges, neither of which related specifically to Affleck.

But while Mr Gilbart-Smith walked free, Affleck was sentenced to a year in prison for his attack.

Sentencing him, Judge John said: 'Police had already given warnings to members of the public including those who were the complainants in this case.

'You came to court having clearly planned to attack Mr Gilbart-Smith and had armed yourself with a quantity of petrol.

'The throwing of petrol over him must have been very frightening. For anyone to have petrol on them gives a real risk that even if you did not want to deliberately set it alight a cigarette or something similar could have put others at risk.'