Jump to content

Child abuse inquiry


Recommended Posts

Is it just me or is this getting stupid now.  Groups "representing" child abuse victims have said they won't support an inquiry led by Fiona Woolf because she once hosted a party she forgot to tell the Home Secretary about that had Leon Brittan as a guest.

 

This is the second person who the media have gone out of their way to tarnish claiming that they're too "establishment".  Then they demand that someone with the right level of experience and credibility take over.  Unfortunately, virtually everyone with that experience and credibility is inevitably "establishment".  What do they want?  A random trawl of Basildon high street looking for someone with 12 months to spare and has no ties at all to the "establishment"?

"When in deadly danger, when beset by doubt; run in little circles, wave your arms and shout"

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I think I'd prefer someone who wasn't close to one of the key people accused of wrongdoing.

 

If that takes time then let it take time.

 

What it tells me is that the Establishment really is incredibly tight-knit.

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are historic rumours about (amongst others) Leon Brittan, Cyril Smith, Greville Janner.

 

None of the three main parties want any investigation to produce reports before next May.

Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I'd prefer someone who wasn't close to one of the key people accused of wrongdoing.

 

If that takes time then let it take time.

 

What it tells me is that the Establishment really is incredibly tight-knit.

It absolutely is tight-knit and finding someone who both has the investigative and knowledge credibility as well as hands-off enough for the victims is going to be an impossible task.  Also, it's a completely poisoned chalice, who in their right minds would want to do it?  Regardless of the outcome, it'll be seen as a whitewash unless there are recommendations of public floggings.  I think the victims need to be realistic and accept that there's no such thing as a perfect lead for this.  Also they need to realise that the media are only interested in sensationalist front pages and really only care about the victims' suffering in as far as it can be exploited for those front pages.

"When in deadly danger, when beset by doubt; run in little circles, wave your arms and shout"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The victims do not need to be 'realistic'.

Of course they do.  They have a choice, compromise a bit to get a high-quality lead on this or appoint their own who won't get access to the inner-corridors of power.  If they hold out for someone with the right experience and credibility who also has never been around anyone slightly suspected of a cover-up then they'll be waiting for a very, very long time, maybe forever.

 

It's the same conversation that victims have to have on many other areas, with therapists, with police, with social workers and so on.  You either learn to work with the system, taking all the support that's there to help you through it, or you fight against the system and get nothing.

"When in deadly danger, when beset by doubt; run in little circles, wave your arms and shout"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I'd prefer someone who wasn't close to one of the key people accused of wrongdoing.

 

If that takes time then let it take time.

 

What it tells me is that the Establishment really is incredibly tight-knit.

 

Indeed.

 

It wouldn't be acceptable on a jury, so why should it be acceptable here?

 

I find it hard to believe the 'Establishment' talent pool is really so thin that it is impossible to find anyone who can be regarded as genuinely independent and capable to head this inquiry. If it is, then it only serves to highlight how rotten the whole edifice truly is and why those representing the victims of abuse are absolutely right to expose it.

 

Not wanting to make a fuss or ruffle any important feathers is why this abuse has gone on for so long in the first place.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably the best way to deal with this is to find someone who was never a child.

Jacob Rees-Mogg was born middle-aged. But I'd doubt his ability to tie his own shoelaces, let alone chair an enquiry.

Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
Ralph Waldo Emerson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the nature of the task and the flak that will come with it, it is likely to prove difficult to get someone to chair the inquiry who is seen positively by the interested parties. Choosing someone as the chairman who has socialised with L Brittan seems extremely ill advised, given his alleged role in not doing more about the dossier of information presented  by G Dickens. Another reason to question Ms Woolf's role in leading the inquiry, is her lack of experience in this field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed.

 

It wouldn't be acceptable on a jury, so why should it be acceptable here?

 

I find it hard to believe the 'Establishment' talent pool is really so thin that it is impossible to find anyone who can be regarded as genuinely independent and capable to head this inquiry. If it is, then it only serves to highlight how rotten the whole edifice truly is and why those representing the victims of abuse are absolutely right to expose it.

 

Not wanting to make a fuss or ruffle any important feathers is why this abuse has gone on for so long in the first place.

We currently have our senior judges in the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court who have solid establishment ties ruling on and judging government actions, more often than you'd think finding the government at fault.

 

Also, where's the line drawn?  Many of these parties in London have nearly three figure attendances.  I invited my new neighbour over for our New Year party last year but I know nothing but he's called Val and his wife Sue, they could be the next Fred and Rosemary West for all I know and I'd be mightily miffed if someone tried to taint my reputation just because I was being neighbourly.  I once went to a work party held by someone who was later sent to jail for serious fraud, again does that taint me?

"When in deadly danger, when beset by doubt; run in little circles, wave your arms and shout"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We currently have our senior judges in the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court who have solid establishment ties ruling on and judging government actions, more often than you'd think finding the government at fault.

 

Also, where's the line drawn?  Many of these parties in London have nearly three figure attendances.  I invited my new neighbour over for our New Year party last year but I know nothing but he's called Val and his wife Sue, they could be the next Fred and Rosemary West for all I know and I'd be mightily miffed if someone tried to taint my reputation just because I was being neighbourly.  I once went to a work party held by someone who was later sent to jail for serious fraud, again does that taint me?

 

The Establishment is a huge beast. So far, a mere two members of it have been deemed to be unacceptable to head this inquiry by the representatives of those seeking justice, for the pretty basic reason that they are either related to, or appear to be friendly with two other Establishment figures whose actions ought to come under the scrutiny of the inquiry.

 

It's a long way from being a witch hunt by the representatives of the victims.

 

Questioning and challenging how the Establishment operates ought to be the norm, not frowned upon when it occurs. They don't always know best what's good for us, and we shouldn't just accept whatever they decide, just because that's what usually happens.

 

About time someone kicked up a mighty stink, IMO, even moreso on a subject as sensitive as this.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Establishment is a huge beast. So far, a mere two members of it have been deemed to be unacceptable to head this inquiry by the representatives of those seeking justice, for the pretty basic reason that they are either related to, or appear to be friendly with two other Establishment figures whose actions ought to come under the scrutiny of the inquiry.

 

It's a long way from being a witch hunt by the representatives of the victims.

 

Questioning and challenging how the Establishment operates ought to be the norm, not frowned upon when it occurs. They don't always know best what's good for us, and we shouldn't just accept whatever they decide, just because that's what usually happens.

 

About time someone kicked up a mighty stink, IMO, even moreso on a subject as sensitive as this.

questioning and challenging.

I'd like to question and challenge how her name was put in the frame in the first place.

I refuse to believe that there aren't people with the relevant expertise, gravitas, credibility and disinterest in the country to take this very important task on.

WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015

Keeping it local

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Establishment is a huge beast. So far, a mere two members of it have been deemed to be unacceptable to head this inquiry by the representatives of those seeking justice, for the pretty basic reason that they are either related to, or appear to be friendly with two other Establishment figures whose actions ought to come under the scrutiny of the inquiry.

 

It's a long way from being a witch hunt by the representatives of the victims.

 

Questioning and challenging how the Establishment operates ought to be the norm, not frowned upon when it occurs. They don't always know best what's good for us, and we shouldn't just accept whatever they decide, just because that's what usually happens.

 

About time someone kicked up a mighty stink, IMO, even moreso on a subject as sensitive as this.

The question I raise again and just hasn't been answered in any of the media stories over this in the last couple of months is:  Go on then, name someone credible that both sides will accept, has the experience and gravitas to do the role and also would risk seeing their reputation trashed while doing it.  I think in the whole of the UK you're probably looking at a handful at best and most of those would be conflicted out someway or another.

"When in deadly danger, when beset by doubt; run in little circles, wave your arms and shout"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it just me or is this getting stupid now.  Groups "representing" child abuse victims have said they won't support an inquiry led by Fiona Woolf because she once hosted a party she forgot to tell the Home Secretary about that had Leon Brittan as a guest.

 

I'm surprised that Leon Brittan, an experienced Barrister, didn't raise the potential issue with his neighbour's involvement with the matter.

The Unicorn is not a Goose,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tonight's panorama shows what a rushed political enquiry does and why people have to feel that it can be trusted.

With the best, thats a good bit of PR, though I would say the Bedford team, theres, like, you know, 13 blokes who can get together at the weekend to have a game together, which doesnt point to expansion of the game. Point, yeah go on!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tonight's panorama shows what a rushed political enquiry does and why people have to feel that it can be trusted.

Absolutely, getting an inquiry right has to take its time.  It needs the terms of reference set properly.  It needs the right support and freedom to take as much time as needed.  It needs the power to mandate attendance from the great and good.  Most importantly, it needs a credible person running it to enforce all of the previous points.

"When in deadly danger, when beset by doubt; run in little circles, wave your arms and shout"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does it have to be led from someone in the UK?  Can we not pull in someone with the suitable qualifications and background from the Commonwealth or EU?

Well Barroso will be at a loose end from next week, Catherine Ashton too. Would be popular choices.

I can confirm 30+ less sales for Scotland vs Italy at Workington, after this afternoons test purchase for the Tonga match, £7.50 is extremely reasonable, however a £2.50 'delivery' fee for a walk in purchase is beyond taking the mickey, good luck with that, it's cheaper on the telly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.