Child abuse inquiry

[WearyRhino]

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.

 

As someone who has been involved in setting up an inquiry, albeit on quite a different topic, I wholeheartedly agree. Took as long to set up, as it did to run.

[Ackroman]

last nights program was indeed shocking. It an unfortunate trait that often the desire to pin the blame on someone overrides the need to get at the truth.

[John Drake]

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.

 

If that were the case, it would be an extraordinary indictment of our country, apparently under the control of such an incestuous cabal that amongst the 'great and the good' there cannot be found one individual both capable and willing of discharging the duties involved in this inquiry who is not in some way linked to those who ought to be under investigation or who cannot command the confidence of the victims of child sexual abuse and those representing them.

 

I don't believe that is the case. I think 'the powers that be' haven't looked hard enough yet to find the right person (because no one usually challenges them, they won't be used to it), and that this public criticism may at last begin to focus their minds a little better on that task.

 

But if it is the case, I think it is healthier to expose the situation to public view than carry on with the pretence.

[JohnM]

Mr Hood said: “By the way, the current exposé of Sir Leon Brittan [sic], the then home secretary, with accusations of improper conduct with children will not come as a surprise to striking miners of 1984.”

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11194280/Labour-MP-is-condemned-for-linking-Leon-Brittan-to-child-abuse.html

[Larry the Leit]

Mr Hood said: “By the way, the current exposé of Sir Leon Brittan [sic], the then home secretary, with accusations of improper conduct with children will not come as a surprise to striking miners of 1984.”

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11194280/Labour-MP-is-condemned-for-linking-Leon-Brittan-to-child-abuse.html

 

I have mixed feelings about this.  I don't think that parliamentary privilege should be used like this, or perhaps even exist, but at least the issue or allegation is now in the open. 

[gingerjon]

Mr Hood said: “By the way, the current exposé of Sir Leon Brittan [sic], the then home secretary, with accusations of improper conduct with children will not come as a surprise to striking miners of 1984.”

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11194280/Labour-MP-is-condemned-for-linking-Leon-Brittan-to-child-abuse.html

 

Nice of the Telegraph to repeat everything in full!

[ckn]

Nice of the Telegraph to repeat everything in full!

There's a legal precedent that allows them to do that.  They could get an MP to say anything that's the wildest and most libellous statement possible and, as long as they report it faithfully and without substantive amendment, they can repeat it on their front pages if they so desired.

[gingerjon]

There's a legal precedent that allows them to do that.  They could get an MP to say anything that's the wildest and most libellous statement possible and, as long as they report it faithfully and without substantive amendment, they can repeat it on their front pages if they so desired.

 

Are we allowed to have innocent faces when reading it?

[Wolford6]

Tomorrow, voters in South Yorkshire will go to the polls to elect a new police and crime commissioner to replace Shaun Wright.

 

I wonder what the turnout will be?

[Larry the Leit]

Are we allowed to have innocent faces when reading it?

 

No, but it's advisable to feign shock and shout that it cannot be true as he's a peer of the realm.

[Larry the Leit]

Tomorrow, voters in South Yorkshire will go to the polls to elect a new police and crime commissioner to replace Shaun Wright.

 

I wonder what the turnout will be?

 

10%-15%?

[ckn]

No, but it's advisable to feign shock and shout that it cannot be true as he's a peer of the realm.

I refuse to discount anything that a politician is alleged to have done since Edwina Currie said that John Major was a "sexy beast" during their affair.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

Tomorrow, voters in South Yorkshire will go to the polls to elect a new police and crime commissioner to replace Shaun Wright.

 

I wonder what the turnout will be?

how ell do you think your lot will do? Do you think the billboard campaign will do the trick?

I refuse to discount anything that a politician is alleged to have done since Edwina Currie said that John Major was a "sexy beast" during their affair.

what does that make Roy Cropper then?

[Wolford6]

how ell do you think your lot will do? Do you think the billboard campaign will do the trick?

 

 

I don't know, but it's a classic opportunity for a protest vote

[Larry the Leit]

I don't know, but it's a classic opportunity for a protest vote

 

Would you expect the new police commissioner to ignore those in society that have only been looking at sexual images of children?

[Wolford6]

No, but I would expect him or her to ignore your crass posts on here.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

No, but I would expect him or her to ignore your crass posts on here.

I would expect him or her to ignore everybody's posts one here 'crass'(priceless)or otherwise, unless he or she is a TRL member.

[Larry the Leit]

No, but I would expect him or her to ignore your crass posts on here.

 

Me too.

 

Would you expect them to ignore those people who have been looking at sexual images of children though?

[Wolford6]

I would expect him or her to review what action the Police and CPS took with regard to establishing standards as to what offences triggered prosecution and what offences warranted use of the official caution system.

[ckn]

9 posts deleted.

 

How I read Wolford6's post above is that he's asking that the inquiry also review what offences were prosecuted and what were given cautions.  I read it as meaning that there's a lot of suspicion that too many serious offences were/are cautioned because of official and unofficial policy and that the carpets need to be lifted to ensure that that's fixed.

 

If anyone has any different interpretation to that then I'd be really interested to see how you came to that conclusion.

 

Now behave.

[Larry the Leit]

If anyone has any different interpretation to that then I'd be really interested to see how you came to that conclusion.

Easily. Really easily.

I read the Priorities thread on this very forum.

[Wolford6]

9 posts deleted.

 

How I read Wolford6's post above is that he's asking that the inquiry also review what offences were prosecuted and what were given cautions.  I read it as meaning that there's a lot of suspicion that too many serious offences were/are cautioned because of official and unofficial policy and that the carpets need to be lifted to ensure that that's fixed.

 

If anyone has any different interpretation to that then I'd be really interested to see how you came to that conclusion.

 

Now behave.

 

Not exactly. My position is that, whilst the CPS stipulates certain absolute offences require prosecution, it allows discretion for individual police/social services depts to decide whether non-absolute-offences should be prosecuted or handled under the caution system.

 

Rockstar seemingly considers it absolutely disgusting that: 

- some offenders are not prosecuted

 - I don't think that all offenders should be named and shamed in court.

 

I have reasons for holding this view, though I have no wish to discuss them on here. Apart from anything else, one current case that I am familiar with is sub judice.

 

 

It seemingly suits Rockstar to infer that my opinion has been derived from my personal experience.

 

Mind you, I doubt that he'd accuse me of this to my face, if we ever met.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

Not exactly. My position is that, whilst the CPS stipulates certain absolute offences require prosecution, it allows discretion for individual police/social services depts to decide whether non-absolute-offences should be prosecuted or handled under the caution system.

 

Rockstar seemingly considers it absolutely disgusting that: 

- some offenders are not prosecuted

 - I don't think that all offenders should be named and shamed in court.

 

I have reasons for holding this view, though I have no wish to discuss them on here. Apart from anything else, one current case that I am familiar with is sub judice.

 

 

It seemingly suits Rockstar to infer that my opinion has been derived from my personal experience.

 

Mind you, I doubt that he'd accuse me of this to my face, if we ever met.

This is a serious issue and you are calling people silly names and making veiled threats of violence.

Let's make it clear and simple; do you think that deliberately viewing child pornography of any kind is worthy of a police caution? You have commented on this aspect of the topic before and perhaps in fairness to you your comment might have been ambiguous

[Wolford6]

I'm putting you on "ignore". It's for the best.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

I'm putting you on "ignore". It's for the best.

Well that's up to you

Meanwhile a legitimate question asked in a civil way goes unanswered.