Child abuse inquiry

[Larry the Leit]

 

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.

 

I have inferred no such thing, and I wouldn't either.  

 

I do find your attitude that it's okay to look at images of children which the police categorise as sexually abusive as okay because it's only looking.  You've stuck to this position like a limpit and I have no idea why.

 

You have very different views to my own on a number of topics, and your opinions on these other topics are supported by some fellow members.  Your attitude towards those viewing sexual images of children I suspect garner rather less support.

[stimpo-and-kat]

I don't have a link to the story but I think the theme is relevant here.

A teacher, before starting work at a new school picked up a woman in a club, slept with her. Turned out that the woman was in fact a member of the sixth form at the teachers new school. The teacher admitted to superiors that the incident had taken place and was struck off from teaching. Bloke was a newly qualified teacher and is now on the sex offenders register.

There should always be a sense of context...

[l'angelo mysterioso]

I don't have a link to the story but I think the theme is relevant here.

A teacher, before starting work at a new school picked up a woman in a club, slept with her. Turned out that the woman was in fact a member of the sixth form at the teachers new school. The teacher admitted to superiors that the incident had taken place and was struck off from teaching. Bloke was a newly qualified teacher and is now on the sex offenders register.

There should always be a sense of context...

and that context makes your example irrelevant.

the woman was over the age of consent

she took part in consensual sex(presumably)

nothing illegal took place.

I have doubts about the provenance of this story.

[JohnM]

Fiona Wolf has stood down as Chairman of the Child Abuse Enquiry. So who now? Believe it or not, Brian Moore was mentioned as a possible replacement.

[Wolford6]

Brian Moore would be an excellent choice.

[JohnM]

But not neutral or independent?

[l'angelo mysterioso]

Brian Moore has a legal background although I'm not so sure whether in the right area of expertise or length and depth of experience.

Moore was and is extremely traumatised by his own experiences of abuse as a child.

Moore would be reminded of his own traumas by being involved in this. Would that be fair to him?

How would he be able to remain dispassionate?

He has no experience in this field other than as a victim if abuse as a child. This does not qualify him in fact just the opposite.

[JohnM]

Thus the problem of finding someone to be chairman. Almost impossible task.

[JohnM]

Yvette Cooper on the radio just now, said that there was no end of suitable candidates to be the neutral and independent chairman but would not, quite rightly, name them, though she specified the qualities required..then went on to suggest the  enquiry get going without a chairman, as the members had the necessary skill, knowledge, experiences etc to do so.

 

Then on TV last night., Michael Mansfield put himself forward. Hardly neutral and independent, either. 

 

So this farce continues and nothing gets done. Maybe if the original chairman, Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, had been accepted, the who;le show would now be on the road.

[redjonn]

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.

 

 

One of the issues is the shear scope of the inquiry... there are a load of institutions and organisations being investigated. Thus that limits the field straight away... the list of organisation is longer than one page...

 

The interesting point for me regards the recent resignation was that the reason she was pressured to resign.. that is being at diner party that previous Home Secretary attended and the issue of whether he lost files.... is not one of the aspects her investigation was looking into (that is being done by another body / commitee)... but that doesn't stop the political point scoring and people of course don't take any real interest in understanding but merely just go by headlines and often whom shouts loud in the media... its the political point scoring that is now making it extremely difficult to appoint a chair person.  

 

It is a chair person, the panel involves members of victim organisation - I don't think they would allow a chair person to over ride what they see as relevant and important.... not with the spot light and of course ease of approahcing the media if they thought something amiss.... 

 

You also have to balance the rights of the victims... rightly so... against any persons that have allegations against them.. so the person really has to be independent... especially if possibility of court proceeding thus has to be done totally objectively.

[redjonn]

Yvette Cooper on the radio just now, said that there was no end of suitable candidates to be the neutral and independent chairman but would not, quite rightly, name them, though she specified the qualities required..then went on to suggest the  enquiry get going without a chairman, as the members had the necessary skill, knowledge, experiences etc to do so.

 

Then on TV last night., Michael Mansfield put himself forward. Hardly neutral and independent, either. 

 

So this farce continues and nothing gets done. Maybe if the original chairman, Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, had been accepted, the who;le show would now be on the road.

 

I agree with you... Also some have been asked and refused to appointment - its not just identifying its also having someone agree to do it.  

 

For me listening to debate and parliament is that Yvette Cooper has been one of the problems too - that is the chance to point score politically rather than being totally objective.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

I agree with you... Also some have been asked and refused to appointment - its not just identifying its also having someone agree to do it.  

 

For me listening to debate and parliament is that Yvette Cooper has been one of the problems too - that is the chance to point score politically rather than being totally objective.

well Theresa May does have some responsibility for this mess to say the very least. What is Cooper supposed to say? And no I'm very much not a labour party supporter

[JohnM]

Agreed. It really is not quantum thermodynamics, is it.. The' desire of politicians to get their own way and to be right all the time is really quite depressing. Ought to be a cross-party issue.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

Agreed. It really is not quantum thermodynamics, is it.. The' desire of politicians to get their own way and to be right all the time is really quite depressing. Ought to be a cross-party issue.

I would like that myself.

But the bottom line is that the buck stops with May and her decision making. This is an incredibly sensitive issue and she has handled it abysmally.

[redjonn]

well I would agree that its ultimately where the buck stops.  However, that doesn't stop us reflecting on how some politicians at time allowed themselves to focus on opportunity to discredit their opposite number as distinct from an objective view as to whether any chair person was able to do the job, robust in getting to the truth and had the right integrity. They accept each of the individuals had the integrity but yet where not prepared to make that point.   Although difficult because if you listen to some of the debates and the select committee of MPs, some seemed to be looking for anything that could be used to discredit.

 

For example one line of questioning was the fact that the candidate had visited a country as part of her role when a recent Human Rights report had criticised that country.   She had visited the country 26 years (might have been 23 years) ago but that didn't stop the howl of protest that she should have been better briefed about that country.  Even though the others on the select committee looked suitable embarrassed. He continued to attack her over that issue... even though it was 20 odd years before the report. She visited as part of her United Nations role I think... and many other such countries that subsequent have had damning reports about their Human Rights record... he attacked her for that too.

 

They have two victims on the panel... I don't think any one of them, let alone any of the panel, would allow any chair person to influence in any wrong direction.  Thus I think the panel and the chair person is the whole and that whole clearly showed no wish not to be totally transparent. 

[Larry the Leit]

Teresa May spoke well on the issue I thought. I just wonder how hard she will fight to make what needs to happen happen.

Even Tom Watson was backing her.

I wonder if she consulted the eminent legal brains from within her party before making her statement in the house.

[redjonn]

Teresa May spoke well on the issue I thought. I just wonder how hard she will fight to make what needs to happen happen.

Even Tom Watson was backing her.

I wonder if she consulted the eminent legal brains from within her party before making her statement in the house.

 

yep I would agree.... in fact all sides where.   I got the impression that maybe wiser heads had suggested that their was a need to be conciliatory, objective and remove any political football... in recognition of the damage already done and the situation created...

 

I also noted May's comment that they had previously considered oversea's person and that that would again be considered.... also the emphasis on the panel being the collective decision body not the single chair-person, something I think that got lost in the last few weeks...

[John Drake]

Theresa May 'sorry' for two abuse inquiry resignations
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29876263

She added: "It will not be easy to find a chairman with the expertise to do this job and who has had no contact with an institution or individual about whom there are concerns."

 

I actually find that statement quite chilling.

 

What have we become?

[Larry the Leit]

Theresa May 'sorry' for two abuse inquiry resignations

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29876263

She added: "It will not be easy to find a chairman with the expertise to do this job and who has had no contact with an institution or individual about whom there are concerns."

I actually find that statement quite chilling.

What have we become?

Quite.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

Theresa May 'sorry' for two abuse inquiry resignations

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29876263

She added: "It will not be easy to find a chairman with the expertise to do this job and who has had no contact with an institution or individual about whom there are concerns."

 

I actually find that statement quite chilling.

 

What have we become?

I share your feelings

but 'we' haven't become any different from what we were. This has always been the way.

[JohnM]

Something for the enquiry to consider when it gets going. 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-29957511

[shrek]

Is it just me or is this getting stupid now. 

 

Not really getting much better is it, nearly two years on.

 

Some very moving calls to LBC this morning on this subject, the whole inquiry to date stinks.