Buckaroo
Donkey piss and tractors
In those halls almost everyone is expendable. There will be a reckoning of sorts.
How much evidence is there of long term high level UK paedophile ring?
- Thread starter free spirit
- Start date
In those halls almost everyone is expendable. There will be a reckoning of sorts.
ska invita
back on the other side
its streaming on teh guardian live now
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...-missing-child-abuse-files-politics-live-blog
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
This really does look like choosing to call as a witness someone who they know won't want/be able to answer their questions. There was never a chance Sedwill was going to give any specifics about who turned the shredder on and under who's instructions. Pointless (shit) theatre.
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
Sorry to be harking on about this, but here's another little gem:
Labour's Yasmin Qureshi goes next.
Q: Did your investigator looking into the Dickens paperwork interview the Home Office officials involved?
Sedwill says he did not interview former ministers or officials.
Labour's Yasmin Qureshi goes next.
Q: Did your investigator looking into the Dickens paperwork interview the Home Office officials involved?
Sedwill says he did not interview former ministers or officials.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
*pic of Fawlty Towers waiter*
mystic pyjamas
Don't call us,we'll call you.
I remember hearing a radio 1 DJ mentioning that he collected the neck ties of schoolgirls which he kept in glass cases. This would be the early eighties I think.
Today this would be considered suspect,but it didn't raise an eyebrow then.
He also later went on to write about the possibility of having oral sex with underage girl groupies in the seventies in his autobiography . Again no questions, no pack drill.
Dame Butler-Sloss is 80. 
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
D'ye ken John Peel?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
This thread doesn't need this.Dame Butler-Sloss is 80.
mystic pyjamas
Don't call us,we'll call you.
Have a hob nob.
Strange you picked my message, which is related to the subject at hand, rather than this one two posts previous:
Maybe stop trying to act like a mod and policing what other people have to say?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Not strange at all. That post was irrelevant to the content of the thread. Yours wasn't. As you so helpfully pointed out.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Maybe you could expand on why an a judge being 80 years old is worthy of comment. Leaving aside the multi-generational role in the elite and how and why this works.
happie chappie
Well-Known Member
Whatever you think about the security services, they're not stupid.
They must know that this line is simply untenable.
I'm sure some files will be released, but certainly not those relating to sources and methods.
While I want the inquiry to have full access to all security service files, on reflection I'm not sure all should be placed in the public domain if they solely relate to unfounded rumour and speculation.
The retirement age for judges is 70 for a reason.
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
No, they're not stupid enough to release any files they might have that show they knew about paedophiles in positions of power and did nothing about it, apart from perhaps blackmailing them into being useful idiots.
"National security"?
"National security"?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Any chance you could expand on that reasoning and the difference between active service judges and proper respected people doing a one off job.
Seriously, what is your point - that she is 80? Of all the things to attack this appointment, her being 80?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
We can't ever see those files. They're not recorded in the normal records.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
that was supposed to indicate how I find the repeated sedwill denials/forgets verging on the farcical, thats all.
happie chappie
Well-Known Member
If they deny the existence of the files then the logical conclusion is that they will have to maintain the pretence that they didn't know anything at all, which is simply preposterous.
If they fall back on the "national security" defence, something that May mentioned more than once yesterday, then they would have to explain why releasing a file
showing that politician x is child abuser would be a threat to the security of the state (unless it reveals their sources and methods).
Quite the opposite in fact as, if was true, it would free that person from the possibility of external blackmail which is the reason the security services give for keep such files in the first place.
happie chappie
Well-Known Member
The inquiry will, at the outset, need full and unexpurgated access to all security service files, even if not all of them can be placed in the public domain.
These files will answer most, if not all, of the key questions - “who, why, what, where and when”.
Then the inquiry will be able to concentrate its efforts filling in any gaps. I don’t think MI5 would have paid too much attention to the NHS, for example.
Otherwise, if the inquiry will have to start from first principles and/or work its way backwards, it will expend a great deal of effort sifting through a mass of information only some of which may be relevant, and most of it likely to be completely useless - being led up blind alleys, either accidentally or by design.
It will remain to be seen if this happens but my guess is that the security services will now come under a level of scrutiny the like of which they have never experienced before. It's not something they will be particularly comfortable with.
It will be interesting how this one will pan out.
These files will answer most, if not all, of the key questions - “who, why, what, where and when”.
Then the inquiry will be able to concentrate its efforts filling in any gaps. I don’t think MI5 would have paid too much attention to the NHS, for example.
Otherwise, if the inquiry will have to start from first principles and/or work its way backwards, it will expend a great deal of effort sifting through a mass of information only some of which may be relevant, and most of it likely to be completely useless - being led up blind alleys, either accidentally or by design.
It will remain to be seen if this happens but my guess is that the security services will now come under a level of scrutiny the like of which they have never experienced before. It's not something they will be particularly comfortable with.
It will be interesting how this one will pan out.
Its not going to happen, turkeys don't vote for Christmas, they will either fake copies or say they have been destroyed.
happie chappie
Well-Known Member
I’m not saying that won’t happen.
Just that the line that they knew nothing or that “we’ve lost them, they got shredded, the dog eat them” or any other similar tripe simply won’t wash anymore with an increasing sceptical public who will no longer uncritically swallow anything the Government says in the way they would, say, 40 years ago.
Neither will it wash with the survivors, or with MPs such as Tom Watson who, to his immense credit are like terriers with a bone and simply won't be fobbed off.
According to Chris Fay ex head of the nat assoc of young people in care, in this video, kids were warned off by Special branch in reporting to them, his org was also placed under surveillance."it got so bad we had to meet kids in other locations".
41mins 30 secs.
41mins 30 secs.
Last edited:
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
Retired judges are quite often used for inquiries. Provided she still has all her faculties, there is no reason why EB-S shouldn't do a perfectly good job, at least as far as her age is concerned: her experience as a lawyer will be useful in examining evidence (assuming there is any) and questioning witnesses.
Dogsauce
I’ve got Skol but I’m not a Scholar
The thing turning my stomach is that there will be a significant amount of time and effort spent by politicians (and media accomplices) seeing what they can gain from this.
Who gets to look resolute in pushing this enquiry? Who can be attacked for being a bit weak or disorganised? Who gets to point at past figures from one particular party or the other (cf the Mail's 'Labour Lord' headline a couple of days ago) - yes, those are the bad guys, it was the other lot. Who gets to be the hero when some bit player in the whole conspiracy gets sent down?
Amongst all this partisanship and positioning nobody actually gives a flying fuck about the kids, do they?
Who gets to look resolute in pushing this enquiry? Who can be attacked for being a bit weak or disorganised? Who gets to point at past figures from one particular party or the other (cf the Mail's 'Labour Lord' headline a couple of days ago) - yes, those are the bad guys, it was the other lot. Who gets to be the hero when some bit player in the whole conspiracy gets sent down?
Amongst all this partisanship and positioning nobody actually gives a flying fuck about the kids, do they?
Similar threads
