How much evidence is there of long term high level UK paedophile ring?

[elbows]

There is a hilarious line in a BBC article about this.

The BBC's home affairs correspondent Tom Symonds said Mrs Woolf had insisted she was not a member of the establishment but acknowledged that she must convince the public and victims of abuse that this was the case.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29703282

Why yes, it should be trivial to prove that the Lord Mayor of London is in no way part of the establishment

 

[DotCommunist]

calls for a her to step away from the investigation today. Twice in a row?

 

[Wilf]

Whilst this is reported as a conflict of interest about his role as Home Secretary, there's also a pretty massive elephant in the room. Hard to tell whether this means they are confident that issue won't go any further and force her to resign at a later date - or whether it's yet another fuck up.

 

[DotCommunist]

or maybe just dragging thier heels as long as possible by appointing obviously unsuitable choices- or is that a bit tin foil

 

[The Pale King]

or maybe just dragging thier heels as long as possible by appointing obviously unsuitable choices- or is that a bit tin foil

Maybe, maybe not. Some Sir Humphrey might have suggested they offer up a couple of sacrificial lambs to look responsive. The next name forward will be the one they really want. Or is my tinfoil rustling?

 

[Wilf]

'So M'lady, when you were appointed as a non-member of the establishment, to look at the conduct of Leon Brittan, the man you had 5 dinners with, whose wife you worked with, did you ever discuss the rape allegations he was interviewed under caution for?' Yeah, fantastic appointment.

 

[Kaka Tim]

What i don't understand is why a stink is being made about this now and not when she was appointed - all of this shit about her being connected with leon brittain, that she has zero background in this are and the fact that shes the fucking lord mayor of london was already known and commented on. Why did the likes of Demchuk agree to her appointment in the first place?

She is so obviously a totally wrong appointment - even worse than butler schloss - that it does look a deliberate delaying ploy. After the shit storm first broke it was a week or so before butler-schloss was in place, than it took a mystifying 6 weeks or so to appoint Woolf. Now - if she steps down - it'll be fuck knows how long before they appoint the next person (lord hutton? The royal corgis?) - neatly delaying the whole thing well beyond the next election.

 

[Idaho]

or maybe just dragging thier heels as long as possible by appointing obviously unsuitable choices- or is that a bit tin foil

It seems all too plausible.

 

[Buckaroo]

Why did the likes of Demchuk agree to her appointment in the first place?

Demchuk who?

eta Simon Danczuk? If so don't think he did. Soz if I got that wrong.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-29724783

 

[Kaka Tim]

Demchuk who?

eta Simon Danczuk? If so don't think he did. Soz if I got that wrong.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-29724783

Thats the fella. No he didn't oppose her appointment when it was made (a month or so ago). now he is - quoting reasons that were known - and commented on - at the time.

 

[Buckaroo]

Thats the fella. No he didn't oppose her appointment when it was made (a month or so ago). now he is - quoting reasons that were known - and commented on - at the time.

Oh ok right, well he's a Blaggard then. Maybe he was keeping his powder dry?

 

[elbows]

Timing of the political calendar had a lot to do with it. Parliament was getting ready for its summer holiday & conference season, and the previous Brittan & Butler-Sloss shitstorm had its pace affected by that. Then everything went on hold, now it is back.

 

[Lurdan]

Oh ok right, well he's a Blaggard then. Maybe he was keeping his powder dry?

Danczuk was interviewed on the radio the day Woolf was appointed and raised no objections - he let slip that Theresa May had rung him the evening before the announcement was made to sound him out. The flattery of her doing so was evidently nicely gauged to appeal to his vanity. On the radio (this mornings Today programme I think) they played the recording of his initial response before asking asked him why he'd changed his mind.

This time round there is an interesting note of skepticism in some of the reporting about the criticism of Woolf which there wasn't about Butler-Sloss. Following yesterday's Home Affairs Committee session with her, Keith Vaz (an even bigger egoist than Danczuk but with rather better political antenna) is urging a degree of caution before coming to any conclusions and essentially leaving it to Woolf to address the concerns raised. Unless anything more damaging comes to light I wouldn't be surprised to see her staying. (And I suspect the Government wouldn't be entirely unhappy if she acted as a lightning rod for what will be inevitable criticism).

Personally I can't see what difference it makes who chairs this inquiry, or what political posturing takes place around establishing it.

 

[brogdale]

I can't see what difference it makes who chairs this inquiry

It demonstrates their fear.

 

[Buckaroo]

Danczuk was interviewed on the radio the day Woolf was appointed and raised no objections - he let slip that Theresa May had rung him the evening before the announcement was made to sound him out. The flattery of her doing so was evidently nicely gauged to appeal to his vanity. On the radio (this mornings Today programme I think) they played the recording of his initial response before asking asked him why he'd changed his mind.

This time round there is an interesting note of skepticism in some of the reporting about the criticism of Woolf which there wasn't about Butler-Sloss. Following yesterday's Home Affairs Committee session with her, Keith Vaz (an even bigger egoist than Danczuk but with rather better political antenna) is urging a degree of caution before coming to any conclusions and essentially leaving it to Woolf to address the concerns raised. Unless anything more damaging comes to light I wouldn't be surprised to see her staying. (And I suspect the Government wouldn't be entirely unhappy if she acted as a lightning rod for what will be inevitable criticism).

Personally I can't see what difference it makes who chairs this inquiry, or what political posturing takes place around establishing it.

Thanks for that, sorry I'm rubbish at the quotes but I was listening this morning and I didn't hear the initial response thing, I'll have a look for it. Not that it might make much difference like you say.

 

[Lurdan]

Thanks for that, sorry I'm rubbish at the quotes but I was listening this morning and I didn't hear the initial response thing, I'll have a look for it. Not that it might make much difference like you say.

I went to find the bit I'd heard - it was actually yesterdays PM (starting about 33m in) not this mornings Today programme. (Sadly it didn't include the part about Theresa May ringing him - I heard that when it was originally broadcast). Vaz's interview was on the World at One today.

 

[Buckaroo]

Thats the fella. No he didn't oppose her appointment when it was made (a month or so ago.

Danczuk was interviewed on the radio the day Woolf was appointed and raised no objections - he let slip that Theresa May had rung him the evening before the announcement was made to sound him out. The flattery of her doing so was evidently nicely gauged to appeal to his vanity. On the radio (this mornings Today programme I think) they played the recording of his initial response before asking asked him why he'd changed his mind.

I went to find the bit I'd heard - it was actually yesterdays PM (starting about 33m in) not this mornings Today programme. (Sadly it didn't include the part about Theresa May ringing him - I heard that when it was originally broadcast). Vaz's interview was on the World at One today.

Just out of interest if anyone knows, did Simon Danczuk oppose or not oppose Woolf's appointment a month ago?

 

[Lurdan]

Just out of interest if anyone knows, did Simon Danczuk oppose or not oppose Woolf's appointment a month ago?

There's a chunk of Danczuk's original response on yesterdays' PM programme starting about 33m.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04lsmhq

He was also quoted on the original BBC report of her appointment :

"Although I would not have looked to high office in the Square Mile to find someone to challenge the establishment, Fiona Woolf is a smart and capable woman and she has my support.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29076504

 

[laptop]

What i don't understand is why a stink is being made about this now and not when she was appointed - all of this shit about her being connected with leon brittain, that she has zero background in this are and the fact that shes the fucking lord mayor of london was already known and commented on. Why did the likes of Demchuk agree to her appointment in the first place?

She is so obviously a totally wrong appointment - even worse than butler schloss - that it does look a deliberate delaying ploy. After the shit storm first broke it was a week or so before butler-schloss was in place, than it took a mystifying 6 weeks or so to appoint Woolf. Now - if she steps down - it'll be fuck knows how long before they appoint the next person (lord hutton? The royal corgis?) - neatly delaying the whole thing well beyond the next election.

It demonstrates their fear.

It's now completely impossible to have any kind of report before the election.

 

[Kaka Tim]

Worth noting that it was Teresa may who made both these appointments - whatever you make think of her she is not stupid, not part of the eton old chums circle and is very politically astute.

 

[brogdale]

Worth noting that it was Teresa may who made both these appointments - whatever you make think of her she is not stupid, not part of the eton old chums circle and is very politically astute.

Irrespective of her intelligence, education, factional allegiance or political abilities her actions will first and foremost be those that best protect the state.

 

[Kaka Tim]

well - yeah. my point is that this looks like it might well be a deliberate fuck up.

 

[Buckaroo]

There's a chunk of Danczuk's original response on yesterdays' PM programme starting about 33m.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04lsmhq

He was also quoted on the original BBC report of her appointment :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29076504

Rochdale MP Simon Danczuk, who led calls for an overarching inquiry into alleged abuse, backed the appointment of Ms Woolf but called on her to bring "a sense of urgency" to the investigation.
'Victims' voices'
He said the inquiry had lost momentum due to delays after the resignation of Lady Butler-Sloss.
"I'm pleased the Home Secretary has finally got this moving," said the Labour MP.
"Although I would not have looked to high office in the Square Mile to find someone to challenge the establishment, Fiona Woolf is a smart and capable woman and she has my support.


Simon Danczuk said the role could not go to someone who was "too connected" to the Establishment and former home secretary Leon Brittan, and who did not have the confidence of the public or the survivors of child abuse.
The MP told Jo Coburn on the Daily Politics that many survivors were "suspicious of the government's handling of this" and he accused the government of unnecessary delays.

Kaka Tim Lurdan . Yep he's a cunt!

 

[William of Walworth]

well - yeah. my point is that this looks like it might well be a deliberate fuck up.

Was Simon D duped/flattered into it, as suggested above, or was he pretty well aware all along of the direction all this was likely to go?? </speculation/tinhat ... >

 

[elbows]

It's now completely impossible to have any kind of report before the election.

I'm currently forcing myself to watch Woolfs entire commons select committee appearance. Her performance is pretty shit, and includes spilling a glass of water and being questioned about leading a trade delegation to Bahrain months after an amnesty international report said that children were tortured in that country.

Anyway in regards to the timing, she said that an interim report is due by the end of March, which prompted Vaz to point out that due to fixed parliamentary terms and next years election, parliament and the committee won't be able to scrutinise it until May. She initially misunderstood this line and said she was happy with that. In any case the sort of contents she indicated will be in that report are not terribly interesting, or at least not the sort of thing you'd feel the need to bury until after an election for party political reasons.

Personally I rather want the justice system to deal with any living high-profile offenders it can before this inquiry gets anywhere near to drawing conclusions. Because this inquiry is extremely unlikely to be the vehicle by which the public learn about living political offenders in a manner that allows us to talk about them without having to speak in riddles. And the inquiry will find it much easier to avoid acknowledging the most damning of specific power abuses, coverups and institutional failures if the justice part of the system hasn't reached a stage where stuff becomes accepted public knowledge, with the facts we need to draw conclusions rather than simply have strong suspicions.

 

[elbows]

At one point she also claimed to be the voice of the citizen, which a committee member picked up on and asked her about. Her response included "I think I could convince the general public that I am an ordinary citizen", delivered with a smile.

She hasn't even met the panel in the flesh yet. Keeps using the phrase 'the victim community'.

 

[elbows]

I also just love the way the committee and Vaz keep expressing how perplexed they are that Woolf sent a draft of her letter to the home office before the final one was sent to the home secretary. They asked her for a copy of the first draft of the letter, and she failed to commit to doing so, with excuses including 'it was done by email'.

Anyway the reason I just love the above is that that if you look at the letters on the website that all of the panel members wrote, its bloody obvious that the first several paragraphs of each letter are pretty much identical. Clearly a template was used that would satisfy the legal requirements of relevant inquiry acts, but given some of the sentences in question it rather undermines the sincerity of the statements and adds an additional comedy layer to the notion of independence.

https://childsexualabuseinquiry.independent.gov.uk/letters/

I am honoured to have been asked to become a member of the independent panel inquiry which will consider the extent to which State and non-State institutions may have failed in their duty of care to protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation in England and Wales over many years. This is a major inquiry and I am determined that it will examine all the issues and all the organisations, and will ask all the questions, that are necessary to enable it to report fully.

 

[Lurdan]

Was Simon D duped/flattered into it, as suggested above, or was he pretty well aware all along of the direction all this was likely to go?? </speculation/tinhat ... >

I don't think it's necessary to listen to many interviews with him to work out that he's not a very sophisticated or subtle political operator.

The funny thing was that Woolf's 'links' to Brittan (and initially also to Harriet Harman, although those were so tenuous they didn't go much further), had been found by google researchers and posted to Twitter by lunchtime on the day she was appointed. These Twitter postings were not just mentioned on the radio lunchtime news, they were actually put to him in the same radio interview in which he set out what he had decided was his initial position of qualified support for her.

The Mail on Sunday then picked up the content of those Twitter posts and published them that weekend - claiming credit for the investigative work and including, of course, a quote from our man :

Revealed: New boss of investigation into VIP child abuse claims is linked to Leon Brittan - Mail

Last night Labour MP Simon Danczuk – who has led calls for a public inquiry into historic child sex abuse in the wake of revelations about high-profile figures such as Sir Jimmy Savile – questioned Mrs Woolf’s appointment. ‘If it’s found that Fiona Woolf is close to the Brittans, her position is untenable and she needs to be clear about what her relationship is with Leon Brittan, who is one of the most significant figures in terms of suggestions of a cover-up,’ he said. ‘Surely the Home Office was aware of this before they suggested appointing her?’

Five days later Danczuk raised his newly found concerns in Parliament (and made some more headlines)

MP's concern over abuse probe chief Fiona Woolf - BBC site

Simon Danczuk told MPs: "I am disturbed by the apparent links between the new chair and Lord Brittan, who is alleged to be at the heart of the paedophile scandal and cover-up."

For me the problem isn't the fact that he's changed his view (why shouldn't he ?). It's the fact that he only appears to have done so as part of his persona as 'prominent campaigner' on this issue.

However I freely confess I'm strongly prejudiced against him. For me his very right wing political views (on the 'strivers' v 'skivers' agenda for example) aren't in any way mitigated by the fact he's taken up CSE and historical abuse as a cause.

 

[elbows]

More pressure on Woolf, from victims and their representatives:

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/oct/25/lady-woolf-child-abuse-inquiry-vitims-no-confidence

Pressure on Lady Woolf to step down as the new head of the government inquiry into child abuse has intensified after a lawyer representing almost 50 victims said a number would not participate because of their concern about how it was going to be run.

“We’ve heard from many survivors who are extremely distressed. They are saying it’s going to be a whitewash, that it doesn’t want to speak to the victims and that’s just a paper exercise. They are worried it’s not going to get to the truth of what happened.”

Victims are dismayed that Woolf, who is to stand down as Lord Mayor of London next month, will be taking up another demanding job, separate from her role heading up the inquiry.

“Some of my clients question her capability in terms of her diary commitments to do this very complex and lengthy inquiry,” Millar said. “She’s due to take on a prestigious appointment with the University of Law, which will involve promoting it to international students. We want to know: does she have a lot of international trips booked, is she going to be able to come to the meetings? You cannot do this remotely.”

Saunders also questioned Woolf’s expertise. “She’s a corporate lawyer; she has no experience in investigating serious criminal cases,” he said.

One law firm has already drawn up plans to seek a judicial review of Woolf’s appointment. Millar suggested that that remained a possibility for her clients too. She said many had been upset by Woolf’s recent appearance before Vaz’s committee.

“One of the things that angered our clients was when Fiona Woolf started talking about the victim community,” Millar said. “There is no victim community; they are survivors of child abuse. They do not live in a communal state. They are a disparate range of people whose interests are not homogenous. Quite often they are isolated from other people, including each other, and they’re not all talking and saying ‘we want this we want that’. However, all the clients I’ve spoken with are unanimous that they don’t want Fiona Woolf to chair this inquiry because the perception of her is someone too close to the establishment.

 

[Quartz]

Looks like Denis MacShane is in trouble. As is the Home Office. It seems they ignored warnings.

ROTHERHAM’s horrific abuse concerns were raised with the Home Office and the town’s MP but never acted on, The Yorkshire Post can reveal.



Abuse campaigners have revealed how in 2003 they met with a senior Home Office representative to say the Rotherham Council and South Yorkshire Police could not be trusted and called for urgent Government action.

And in 2009 they wrote to Denis MacShane with a five page letter detailing abuse concerns made by a Rotherham family but received no response.