elbows
Well-Known Member
Surprised no one has brought in the Leicestershire children's homes scandal yet.
Matters relating to this, or something else?
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1991/dec/03/contempt-of-court
Surprised no one has brought in the Leicestershire children's homes scandal yet.
That, directly.Matters relating to this, or something else?
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1991/dec/03/contempt-of-court
In the course of that trial, one of the defendants, the major defendant, an evil man, chose to use the name of an honoured colleague in the House entirely for his own ends. He was determined, I think, to try to blackmail the—I almost put it in quotation marks—establishment.
I think that the defendant felt that, by naming persons who were in public life and putting them forward as people from whom children had to be defended—this was a child abuse case —he might frighten the authorities into not prosecuting or not pursuing the prosecution with the vigour that one might have expected. The defendant was wrong about that. He should have known that in Britain we conduct our prosecutions independently and fairly.
The defendant could not achieve his objective, but he sought to do so during the course of the trial, and anything said in the course of a trial is not subject to the laws of slander or libel when it is reported in newspapers. It was spread throughout the newspapers the length and breadth of the country, on the radio and on television.
No he was cleared.
edit: hang on, that was on another charge of benefit fraud.
But yesterday his name was widely circulating on the internet including through hundreds of messages on the social networking site Twitter. However several other politicians not suspected of any involvement were also included in the messages.
Mark Stephens, who represented around 15 of the children at the Waterhouse Inquiry, said: “I am convinced parliamentary privilege will be used to ask a question as to why this high-ranking politician who was named by a victim in the north Wales child abuse inquiry has been afforded protection.”
I think the lack of convicted/cleared stuff on this may say something.Yeah, this was the outcome of the benefits one:
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/I've been vindicated - now I'll sue police; Abuse victim cleared of...-a0127698193
Indeed, and they posted this link -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/1915901.stm
Was he convicted? Another possible dent in Messham's credibilty as a witness.
Hmm - two former tory cabinet ministers keep coming up in association with 'the fusileer' and the 'failed reality Tv peresenter' (who was named by tom watson in the commons) if you put the latter two names into google.
The sources are various blogs - some of them are conspiraloon bollocks - but others seem sensible as far as I can tell.
Abuse victim Steven Messham, 37, who claims to have been sexually assaulted and physically abused in four different Welsh care homes, said he had been promised that no stone would be left unturned.
He expressed disappointment over yesterday's announcement by North Wales police that there would be no new prosecutions.
Mr Messham, chairman of Norwas (North Wales Abuse Survivors) said he had believed that Sir Ronald Waterhouse would name and shame the abusers.
"He only named people we already knew about.
"As far as I'm concerned, the fight will go on and one day we will get the justice we deserve."
the key point is though, these names are not being thrown in retrospectively. they are a part of the original Scallywag allegations.
Did Hauge set the terms of the original enquiry?
"Since sharing my concerns with you at PMQs, a number of people have come forward to say that they raised their suspicions with the police, but investigations were not carried out. One allegation involves alleged child abuse and a former cabinet minister. We both know that many untruths are told about politicians, but this allegation was specific, informed and appeared well corroborated."
Cameron and the cabinet secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood, rushed to act as the media threatened to identify the senior Tory figure close to Lady Thatcher alleged to have been involved in the child abuse.
When did he name names? I only saw the clip of his question at PMQs, which didn't show that. Is it in Hansard?Hmm - two former tory cabinet ministers keep coming up in association with 'the fusileer' and the 'failed reality Tv peresenter' (who was named by tom watson in the commons)
One fairly persuasive bit - although I can't recall if it was Scallywag or elsewhere - was that (reportedly) several victims were independently driven round the area and asked to point out the flat, and each pointed out the same one. In the days before Google Streetview, that wouldn't be so easy to orchestrate.the allegation is that they the attended Pimlico parties hosted by the former tory advisor (who is also a failed reality tv star). these allegations strike me as being less clearcut however - the evidence that supports them doesn't appear to be as strong from my reading of the Scallywag articles.
Even more so if the tale of his early morning Brighton beach rendezvous has any substance to it. Bang goes plausible deniability.Hmmm - puts hauge in a difficult position if moe shit comes out.
That, directly.
Hague wasn't old enough to be involved - it's about his role in possibly covering it up that will come under the spotlight - as Minister for Wales. Nor can his career and **'s cross for one MP to meet another on Brighton Beach as fellow MPS to sort shit out due to him not being an MP at the time. Crazy shit getting posted under a thin veil now. Sort it out, check it up before posting ffs.When did he name names? I only saw the clip of his question at PMQs, which didn't show that. Is it in Hansard?
One fairly persuasive bit - although I can't recall if it was Scallywag or elsewhere - was that (reportedly) several victims were independently driven round the area and asked to point out the flat, and each pointed out the same one. In the days before Google Streetview, that wouldn't be so easy to orchestrate.
Even more so if the tale of his early morning Brighton beach rendezvous has any substance to it. Bang goes plausible deniability.
I'm not going to be much help on this for now. I can see a defence of the type that peck tried might be normal etc - but for now, can't say anything more.Argh, little else but a flood of anti-semitic horror when I try to find other articles about that.
As I said - "if". I don't have the time to research everything I've read about this, and at present I have no idea which bits are true and which aren't. You've helpfully debunked the LB story for me, thanks. xxxHague wasn't old enough to be involved - it's about his role in possibly covering it up that will come under the spotlight - as Minister for Wales. Nor can his career and LB's cross for one MP to meet another on Brighton Beach as fellow MPS to sort shit out due to him not being an MP at the time. Crazy shit getting posted under a thin veil now. Sort it out, check it up before posting ffs.
That's an offshoot of the ** theory - not the theory itself!As I said - "if". I don't have the time to research every thing I've read, and at present I have no idea which bits are true and which aren't. You've helpfully debunked the LB story for me, thanks.
Not sure I get you. The thing I'd read & was referring to had it that he was shunted to the EU by Hague as a result of an abuse cover-up. But as you've pointed, and wiki "confirms", the dates don't match.That's an offshoot of the ** theory - not the theory itself!
Aaah. Credible? (as far as you can tell with the current state of information)Remove hague from the picture, you still have a theory.