Re: The Bigger, Badder, Even More Serious Thread [4]

[Pettytyrant101]

Its still not a public enquiry, which is my point- it can have as many panels and assessments as it likes- it has no legal powers to compel witnesses or evidence, statements are not given under oath.

You cant seriously look at that list of public enquiries since 2000- all deemed serious enough to warrant a public enquiry- the highest level of enquiry a government can order, things like the south Wales e coli outbreak, and say that this is not more serious and so more deserving of a full public enquiry than many of those which got one.

The bit you put in bold I already mentioned above. But it should be very obvious I would say that a full public enquiry is already warranted.

Nor is my belief this warrants a public enquiry got anything to do with any 'we hate the English gvt club'.
In case you hadn't noticed its not the English government its the UK government, a UK of which I am a part. Its also pretty cheap to make the accusation that I just hate the government because its in England. That's belittling. I have nothing at all against the English, my desire for an independent Scotland has nothing to do with the people of England but with what I see as an unfair settlement democratically within the existing Union of countries that I dont ever see ever being remedied within the Union structure.
But if I was living in an independent Scotland and this was our Parliament I'd still be saying it demands a public enquiry because it does- anything less is not good enough.

[Mrs Figg]

this is all besides the point. the important thing is the enquiry. I was merely objecting to a kneejerk criticizing of Cameron, you insinuated he was being obstructive. I dont like him but I criticize him when its warranted.

[Pettytyrant101]

I said his response of not calling a public enquiry was pathetic. I think its a bad decision as nothing else has the power of the law behind it and we have several different investigations going on in different departments and the police instead of them all being conducted by one central public enquiry body.

I didnt like Thatcher but I thought she was a good politician.
I dont like Cameron either but think he is a bad politician.

My thoughts on this have nothing to do with any other issues, its just a bad call that I dont think will do enough to convince the public that they are taking it seriously- the police had 7 officers assigned to the investigation, they put over 200 into phone hacking and we are meant to believe that without the compulsion of law they will uncover the truth?.

[azriel]

I believe Cameron is stalling. His aides & advisors already know stuff, stuff very damaging & I suspect wish very much to find a way thru this minefield that will placate both public & Government equally. Call me a suspicious paranoid person but, thats how I read it. There's double dealing going on. An outside neutral 'member' is needed I feel to delve into this serious problem, one prepaired to ask painful questions that Cameron & ilk wont like but, needs to be addressed pronto. I never believe in higher officials, they cover up what they want covered up & we might know the truth,one day, like 100yrs into the future ?!

[Pettytyrant101]

Thats exactly the problem with no public enquiry- the public wont buy it. It will just look like Hillsborough again, or the expenses- covering each others backs, destroying or falsifying evidence, blackening the names even of grieving family members trying to get the IPC to investigate the police- HIllsborough (where they even blamed dead fans) and Stephen Lawrence (that was particularly low).

Its not even like these are wild conspiracy theories- this is the stuff we know about - and we only know abut Hillsborough and the Lawrence family them because they had public enquiries. Otherwise we still not know what happened.

But how after all this are we supposed to trust these people to investigate themselves? With boards they pick the members of and regulate which dont have the power of law to get testimony or evidence. All they can do is ask.

[Mrs Figg]

Look he is a politician, its near the elections, theres nothing sinister about his reaction, and any politician in power whether Labour, LibDem or Tory would have reacted the same if they thought a major scandal from the past was going to blow a chunk out of their ass. He has asked for a review, they are going to be doing TWO, I dont know what else they could be doing.

[Pettytyrant101]

A public enquiry- it might be longer but thats because it legal and everyone called is bound by law or risk perjury.

The two enquires we have dont have those powers. Hell one of them isn't even a review with the primary purpose of finding out what happened to the files, its a review into last years review about what happened to the files! That sounds like the sort of civil service trick Sir Humphrey would pull off if he had to hide something.

[Mrs Figg]

thing is why is the focus soley on a few politicians? where was the precious 'public' when these kids were being abused? where were their parents, their carers, where were the social services, the social worker, the nurses and doctors, the POLICE, when all this was happening? abuse doesnt occur in a vacuum, only when 'the public' turn a blind eye, or hide under the cowardice of saying 'it was another time', the fact is the public so easily pointing fingers ALSO let this happen.

[Pettytyrant101]

Dont disagree there- but then thats part of the problem. Its not these things aren't being investigated- there are enquiries all over the place- but all disparate, not connected up. So where they link up or cross over things can be missed, dots not joined that should be- thats another reason its needs a single public enquiry investigation all the different threads.

This BBC page has all the relevant current ongoing enquiries into these things-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28194271

12 separate enquiries, many of whom may well have connections to each other, but all being investigated separately.
Its too spread out, too messy.

[azriel]

There's corruption at every turn. I was on the bus from Brighton today. Went thru Peacehaven on the way home. On the main road is a white house with graffiti in red paint daubed all over it. Its called "the murder House". Its about a real life murder of a young woman & the police refusal to solve the case. Plenty of local residents will not give up on the dead girl & bring the end of "cover ups" at last ! 
CAMPAIGN 'JUSTICE 4 KATRINA TAYLOR' 2013 REVIEW.

Justice4Katrina

It's been a year of ups and downs but we are determined to bring justice for Katrina Taylor and have made major in-roads in bringing the persons responsible for the continuing murder cover-up of her murder, one step closer to justice.


The most important factor of Katrina Taylor's murder cover-up is that its the tip of the iceberg. Once the Katrina Taylor murder cover-up is exposed, a can of worms will unravel, which will lead straight to the heart of Sussex life and to the heart of Westminster power.


TOP FIVE STORIES OF 2013.
click on the headings for each article to open in a new window


POLICE & CRIME COMMISSIONER CANDIDATE SAYS SUSSEX POLICE ARE COVERING UP MURDER - AND OTHER CANDIDATES SHOULD DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
An Police and Crime Commissioner candidate has claimed Sussex Chief Constable Martin Richards is an accessory to the murder of Katrina Taylor - attempted murder of a witness, intimidation and Criminal Conspiracy with members of Sussex Police Authority.


KATRINA TAYLOR'S MURDER IS BEING ERASED FROM HISTORY.
Katrina Taylor, murdered in a Brighton graveyard in 1996, is no longer an unsolved murder. Well, according to Wikipedia it isn't. Someone – out there – has erased her memory from the list of unsolved murders in the UK.

JAMES MURPHY LAUNCHES PETITION CALLING FOR AN INQUIRY INTO SUSSEX POLICE HANDLING OF KATRINA TAYLOR'S MURDER.
Katrina Taylor was murdered in a Brighton graveyard in 1996 and justice remains to be done. Four people were accused and arrested of her murder, but were acquitted in circumstances which call into question the very legitimacy of justice.


THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM.
The elephant in the room is the obvious problem no one wants to discuss, but discuss we must, because the elephant is getting fatter and fatter and if it isn't burst soon, we'll all be squeezed to death.


KATY BOURNE IGNORES QUESTIONS ABOUT KATRINA TAYLOR.
Katy Bourne Police & Crime Commissioner for Sussex has ignored a question concerning Katrina Taylor, who was murdered in a Brighton graveyard in 1996, for the fourth consecutive time.

www.117.20m.com

We know who killed Katrina Taylor

Jim Murphy from New Funk Radio

The Elephant in the room

Katrina Taylor & Katy Bourne

MAY WE WISH EVERYONE THE BEST OF LUCK FOR 2014, AND HOPE 2014 IS THE YEAR THAT SEES JUSTICE FOR KATRINA TAYLOR

Posted 29th December 2013 by Matthew Taylor

[Pettytyrant101]

Its always good to see when a community knows an injustice has been done and they rally round to try to put it right- I hope they succeed, there is too much of this goes on.

There is something rotten in the state of Britain.

[Pettytyrant101]

More evidence of why Cameron is a hopeless politician- the enquiry he set up into child abuse especially as it was not a public enquiry, had to appear to be completely above board- so one day later what is the story?

"The retired judge appointed to chair a child abuse review is facing growing calls to "step down" over her family connection with a previous probe.
Her position was tainted because her late brother, Sir Michael Havers, was Attorney General in the 1980s."

So he appointed someone who was a)-retired and b) has a brother to protect who served during the crucial years under investigation.

  Now either its an attempt to fix the enquiry from the off, which I actually doubt, its too clumsy, or its further example of Cameron's fantastic decision making- like bringing Coulson in as his special advisor after the NotW hacking scandal.
He is the worst PM in my lifetime.    (and yes I am including Thatcher in that)

[Pettytyrant101]

'The retired judge appointed to chair a child abuse review has insisted she will not quit - as the PM claimed she was the right person for the job.
MPs and victims claim she is too close to the establishment, particularly as Sir Michael was Attorney General at the time of the alleged paedophile scandal.
Sir Michael faced criticism after he sought to stop Tory MP Geoffrey Dickens from naming in Parliament a top diplomat - Sir Peter Hayman - as a paedophile in the early 1980s.
"I know absolutely nothing about it," she told the BBC. "If people think I am not suitable then that's up to them," she added: "I am certainly not going to be talking to the BBC or anyone else about this any further."
The spokesman declined to say whether the PM was aware of her brother's position prior to her appointment, adding: "His view is she commands widespread respect and confidence."- BBC

What a mess and a farce already. This enquiry had to appear whiter than white- now it turns out they appointed someone who is connected to one of the people she is to investigate, and someone who whose brother, that she would have to investigate, blocked and early attempt to reveal a paedophile in Parliament.

On top of that her last job before retiring was heading the enquiry into the death of Diana and Dodi- which many regard as a cover up still.

Why appoint such a controversial figure to head such a sensitive enquiry that needs to engender trust in the public from the start? What kind of decision making is that?


This Mrs Figg is why I dont like Cameron- he is not up to the job of PM.

[Mrs Figg]

never said he was.

[Pettytyrant101]

No but you said in the discussion about enquiries - 'We all know Petty hates Cameron and blames him for everything...you wont be able to propagandize for the 'we hate the English gvt club'

I am just re-emphasising the point I dislike Cameron because I think he is hopeless at his job and that's bad for all of us. Not for any of the reasons you gave above.

[Mrs Figg]

if you say so, but you jump on anything negative when it comes to Cameron whether he deserves it or not. As I said a million times before, I am no fan of Cameron or the Tories, they suck, but you cant blame hime for everything.

[azriel]

If he was an ordinary "Joe Soap" Id say,ok, he made a mistake, cant blame him, lets get on with it. But, he isnt an ordinary "Joe soap". Hes leader of a country with a vast & ever growing population. All eyes & ears are on him, not just here in the UK but overseas also. He is the one that is supposed to command respect & get this country out of the shithole its choking on. He is not meant to make us look even more of an inept laughing stock of the world than we already are. Hes got to get his sums right. Hes got to get his facts right. And hes definitely got to get his actions right.

[Pettytyrant101]

There has been a long procession of dodgy Cameron decisions that seem to backfire spectacularly- just recently we've had him having to apologise for appointing a convicted phone hacker to head of his press office- someone he was repeatedly warned about at the time, he tried to dictate to Scotland on the referendum from London and massively increased the YES vote overnight, then he made an arse of us in Europe over the vote, which he thought he had got Germany on side for and he hadn't and ended up with only one other country voting with him, and now this farce of decision making.

And when you look back over his other decisions its a catalogue of disasters- Universal Credit, the mess of the english NHS, the mess of english schools, the list goes on.

He is a disaster at making decisions.

[Mrs Figg]

He is no better or worse than any PM in living memory. Blair and Major spring to mind. For all these people you can catalogue their faults and failings a yard long, its nothing really new. Camerons a knob, but theres far worse out there. Is he corrupt or dishonest? is he part of the mafia? is he protecting paedos? I doubt it, he may be inept, arrogant, well, a Tory, but he is not to blame for past MPs being part of a paedo ring, he is obviously not jumping for joy at this new dramatic scandal, and obviouslty wishes it would all just go away as his career is on the line, I personally hope it gets rid of the lot of them including that Libdem knobhead, but blaming him for all this paedo mess is not really on.

[Pettytyrant101]

blaming him for all this paedo mess is not really on.- Mrs Figg

No its not, so just as well I have ever done that- I am blaming him for the current enquiry his government has set up which is descending into ignominy within a day.

[Mrs Figg]

hardly ignominy. Baroness Butler Sloss is widely known for her itegrity, she is not to blame for her brothers actions as high court judge. The hallmarks of her career have been her humanity, willingness to listen to the men and women who came before her in court, common sense and open-mindedness. At worst its a conflict of interests case.

[Pettytyrant101]

In an enquiry as sensitive as this you cannot have the head of the enquiry with a major conflict of interest- that should have been obvious.

We have representatives from the victims organisation saying they cannot trust any conclusions the enquiry reaches because of this.

And we have other heads of previous enquiries saying-

Mr Danczuk, who has investigated child sex abuse allegations against former Liberal MP Cyril Smith, said the revelations of a family connection with Sir Michael meant Lady Butler-Sloss' position was compromised.
"I think the government should think again in terms of who they have appointed for this position," he said, "I think she should consider her position. I find it quite surprising that neither she nor the government realised her relationship with her brother was connected to Geoffrey Dickens. It beggars belief that that wasn't considered in the first place."

He is right- it does beggar belief they could appoint to the head of this enquiry someone with a family connection to it and a conflict of interest.

And the list of voices who can see what a bad mistake this is grows by the hour, including Tories-

'Conservative MP Sarah Wollaston, chairman of the Commons health select committee, has also cast doubt on whether Lady Butler-Sloss can continue. She wrote on Twitter: "Not doubting her integrity but hard to see why Baroness Butler-Sloss would want to accept a role so many regard as conflicted at the outset."
Keith Vaz, Labour chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee said he was surprised at the selection, pointing out that while Lady Butler-Sloss was "distinguished" she was also a member of the House of Lords.
Green Party leader Natalie Bennett said the peer was "categorically not the right person to lead child abuse inquiry," because of the involvement of her brother, adding: "No one should be expected to investigate a close member of their own family as part of an official enquiry. "
And Ms Millar, head of the abuse law team at Leigh Day Solicitors, urged the peer to step down.
"There needs to be not a shred of doubt that this inquiry is not an establishment cover up - and the concern really is that she is just too close to the establishment, particularly with this connection to Sir Michael Havers," she told the BBC.
Ms Millar represents some of the alleged victims of the Elm Guest House in London - the location where a number of sex abuse cases were alleged to have taken place.'- BBC

This enquiry has to have the public trust or its worthless.

[Mrs Figg]

this is absurd. even If her brother had been Hitler it wouldnt make one bit of difference, what on earth has her brothers mistakes got to do with her ability?. Its like denying someone work because their brother is in jail for armed robbery. If she is capable of doing the job I say let her get on with it.

[Pettytyrant101]

Its like denying someone work because their brother is in jail for armed robbery.- Mrs Figg

No its like denying someone the job of deciding if their brother is guilty of armed robbery or not.

No judge would be allowed to sit on the bench in a trial a member of their own family might be implicated in. This should be no different.

In politics, and especially in this case, perception is everything- if those who represent the victims say they cannot trust her conclusion because she may compromised then she is the wrong person for the job.

Yes she has an impeccable record, no-one is questioning that- but she should not be asked to investigate her own family when the charges are so serious- there will always be those who will doubt her integrity, there will always be question marks over her conclusions- particularity if her brother comes out of squeaky clean (and he may well have been, but who will believe it?)

Its not just a bad decision in my view, its a position the woman should never have been put in in the first place where she has to investigate her own.

The only people I have read who seem to think otherwise is Cameron and co- go to the newspaper reports on this and read the comments sections- its just distrust and speculation of a white wash already, that is not the mood in which this enquiry should begin. It makes the whole thing pointless if people are already doubtful and questioning its integrity.

This needed an independent head, not connected to anyone in the enquiry, and not a long standing  House of Lords member of the establishment.

[azriel]

I find it uncomfortable that Lady Butler Sloss is heading this. Im sure she is a very dependable & industrious woman but, knowing that at some stage she will have to stick her nose into her brothers affairs is, well, uncomfortable, (ive said it again) Unless, she does have an inkling of something & would be partially relieved to set the story straight ? How strong are her family ties ? I couldnt do it thats for sure.But there again the subject matter is so compelling that you would really want justice done, fook, not a good place to be.