Coffee House

Will Ed Miliband attack over Lady Butler-Sloss’s appointment as head of the child abuse inquiry?

9 July 2014

11:58 AM

9 July 2014

11:58 AM

Will Ed Miliband decide to attack David Cameron on the appointment of Lady Butler-Sloss to chair the child abuse inquiry when he stands up at Prime Minister’s Questions in a few minutes?

The government has been playing a desperate game of whack-a-mole on this issue, and it looked as though Butler-Sloss was an ideal answer to conspiracy theorists. Appointing Lady Butler-Sloss, a judge, to chair the inquiry, answered complaints about this not being a judge-led inquiry. Appointing Richard Whittam QC, a senior Treasury counsel, as the independent legal adviser who will oversee the review of the review quelled mutterings about documents held by the intelligence services because Whittam already has security clearance. Butler-Sloss also brings a wealth of technical experience in the field to the inquiry: she chaired the inquiry into the Cleveland abuse scandal, and who has more recently examined allegations of abuse by two Church of England priests in the Chichester Diocese.

[Alt-Text]


But she has a link that means MPs who have been pursuing the child abuse allegations such as Simon Danczuk think she should step down from the Inquiry before it has even begun. Her brother, Sir Michael Havers, was the Attorney General at the time many of the allegations were raised.

Will Miliband criticise the government’s decision to appoint her without noticing this link? If he does, he will have to tread a fine line. He must appear statesmanlike, not an opportunist opposition leader. And this is difficult given the Prime Minister has levelled that accusation at the Labour leader a fair few times recently.


More Spectator for less. Stay informed leading up to the EU referendum and in the aftermath. Subscribe and receive 15 issues delivered for just £15, with full web and app access. Join us.



Show comments
  • http://charlesfrith.blogspot.com/ Charles Frith

    The paedophile ring goes all the way to Buckhingham palace and are protected by MI5. It’s just the way it is.

  • URSULARICHES

    There is sufficient grave reason to not have this judge head the inquiry, whatever her other merits. That Nigel Havers was put onto the BBC to promote his aunt smacks of underhanded dealings already. So the BBC actuall decided to advertise a famous actor and relative’s endorsement of his aunt, the sister of his father, who was attorney general at the time the abuse allegations were made? The only action worth considering is to sack David Cameron for even putting her forward.

    • Dogzzz

      The BBC will do anything to back an insider, or else wreck any credibility of these enquiries as they are guilty of harbouring and covering up the predatory paedophiles that they employed and allowed to abuse children on BBC premises.

      • URSULARICHES

        Will mainstream media stick its neck out for the abused, at the risk of payback, being sued by those who wriggle out of justice’s arms, demotion, car accidents…? Heard of holly Grieg anyone?

  • philip

    Butler Sloss was not bright enough to go to university so she went to secretarial college. At 21 without knowing anything about or studying law she was called to the bar. Obviously because of family connections. This lack of education and ability has not stopped her meteoric rise but has caused chaos in the family courts with a long list of bad decisions.

    I think the fact that she is uneducated, has never studied law to any depth, and has a very poor track record are more reasons to get rid of her.

  • TruthBeatsLies

    Trouble is, the lady rather resembles Jimmy Savile, in drag, don’t you think?

  • http://charlesfrith.blogspot.com/ Charles Frith

    The paedophile elite is run by MI5 for blackmail purposes. Call me on +66847334769 if you wish to know where to verify this information for yourself.

  • Marcantonio Colonna

    Harriet Harman can’t understand why being an atheistic peadophile enabling communist precluded her from being deputy PM:

    http://thelepantonewswire.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/self-serving-and-case-of-special.html

  • lailahaillallah

    Why would one want a lady of 80 to do this anyway? Isn’t she retired? Why pick her? Why not some academic?

    • Ooh!MePurse!

      I don’t understand why her age is an issue. Consider the amount of experience that her age gives her. Are you suggesting that experienced people of 80 should just be ignored or written off?

      • Tom Prescott

        The plan is to make the enquiry so overarching and so drawn out that it takes the best part of a decade. At which point, if she is still alive, she will excuse herself on the grounds of ill health and that will stall it for a few more years. The idea is to kick it into the long grass.

  • 1498

    The liberal left elements of the media were all part of the cover up. The roots of this scandal go well back to the 1970’s.
    It has also emerged that a ‘civil groups’ group called the ‘Paedophile Information exchange’ (campaigning for the full acceptance and legalisation of paedophilia) may even have received government funding. This scandal will shake British society to its very foundations.

  • BoiledCabbage

    There must be huge pressure on Cameron, from the murky parts of the Establishment, to appoint the “right” chair so “certain people” get some cover. There is a brooding sense of some very bad news that had been hidden.

    • Tom Prescott

      Who began this? THE ABUSERS. Who come from ALL parties. And the report is scheduled to come AFTER the election. Probably many years after. If you still think this is about left versus right, you REALLY don’t get it.

      • Dogzzz

        Correct. There are perverts in all parties and the upper levels of the Establishment are infested with them.

  • Fergus Pickering

    He wil come down, as he usually does, on both sides of the question.

  • Daidragon

    She’s just too old, too much a part of the establishment and too close personally. She has to go. Cameron needs to man up.

    • Ooh!MePurse!

      What on earth does her age have anything to do with it?

      • Daidragon

        She’ll probably die before any report is published.

    • Fergus Pickering

      Too old. Do you mean she’s gaga. If you do, then say so.

  • Tony_E

    I think that there may be some prejudice here against Baroness Butler Sloss due to the possibly quite pertinent criticisms that were made of Sir Michael Havers over the prosecutions of certain trials in the 70’s and 80’s.

    Accusations that he was responsible for persisting in the guilt of the Guildford 4, and certainly he became a hate figure for the left over this and other cases such as his handling of the Yorkshire Ripper trial, means that hackles are raised against his sister, simply because many would want to see him as guilty of some impropriety.

    However, Baroness Butler Sloss has an incredibly strong track record, and has recused herself before when she has felt unqualified (in the Diana, Princess of Wales Inquest, where she resigned due to inexperience in handling Jury Coroner’s inquests).

    I understand the desire for some to see an ‘unqualified’ and therefore ‘Non establishment’ investigator, but it seems that she will certainly not be acting alone and that the composition of whatever tribunal is set up will ensure that there can be no hint of cover up.

    Her experience in the Family courts division, the Security Commission, and with the enquiry into the Cleveland scandal should mark her out as an able candidate for the job. She also has a reputation for independence.

    • Malcolm McCandless

      The survivors are themselves saying they have concerns over this appointment.

      This is an inquiry that has to succeed. If survivors don’t have confidence in it then it has already failed

      The Baroness should step down.

      • Tony_E

        It looks as if you are going to get what you want on this now, pressure is certainly building. The problem is that now they might find someone with the ‘right (on) credentials’ so that there will be no further protest, and the whole thing will turn into a witch hunt for the correct perpetrators rather than a forensic investigation of evidence.

        I’m sure unfortunately, that the truth is not what everyone exclusively wants. Some want a big scalp – and I’m starting to sense some desperation for it to be a member of the Thatcher government, as we saw with the eager willingness by certain people to smear Lord McAlpine last year. ‘Survivors’ are no less prone to being used for political ends in this case than in any other, especially in the run up to a general election, so while I don’t discount what you say about survivor confidence, I always suspect that media and politicians use survivors to push their own angle where they can.

        Certain people will not be convinced that the inquiry is sound until they have proven a ‘cover up’ – it won’t matter whether there has actually been one or not. It’s going to get party political, and now it’s probably going to be run by someone less able and experienced.

  • jazz606

    Why does it have to be a judge or a lawyer. Personally I don’t trust any of the legal profession further than I can spit.
    There must be thousands of competent laymen, untarnished by any connection to the establishment who could head up this inquiry.
    This’ll just be another stitch up, it’ll take years and cost £ millions and the results will be nicely ambiguous.

    • Fergus Pickering

      What’s David Beckham doing?

  • rtj1211

    The other issue is whether she’s a member of MI6.

    Clearly, that is never going to be revealed publicly, but if she were, there could be huge conflicts of interest.

    And if that were the case, they’d have to find another graceful way for her to exit without revealing the true reason, since otherwise that which cannot be revealed publicly would have been……..

  • Phil Whittington

    Just look at the fact that the actor Nigel Havers has been on the BBC News this afternoon (and maybe other channels) defending his “auntie”. I don’t criticise him; most of us would argue instinctively in a relative’s favour if asked a question about them in the public square.

    But those actions show why it’s not appropriate for Baroness Butler-Sloss to lead an investigation looking at serious potential crimes that may have been committed (or reported) when her brother (Nigel Havers’s father) was Attorney General.

    This issue is so serious, and trust in politicians and the Establishment already so low, that we need to get away from having someone who is related to / was at school with / played tennis with those who may be alleged to have committed those crimes.

    If I were David Cameron, I would ask the governors general of Canada and Australia both to recommend a senior judge from those countries who can be sent here to lead the investigation. They will understand both our legal framework and our political system, and they would inspire trust in the British public, yet, crucially, be from outside our own elite.

    I have no reason to doubt Baroness Butler-Sloss’s integrity, but justice must be seen to be done.

    • beenzrgud

      Good idea.
      A lot of these families have been part of the establishment for generations, so impartiality in a matter as sensitive as this is almost impossible to guarantee. It’s also quite a statement about the nature of our society that in most fields something like a meritocracy exists, but not when it comes to walking the corridors of power.

      • Phil Whittington

        Thanks :)

      • Tom Prescott

        ” in most fields something like a meritocracy exists”

        What country are you living in? Not the same one as me it seems, which the UN recently assessed as being the most unequal country in the developed world. Meritocracy? Are you joking?

        • beenzrgud

          My background is in science and engineering, so I can say for certain that nobody gets to the top without earning their position. Amongst other ability based professions I doubt sports stars get where they are without actually being good either.
          I think the legal profession (top echelon), certain areas of banking/business management, and obviously politics are all areas where it helps to be well connected. That is also where the real power lies, as I stated in my comment.
          A perfect meritocracy is almost impossible to achieve due to human nature. We are social animals and base many of our decisions in this context. In situations where ability is paramount though I think it takes precedent.

          • Tom Prescott

            “My background is in science and engineering, so I can say for certain that nobody gets to the top without earning their position.”

            But what about all the people who never get the chance to earn their position? First you need to have the luxury of a decent education, and that doesn’t come cheap these days. And Science and Engineering are not typical in that it is hard to bluff your way through using the old school tie, due to the specialist knowledge required. Not all jobs are like this. Most aren’t.

            You say you are a scientist, so I hope you will respect the numerous amount of statistical evidence that the best predictor of outcome, better than IQ or EQ or any other objective measure, is parental wealth and social class:

            http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6070596

            http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/social-class-determines-childs-success-934240.html

            http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/10/education/education-gap-grows-between-rich-and-poor-studies-show.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

            • beenzrgud

              Your right, it’s difficult to argue with the evidence that background has an effect in how well a person gets on, but don’t forget we are talking about getting all the way to the top in certain professions, not just getting a degree.
              I come from arguably the roughest council estate in Manchester, and I ended up doing post grad work at Cambridge and starting businesses. Along the way I’ve met plenty of people with similar backgrounds to me. There are lots of factors that effect how well a person will get on. I think one of the major ones is level of expectation, which is probably one of the first hurdles to overcome. Once this is achieved from a pure ability perspective most places at university are won dependent on A level results. I doubt anyone would suggest that A level results are fixed. My business experience also tells me that there is little room for dead weight in the modern world.
              At the start of my career I felt like a square peg in a round hole. A Liam Gallagher accent in world of home counties accents. I soon realised that it’s results that pay the bills, and at the end of the day that’s all most people are concerned about.

              • Tom Prescott

                I am going to hazard a guess that you are of the baby-boomer generation or slightly after, where social mobility was for a brief period in history a real phenomena and a lot of people from poor working class backgrounds made it to the top. Those days are over now. Unfortunately the hoorays are running the show again. Westminster is a classic example. Go back to the 80’s and the labour benches all had interesting regional accents. Now they are all posh public school boys. Social mobility has been declining for a long time now. And yes, you are partly right when you say it is about expectation. But the situation now is completely different. Even just in the last, say 20 years, university education has gone from being free to costing tens of thousands of pounds. plus you used to get grants to help with living costs, not loans. And with the PC push for more and more people to go to university, and the massive proliferation of mickey mouse subjects, having a degree is really no big deal any more and does not carry the weight it once did. Times have changed.

                • beenzrgud

                  I was an undergraduate in the late 80’s. I think the hoorays have always been running the show, they’ve never taken their hands off the wheels of power.

                  I still think though that once a person has gotten over their social circumstance, I know easier said than done, that in most fields they will get a fair shout if they show they have something valuable to contribute. Although obviously not in the fields I mentioned earlier. You’re right that I may have this wrong since I am not facing the same challenges that young people face nowadays. I’m simply speaking from my personal experience of seeing who is coming up through the ranks and actually getting somewhere. I can honestly say that in my experience background is the last thing that has been considered when offering opportunities. I’ve actually met very few hooray Henrys during my career, and usually their background has made it more difficult for them to fit in rather than easier.

                  Needless to say, if I’m wrong then it’s a sad situation. In the end nobody will benefit from offering the best opportunities on those not up to the task.

                • Tom Prescott

                  “I was an undergraduate in the late 80’s. I think the hoorays have always been running the show, they’ve never taken their hands off the wheels of power.”

                  That was still a time of great social mobility. Margaret Thatcher was a radical force in the tory party because she came from a lower middle class background and did not go to Eton or some such place. She is not typical of the tory party before or since. The fact she was elected leader was an improbable fluke of history. The old guard were dead against her. She would have contempt for the current coalition with their privileged noses in the trough. Cameron and his ilk was everything Margaret Thatcher fought against within the party in order to become leader. Compare her policies and her background with those of the incompetent scum sticking their noses in the trough (think IDS for example) that we have now and it is like night and day. And I am no fan of thatchers policies but this lot are the worst in generations, and I don’t think it is an exaggeration to call some of them fascists. Thatcher was no hooray and her policies were vastly more meritocratic that the current Bullingdon Bastards. A lot of working class people did very well from hard work under her.

                  “You’re right that I may have this wrong since I am not facing the same challenges that young people face nowadays.”

                  That is correct. Here are all the things nowadays that ypou would not have to have dealt with:

                  You have to pay tens of thousands of pounds for a degree that you will likely never use (for the majority at least, some specialist subjects such as science being a bit different) in order to be at the same level playing field as a high school leaver in your time. So you start off tens of thousands of pounds in debt, unless your family can help. Then you find the loans (not the grants like your day) are not enough to live on, so you have to get part time work whilst studying, exhausting yourself and missing out on the traditional student social scene. Then, you must do unpaid internships for an entire summer in order to get into any decent career, and these are usually obtained in the first place through nepotistic connections, so again, if you are from the wrong background, hard cheese.

                  If you are unlucky enough to be unemployed (and youth unemployment is the highest its been for a very long time) You are bulllied, harassed, ridiculed, and used as slave labour for rich multinational corporations that don’t even pay any tax at all, and periodically have your benefits stopped for some ridiculous reason according to targets, regardless of your behaviour. (this is assuming that you are not disabled, because disabled people are actually finding it difficult to even stay alive in the current climate, considering they are finding seriously ill and dying people “fit for work” according to target.)

                  If you are lucky enough to find a job, and you don’t have really good connections, it will likely be in the service sector, for example taking abusive phone calls all day, under conditions where everything you do is monitored to an extent that your generation couldn’t possibly have conceived of (I was once officially disciplined in a call centre for signing out one second early, yes, seriously). In amazon distribution warehouses, your every physical movement including bathroom breaks etc. is electronically monitored.

                  If the entry level jov that you have is not call centre, or some other service sector job like stacking shelves or pulling pints, then it tends to be gruelling physical labour. That is all that is on offer for most people throughout most of the country. There is a bit more available in the south east, but the cost of living there is so extortionate that you can add ever lengthening commutes into London every day to the mix, and also, half the UK is relocating to the home counties. I live in Scotland and everyone I know who has a semi decent job has had to move to the London area, even though many of them hate it there. It is either that or the jobs I describe above.

                  These days, there is far less protection for employees as well. A friend of mine who is a civil servant said he will be fired on the spot if he takes more than 4 sick days a year. And this is MUCH more secure than most jobs, where the contracts get renewed weekly or monthly for the first 2 years, during which time you are completely disposable. I have lost count of the number of times I have seen people fired on the spot and told to leave the building immediately, often for no reason at all. This is particularly bad since the trend now is to have many jobs within your career, so many people never get past the 2 year “trial” phase. (it was one year before this coalition) This is of course, assuming that you are not on a zero hours contract, in which case you don’t know if you will even be offered any hours the next week at all. All of these by the way pay far less in real terms than in the past due to global competition, and the majority of people on benefits are in work and rely on the benefits to stay alive, since the wage is simply not enough to live on. Meanwhile all the wealth you create is not reinvested in the country but shipped off to tax havens.

                  Put all this to a backdrop of a ridiculously over inflated housing market, and the fact that monetary policy (i.e. artificially low interest rates and QE) effectively steals from the proceeds of labour in order to subsidise capital returns, making the rich richer and the poor poorer, and you have a nightmare scenario for young people. Or at least, those not from wealthy backgrounds. These days, BY FAR the easiest way to make money is to have some already, since you can leverage it to absurd extents via subsidised debt (and yet people without lots of money can’t access this debt as the banks won’t lend to them, no matter how good their credit rating or business proposal, because they are still rebuilding their capital reserves), and hire accountants to hide all your money overseas and pay no tax. Jonny and Sally come lately can’t even get a seat at the table, let alone get a decent hand.

                  None of the things I have described here were the case in the 80’s and 90’s when you were starting your career.

                • beenzrgud

                  I think one of the things that separates my experience from the things you describe is that I’ve always been at the top of the class academically. After graduation I went straight on to a PhD and research. For people similar to myself I think that career progression remains much the same as always, with the exception that people will have a loan to repay. My point is that my progression didn’t depend on my background, and I still don’t think it does. The smartest people tend to get to the top, so for me the system rewards merit. Something a lot of people don’t realise is that academia is generally a bit “lefty” so in general it’s quite keen to look after the interests of the less well off. I’d also add that usually for the cleverest students money from various sources is generally organised in order to ensure that financial concerns are met. I don’t know what the current situation is regarding loans, etc. , and how much these funds are meant to cover. I remember that I received a grant, but it wasn’t much. I was absolutely skint for most of my time at university and I literally didn’t have time to do a job as well.
                  I have little doubt that the nightmarish situation you describe is the reality for many and it’s probably a lot tougher than for youngsters in my day to find and keep what I would describe as a regular job. It’s certainly not a desirable situation, but I’m not sure how relevant it is in a discussion on meritocracy. I think what is angering you is the general state of the economy and the raw deal being offered to people looking to lead a normal life. It angers me too. You’re probably right that people from wealthy backgrounds can afford to pay for a bit more leeway when it comes to getting their foot in the door for certain jobs, and you’re right it’s not fair. One thing I can say is that when it comes to getting a job where ability is all then no amount of money will usually get them through the door. There’s probably some inverse relationship between need for ability and abuse of privilege. It’s not an ideal system, but then I never said it was. I certainly wish it was better.

                • Tom Prescott

                  “I think one of the things that separates my experience from the things you describe is that I’ve always been at the top of the class academically. ”

                  Same here.

                  “My point is that my progression didn’t depend on my background, and I still don’t think it does.”

                  But that is your opinion base on your own experiences. As I said, the statistics do indeed show that the best predictor of success is background, NOT merit. I would prefer to trust proper statistical analysis rather than anecdotal experience.

                  “……with the exception that people will have a loan to repay.”

                  And all the rest I mentioned! What about all those other factors?

                  “Something a lot of people don’t realise is that academia is generally a bit “lefty” so in general it’s quite keen to look after the interests of the less well off.”

                  It may have been in the not too distant past, however these days it is not nothing more than a business selling a product. The origin or this mentality is in the students, not the lecturers. That is the consequences of marketisation of tertiary education. If you are paying tens of thousands of pounds for something you view it as a commercial transaction and have (rightly) high expectations. Students these days see a degree as a means to an end, one in which many ambitious people feel is expected of them by society if they want to succeed. This was not the case before. So students start seeing themselves as consumers, and universities, who are now forced to compete economically (rather than academically) see themselves as commercial service providers. the difference in mentality is subtle, but profound. for example students in some Ivy League universities in America, where tuiton is yet again a different order of magnitude greater, have started suing universities for failing to educated them when they fail the course, simply for being lazy or stupid. But they have rich parents, who have paid for them to have this ‘passport’, so they feel entitled, and feel that the law supports their case.

                  “I remember that I received a grant, but it wasn’t much.”

                  Whereas now it is zero, and living expenses and tuition is much more.

                  “I was absolutely skint for most of my time at university and I literally didn’t have time to do a job as well.”

                  In that case, if you were starting out now, you may have had to do your degree part time in order to work as well.

                  “One thing I can say is that when it comes to getting a job where ability is all then no amount of money will usually get them through the door. ”

                  It may not get them through the door, but it will get their foot in it, and that is an essential starting point that many can not achieve.

                  I am not denying there has been MASSIVE progress, what I am saying is that for a long time now, that progress has started to be eroded and we are going backwards in social mobility. Not my opinion but a statistical fact. The UK is one of the least socially mobile in the entire world. Not my opinion but a statistical fact.

                  Case in point, there is no other country in the world where such a large proportion of the cabinet come from one school. And the ones who are not from Eton come from similar backgrounds (or married in to them in the case of IDS for example). George Osbourne failed high school maths, yet he runs the nations finances. IDS is an incompetent narcissistic compulsive liar, an ex benefit cheat, a fascist, and a failure at everything he has even undertaken. Cameron is a toffee-nosed f**kwit who admits “I am not a conviction politician” but nonetheless the sense of entitlement that has been bred in to him doesn’t seem to think that that is any kind of impediment to running the country. Boris Johnson talks about maybe having a crack at PM “If the ball comes loose from the back of the scrum”. This is the mentality I am talking about. these are the same people who abolished the Educational Maintenance Allowance, a small payment of between £10 and £30 a week to help the most disadvantaged youths achieve a chance of bettering themselves through education. If you want a meritocracy, you need some degree of equality. Not in the socialist sense, but in the sense of equality of opportunity. Some kids can’t even get decent primary and secondary education these days, some state schools are so bad, but the wealthier parents can afford to relocate, (and have higher expectations, as you point out) and have a better understanding of how to play the system and avoid such schools.

                  Even some kids who DO go to university have extremely poor literacy and numeracy these days, universities have started offering remedial classes. Someone I know took an undergraduate biology course in 2005. GCSE or equivalent maths was required, but the remedial classes nonetheless covered primary school level stuff. If kids are not even taught properly academically, and they are not taught how to put themselves forward socially by being raised in a certain environment of entitlement, then they simply will not have the same opportunity. Many people these days don’t know how to write a cv, how to write a formal letter, have no grasp of grammar, spelling, numeracy, don’t engage in current affairs or politics or wider civil society, have no understanding what their rights and responsibilities are, and no-one has ever told them they have a choice to make something better for themselves. and perhaps they don’t.

                  I am not saying that people shouldn’t try hard or use these things as excuses, but I am saying that these are genuine impediments that make breaking out of your social background harder than when you did it. And I don’t deny it was hard then too. but I am saying it has become even harder as a result of the last 2 decades of government policy, the reverse of what happened in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s, where for a brief period class barriers were broken down. Perhaps it has something to do with the unifying solidarity of the war which has now faded from memory?

                • beenzrgud

                  Once again I don’t deny the statistics. I know more than most how coming from a dysfunctional background can hold you back, so that even if there is a desire to do well there are many things that can stop a child from performing to their ability. The difference between us is that I’m looking at this from the point of view of someone who is in the position of being able to offer opportunity at the highest level. There has never been any bias in my outlook, or indeed by anybody I know. You’re talking about the obstacles that need to be overcome before a candidate sits before somebody like me, whether that be in industry or academia. In my original comment I was talking about those who get to the top, and apart from the areas I outlined I don’t see that there is a great deal of bias towards those who are well connected. Maybe you could point out people, whether it be in the arts, sports, science, entertainment, etc. who are at the top of their profession who got their by virtue of being part of the establishment. In the end there is no replacement for ability. Strangely enough this is most evident in one of the industries most often associated with abuse of privilege, banking/finance. Having had quite close contact with some of these organisations during my career I can tell you that some of them carry no fat whatsoever. They are purely no frills money making machines. It would not matter if your name was Jack the Ripper and you had no qualifications at all, if you could prove your value then you would be in. On the flipside members of the Bullingdon club regularly go into this industry too. In politics I have absolutely no doubt that it would not matter how much ability a person had, although I’m not sure how it would be measured, they would not be allowed access to the top echelon unless they had the right connections. They will be assessed during their rise through the ranks by people who are anything but unbiased. You’re right that society is far from perfect. Private education is in many cases better than going to the local comprehensive. I concede all these things, but I do not concede that there is a great deal of bias amongst those whose responsibility it is to offer opportunities outside those areas already outlined. The state of our society may have some say in who gets to sit in the candidates chair, but once in the chair. I think it’s a pretty fair system. This is what I meant by describing it as something like a meritocracy.

                • Fergus Pickering

                  Oh stop moaning. What do you do to make things better for the rest of us?

            • Fergus Pickering

              And that is only true in the UK? Not in France or Italy or the USA.Grow up. Anyway, there is little merit to be found in today’s poor.

              • Tom Prescott

                “And that is only true in the UK? Not in France or Italy or the USA.Grow up.”

                did I say that? NO. This phenomena is true across most of the world. Although now you mention it, the UK is particularly bsd on social mobility and inequality, in fact the UN has rated us number ONE in inequality in the entire developed world.

                “Anyway, there is little merit to be found in today’s poor.”

                WOW. What a disgusting thing to say. What if you were to become poor by a stroke of misfortune someday? What if you or your family were struck down by a serious and costly disability or accident and unable to work again? You would need to plunder your savings. Would you then be of no worth?

                • Fergus Pickering

                  My next check in will be with Death. Until then no worries. Most poor people are poor because they cannot earn a living and they cannot do that because they are uneducated and stupid. That didn’t use to be true but it tends to be now. Some people, it is true, are unfortunate.

                • URSULARICHES

                  People are poor because they cannot set up in business due to excessive red tape which leads to exorbitant start up costs.

                • Kitty MLB

                  There will always be those who are poor, sometimes due to the misfortunes of life or
                  their own doing.

                  And what on earth do you mean by your next
                  check in will be death. Your not shuffling off
                  this mortal coil any time soon sweetie, so
                  Silence thy tongue.

                • Fergus Pickering

                  Not yetawhile, Kitty. I meant that until thenI have no worries of a monetary nature and that everything, house, car etc is paid for. Fergus

                • Kitty MLB

                  Hope you look after your health Fergus. My
                  husband has been having strange symptoms
                  with his ticker since the weekend..

                  I am glad everything is fine with a nice woodland
                  creature like you, old chap.. Kitty.

                • Fergus Pickering

                  I am in the pink, my dear Kitty. I trust yiur husband is the same. Do you know, I think Cameron may win yet?

                • URSULARICHES

                  In the days of the grammar schools and full employment, (50s, 60s), social mobility was very very Very common.

            • Dogzzz

              Proximity is power. Power resides in the elite universities and then in London, so unless one is willing to move to attain power, then the power will not be obtained, regardless of merit. This automatically skews the statistics and prevents so many decent people from far flung corners of the country from obtaining power, whether they deserve it or not. After that, then family/business/professional connections are important.

              It is the networks we get ourselves into which define how successful we can be. Background is not necessarily an obstacle to that. However is it undoubtedly easier if you are already born into such networks, rather than working your way in.

    • Pootles

      ‘If I were David Cameron, I would ask the governors general of Canada and Australia each to recommend a senior judge from those countries who can be sent here to lead the investigation.’ Dam’ good idea – well done!

      • Phil Whittington

        Thanks – vote me up so more people read it!

      • Fergus Pickering

        Bloody silly idea, more like. Why not a French judge eh? They’re just over the water.

        • Phil Whittington

          Because witnesses will be clever with words, so it might be an idea to have a native English speaker. Understanding common law and the Westminster parliamentary system would be a bonus.

      • http://charlesfrith.blogspot.com/ Charles Frith

        You obviously have no idea of the the royal connections to paedophilia in those commonwealth countries.

      • URSULARICHES

        Australia and Canada have their scandals and cover ups too. If we swap people to mutually keep our dirt covered up, nothing will get out. Was this the idea?

    • rtj1211

      So long as Australia and Canada aren’t also infested with paedophile judges!!

      • Phil Whittington

        I’m sure no sooner would we appoint two judges from the Commonwealth than Lynton Crosby and Mark Carney would be in the frame, but we’ve got to do something to break the belief among many in this country that the elite looks after itself. I can’t think of any other way to get someone who is a top legal mind who isn’t a member of the Establishment.

        • Fergus Pickering

          A member of another establishment eh? Let’s take a taxi driver off the street. By the way, most people don’t give a fuck what you do, and whoever is in charge most people wil say it’s a stitch up. That’s what most peoplem always sday.

          • Thomas Hulls

            I was looking on a web site called JUSTICE DENIED and her husband was a pedophile she vetted Jimmy Savile somewhere else an enquiry into pedophile priests she chaired she had to apologise for. Also she had to apologise to Fathers for Justice over her saying she had received death threats from them. The whole thing is a complete farce .and beggars belief seems like panic and desperate measures.

        • George Smiley

          The English Canadian legal systems are so different (Americanised) that only an Australian or a New Zealander can really be parachuted into doing any enquiry; ditto a judge from South Africa or Namibia.

      • Fergus Pickering

        Well of course they are. Do you think paedophilia is a British thing?

    • Gergiev

      I heard that. Why is Havers junior’s opinion relevant? Are the nephews of public figures routinely consulted as to their uncle’s or aunty’s character? Or is it just that Havers junior is a glamourous actor? Our celebrity culture has no bounds and extends far beyond the “tabloid” realm in which it is (by the BBC, “broadsheets” and others who consider themselves serious) supposed to be contained. Isn’t celebrity culture part of the problem here?

      • Phil Whittington

        Exactly – celebrities saying “trust me, I know it’s all legit”.

      • Fergus Pickering

        He is Havers senior now. And he commented because he was asked. Why did the journo ask? Ah why?

        • Gergiev

          Because he is a glamourous celeb, see above.

    • Fergus Pickering

      What do you mean his ‘Auntie’? She IS his auntie.

  • dado_trunking

    This chat about who chairs what appears deeply disturbing.
    Why would you not trust this lady to chair the investigations? Why would you assume the opposition would criticise the incumbant for appointing the person but not the process? Is criticising the process now criticising the person? Why would you conflate the two if not for short-term political gain.

    • starfish

      Last I heard the AG Nigel Havers is dead, over a decade ago
      Does that fact truly represent a conflict of interest to a woman of noted professionaism, wisdom and experience that seems tailormade for the job?
      Maybe we should just find the nearest tree and a lasso and just randomly lynch people instead

      • SimonToo

        Do you really think that a member of the judiciary who is also a peer sitting in Parliament is the obvious person to investigate wrongdoing, abuse of power and cover-up in the establishment ? What if she discovers nothing? The characteristics I have listed so far would be enough render her report unpersuasive. Add to them the fact that her brother (Michael – Nigel is her nephew, the actor) was Attorney General at a relevant time, and her report would be sunk without trace.

        Whoever leads the inquiry needs to have the credibility to deliver a report that there is nothing there, and the credibility that if their report identifies some wrongdoers, it has found them all and is not just sacrificing a few to save the many.

        Given our adversarial judicial system, a judge is not inherently best equipped to conduct an investigation as such. Judges decide between two conflicting arguments. They do not investigate a case themselves..

        • Bill Thomas

          The whole point IS to sink her report. She will be terribly judicial and impartial and all that – but come up (should she live long enough) with exactly what HMG wants.

    • rtj1211

      There’s nothing unhealthy in having a critical examination of her suitability up front, you know. If legitimate issues are raised now and dealt with, that will prevent them being dragged up again later on.

      I think everyone is hypersensitive about this because everyone knows that the potential ramifications could be catastrophic and that everything needs to be done, rigorously, by the book and seen to be transparent, rigorous and totally lacking in cover-ups for chums.

      • dado_trunking

        Judges are unable to perform that duty?
        Then something is wrong with the system.

        • Tom Prescott

          “Judges are unable to perform that duty?Then something is wrong with the system.”

          Now you are getting it!

    • Tom Prescott
  • TruthBeatsLies

    Lady Butler Sloss bears quite a striking resemblance to Jimmy Savil, in drag – don’t you think…???

    • Fergus Pickering

      No. Not at all. Savile was strikingly ugly and male. She is female and good-looking. Can you see the difference?

      • Tom Prescott

        No.

  • Malcolm McCandless

    Lady Butler-Sloss’s position is simply untenable because her brother Sir Michael Havers, as the then Attorney General, was a central figure when these allegations were first raised and investigated.

    She must step down. If she refuses then David Cameron must act immediately and replace her. If he fails to do so then the perception of another establishment cover up will grow in peoples minds to a point that makes this inquiry impossible to conduct.

    The UK Government can’t be seen to fail on these allegations of child abuse. Westminster’s reputation stands or falls with these inquiries.

    • ButcombeMan

      Yes, very unfortunate because in other respects (experience) she seems ideal.

      It looks very much as though the Tories were, maybe deliberately, “set up” by whichever Offical suggested her and Theresa May.did not, herself or through her SPAD, do any checking.

      Two or three clicks of the mouse were all that was required. Almost unbelievable, but maybe not. Just basic competence.

      • SimonToo

        Agreed, although it should also have been clear that investigating wrongdoing, abuse of power and cover-up in the establishment would raise many problems of quis custodiet custodes. Even without being the sister of the Attorney General of the time, someone who is a judge and a peer sitting in parliament is clearly rather at the heart of the establishment.

      • rtj1211

        Probably most likely that they didn’t frame a list of ‘can’t be’s’ before drawing up a short list. Looked only at the required characteristics before realising that that list is used to sort out those who haven’t been ruled out through conflict of interest, past careers etc etc.

        The real question is whether you can find anybody who has the requisite legal skills and the lack of perceived conflicts of interest to be purer that Caesar’s Wife.

        • Gary Wintle

          “Sloss’s husband is a paedophile, another of our great judiciary His Honour Joseph Butler-Sloss admits ‘using’ prostitutes in England and in Kenya. What even the News of the world did not print was that he did not care how old they were and many were child prostitutes Butler-Sloss said “It’s not at all expensive. You pay 300 Kenyan shillings (£10) and they ask you for ten bob (30p) for the white man” He could not give a dam about exploiting poor black children”

      • jazz606

        “..Just basic competence…”

        AKA common sense, unfortunately not much of it about.

      • ButcombeMan

        And now she has gone.
        Inevitable.
        May should be carpeting the Permanent Secretary, for a meeting without coffee, she has been grievously let down.

    • Holly

      I reckon that whoever deals with this will have been a long time member of the ‘establishment’, and unless we pick someone just entering nursery school, we have to pick from the barrel available to us today.

      IF it has been proven that she is incapable of being in charge of her own mind, and is therefore likely to protect the guilty, then I 100% agree that she must step down, otherwise all the bleating should stop making this yet another sideshow to the long overdue airing of this entire country’s filthy laundry.

      It is beyond me how the ‘adults’ in charge of protecting the young of my generation were allowed to get away with it for so long, and how several governments of BOTH colours, the police, the BBC, the NHS, the church, and a number of children’s services did nothing until now.

      The MP Mann, cheerfully declares that there are ‘copies of documents’.
      Well, he MUST be called NOW, to explain, how he knows this, who informed him, or how he found out this information, seeing as he himself stopped short of enlightening the people who need to know about this sort of information.
      MP’s spouting off could end up sending people on a wild goose chase or help them chase up any relevant paperwork quicker.
      Maybe he should have raised it with the relevant minister, or civil servants BEFORE going in front of TV cameras?
      ALL politicians need to stop bickering, and pass on anything they know, because from where I am sitting they are ALL in the same category as the guilty, INCLUDING those spouting off (what I see as distracting ‘titbits’) to TV camera’s, until this is sorted.
      Personally, in the here and now, I have no reason to trust any of them.

      • rtj1211

        I would think it’s pretty obvious that MPs can have had access under codes of privacy to documents which, for obvious legal reasons, cannot be aired were they to prejudice potential future prosecutions.

        It’s actually incredibly difficult to carry out a Public Enquiry of this nature in a way which doesn’t leave a whiff of ‘cover up’, so long as the potential for prosecutions exist.

        There does come a point, however, where you have to accept that certain things won’t be prosecuted and you have to put certain information into the public domain to ensure that Due Process has been seen to be done.

        Now where exactly things sit with this situation, I don’t know. I get the impression that there should be a good number of prosecutions and a large number of cover-up artists put out to grass in politics, the Civil Service, the police, the Security Services and who knows where else.

        There are those claiming that video evidence exists of a senior male engaging in paedophilia yet they have never been prosecuted. Quite how that has come about can only be surmised, but if it were true, it would be prima facaie evidence of a widespread ‘conspiracy to pervert the course of justice’, which I believe is a crime carrying a significant prison sentence…….

      • Tom Prescott

        they can’t come forward with these documents as it would be a breach of the offical secrets act. Whistleblowers get punished.

        There have been calls for the current government to waive the official secrets act with regard to these 114 missing documents so that anyone who has retained a copy can safely come forward. They have refused to do so. Draw your own conclusions as to why, but I think it stinks.

    • beenzrgud

      I agree she should probably be replaced due to her close links with this issue, as you have you pointed out. I doubt she would step down herself as now that she has accepted the role to do so would be tantamount to admitting the possibility of her own impartiality.
      The question of who would replace her is a difficult one.

      • rtj1211

        She could step down due to public perception being what it is. That doesn’t say she agrees with it, it says she respects that it may be necessary.

        • beenzrgud

          Yep, that could be one way for her to step down and everyone saves face.

        • Fergus Pickering

          Public perception is… what interested parties say it is.

          • Tom Prescott

            No, public perception is the aggregate of individual perception.

            • Fergus Pickering

              Public perception is a fashionable term. It usually seems to mean what a lot of people think, or at least what we think they think whether it is bollocks or not.

              • Tom Prescott

                Well I can’t see barely anyone who thinks that this is not a conflict of interest. It seems to be almost universally unanimous. She is condemned in the media by both left and right. She is condemned by the victims, she is condemned by child abuse campaigners, it is a joke. The biggest and most important and far reaching enquiry in modern times, and one of the people under suspicion is the brother of the head of the enquiry? It is beyond ridiculous.

                • Fergus Pickering

                  What is your suggestion, O wise one. We need somenoe who is expert in English Law and has experience of child abuse cases. Or are you of the camp that wants to take a taxi-driver off the street?

                • Tom Prescott

                  What is wrong with appointing laymen? It is ok for jury service, and it would remove suspicion of impartiality. Of course, you would need to have people with some kind of experience as well but there is no reason you can’t mix the two. How about child abuse campaigners, such as those who have lost children themselves? How about Sara Payne, whose own daughter was murdered by a paedophile, who now dedicates her life to campaigning for such issues. No one can doubt her motives. There are plenty such obvious choices.

                • Fergus Pickering

                  Are they not parti pris?

                • Tom Prescott

                  I think their only bias would be to get to the truth and uncover abuse. Have you seen Sara Payne in interviews? She comes across as incredibly composed, calm and reasonable. And no-one would accuse her of being part of a cover-up, and the same goes for many similar people. I hardly think that someone like that would write up a report making a load of unsubstantiated accusations. They would have to explain in the report on what basis they would draw their conclusions. This is not a criminal trial. We do not need proof beyond reasonable doubt. We can leave that to any court cases that may follow after. What we need to achieve from this trial is to be as confident as possible that we have heard all the evidence available. We can’t be confident of that when the victims themselves do not trust the people conducting the enquiry. Already, people do not trust Butler Sloss, and I don’t blame them. If wild accusations are made, people can defend themselves, can question the evidence, can argue back, can point out that the evidence does not show they are at fault. It would be much easier to do this were there not a strong suspicion that much of the evidence has not been aired, as there will be with Butler Sloss. if you put someone like Sara Payne on the panel, no-one could doubt that she would doggedly pursue the truth with vigour. We need someone who we can be sure will cry foul at the slightest whiff of a cover-up. If that person is a bit overzealous, so be it, they must account for their conclusions. this has been covered up for decades, over and over, and the establishment itself is on trial here. the single most important goal should be to have people involved who no sane person could accuse of a cover-up. That is ALL that matters. If it is only establishment figures, that simply won’t do. Put people like Sara Payne in, put a few random members of the public from the jury pool in, and appoint a judge whose family are not involved in the actual case (pretty basic) to run it, with the laymen there to represent the public and cry foul if they sense a stich-up.

                  Just think about it from the perspective of an abuse victim who has been campaigning to have their story heard all their lives, only to face cover-up after cover-up. The only way this is going to work is if the strongest possible message is – you can trust us, it is not like before, THIS TIME IT WILL BE DIFFERENT, THIS TIME YOU WILL BE LISTENED TO.

                • URSULARICHES

                  WE forget that the Catholic church is ahead of our governments in having done a praiseworthy job of dealing with our filthy wrongdoings and cover ups. It would be a very good thing to have those involved in cleaning up the Catholic Church to be invovled in cleaning up the UK. That is- if anyone is serious about cleaning up the UK, but then agains I have no faith that DCAM is.

                • Tom Prescott

                  The catholic church covered up abuse throughout its history and many senior figures including past popes are guilty of accessory and perverting the course of justice. The new pope is making some inroads into dealing with the problem but this is only the beginning of the process and I certainly wouldn’t say their response has been “praiseworthy”.

                  And OF COURSE David Cameron is not serious about this! he has appointed someone who has a track record of covering paedophilia and whose own brother is deeply implicated!

                  “What would REALLY help is to have lawyers on no win no fees suing the persons in our government, BBC and the other molestors for every last penny they have. The greed and skill of the lawyers will create the cleaning blitz which our nation (amongst many others) is seriously in need of.”

                  A bit hard without proper police investigation, which requires funding and a lack of obstruction from the establishment. It is telling that until last week, operation fernbridge had only 7 police working on it and even now has only 22. the phone hacking scandal had over 200. If they are serious about it, then this would be a police matter and they would put 1,000 police on to it, rather than an “enquiry” to kick it into the long grass.

                • URSULARICHES

                  The Catholic church even paid out to those who were 18 and over because we recognize it as SPIRITUAL sexual abuse, having been done in the name of our religion and so being more awful than just abuse. More publicity has been given about abuses by evil doers who became Catholic priests abuses than abusers who were teachers or members of governments and far too little attention has gone into the praiseworthy avant garde measures which have been taken in the Church- under PJPII & PBXVI. Suffice to say, we have led the way forward in having cleaned up our act and it is time that our paedo governments and BBC followed.
                  Yes, I totally agree with you that the establishment (and any of our mainstream media) is UNWILLING to allow the uncovering of its crimes and they want to hide the cover up of its crimes. Victims from the children’s care homes have been burned in their Hove flat. Threats of being sued by those who may ‘get away with it’, the threat of having a car accident or faux suicide are real. Many victims have died with suicide recorded as the cause of death, David Kelly anyone?
                  The extreme draconian measures which have followed the mere mention of names has shown that there are many who are too big to touch.
                  Pienmash and Sun, sea and satan on you tube are worth looking at for those who want to know and are concerned about the abuses and cover ups of our establishment.

                • Kitty MLB

                  Oh God , everyone plodding along in a quotidian fashion in
                  regards to child abuse its now somewhat tedious, nearly every thread. Its hackneyed and pointless and becoming obsessive.
                  Some of us with originality and intelligence have more interesting things to do..so shall eschew this place..

                • Fergus Pickering

                  Right again, Kitty my love

    • Blindsideflanker

      So a life time of service where she has shown unquestionable honesty and of impeccable character comes to naught because of some trash ambulance chasing human rights lawyers like Leigh Day come on the radio and start making some grubby insinuations.

      • Fergus Pickering

        I should like to know which judge is NOT a member of the establishment. A single name will do.

        • Blindsideflanker

          Indeed, especially one with a background in family law and who has presided over other Government enquiries, where she has done a good job.

          We expect a Judge to put their personal beliefs aside, now a Labour politician and grubby human rights lawyers are suggesting that she can’t.

          I think that an insult to a life times work.

          • Baron

            Why should it be a judge, Blindsideflanker? If you still insist that only a member of the judiciary will do why not ask a retired judge from the Republic to preside over the inquiry? If Carney can run our money, an American cop was in the running to be in charge of the Met why shouldn’t an Anglo-Saxon judge preside over this inquiry?

          • Gary Wintle

            The Cleveland child abuse inquiry was a whitewash.

            The fact is her brother is strongly, seriously implicated in a child abuse cover-up. She won’t rock the boat.

            Expect the usual whitewash, “some minor people did bad things, but all the ministers were all well-meaning and not to blame at all.”

        • Tim

          I fear Mr. Justice Dredd is rather too deeply involved with a then senior figure in the Whips’ office.

        • http://charlesfrith.blogspot.com/ Charles Frith

          None of them. They’re mostly paedophile sympathetic too what’s your point?

      • Baron

        Blindsiderflanker, you’re quite right, nobody should have any doubts about her honesty, integrity, relevant experience and stuff except that this is also about perception. A sister of a man who was a part, very likely an important part, of the alleged cover-up won’t do, it won’t do because it sends a signal to those still alive and with the insider knowledge of what was going on. They will not tell the whole truth, if they testify at all, for they will have to make a choice, it’s either soiling the name of a distinguished family that has been a part of the establishment for decades or delivering justice for a few of the hoi polloi for whom nobody really cared, still cares not now. If those who populate the agencies of the State charged with their protection cared, we wouldn’t be where we are.

        Her appointment is a masterstroke, we should be told whose idea it was then watch his (or hers) speedily progress to the Lords.

      • http://charlesfrith.blogspot.com/ Charles Frith

        A lifetime of service to the VIP paedophile elite is not a lifetime of service to the nation.

        • Fergus Pickering

          I think you are nuts, I really do.

          • Tom Prescott

            I think you are in denial, I really do. This woman is on record as covering up the abuse by a priest because she didn’t want to harm the church. she is also on record saying that heads of state should have immunity from ALL crimes. Her husband has admitted using rent boys abroad, and there are numerous mainstream reports that her brother is implicated in this latest scandal. I don’t see what is nuts about questioning WHO she was serving in her career.

          • Tom Prescott

            I think you are in denial, I really do. This woman is on record as covering up the abuse by a priest because she didn’t want to harm the church. she is also on record saying that heads of state should have immunity from ALL crimes. Her husband has admitted using rent boys abroad, and there are numerous mainstream reports that her brother is implicated in this latest scandal. I don’t see what is nuts about questioning WHO she was serving in her career.

          • Dogzzz

            Could you be happy knowing that our elected and unelected leaders, the powers that be, the elite, the establishment (whatever you may call them) are abusing hundreds of children and covering it up?

            Are they doing that? I do not know, but if the allegations are true, then how can you ever trust our government, the police, the judiciary ever again?

            Or would you be happy to just look away, bury your head in the sand and pretend it does not happen?

            Knowing the allegations against her and her Brother, it is only right that she has finally stood down.

            Nobody could conduct an inquiry whilst there is such a massive and blatant conflict of interest

  • LadyDingDong

    My sister is a raving lefty teacher. Am I no longer allowed to comment here? What a load of opportunistic tosh from the party of perverts and spin.

    • Malcolm McCandless

      … but if you were tasked by her school to investigate her past and publish the findings would you?

      • LadyDingDong

        Push off you obnoxious troll. Milllliband’s father was a Marxist who advocated the dismantling of the capitalist system his son now, sort of, supports. Should he resign? I can’t stand you creeps trying to make political capital out of child abuse when most of the abusers are of the leftard persuasion.

        • Malcolm McCandless

          I assume you are speaking to yourself.

          • starfish

            Presumably a large section of the current Shadow cabinet should now refrain from comment as they were active adherents/supporters of PIE
            Or does this view only apply to people you don’t like?

            • rtj1211

              Plenty of Conservative ex-Ministers have allegations hanging over them too.

            • Tom Prescott

              Sure, as long as it applies double to those in the Thatcher government who employed members of PIE, let them operate out of the home office, and even funded the organisation.

        • SimonToo

          Ding dong !

          • GraveDave

            The witch…

            • SimonToo

              I was thinking of Leslie Phillips.

        • GraveDave

          It’s been around for thousands and thousands of years and has occurred under every civilisation and government. And certainly long before the left wing cultural revolution ever came about. It’s just another power thing. But now we have the web we can keep on them all.

        • rtj1211

          I”m afraid your last sentence does not stand up under the weight of evidence. The evidence is in that both Labour and Conservative Parties have had several convicted paedophiles and plenty of the most shocking allegations out there concern the Conservative Party too. All parties have had paedophiles.

          You hating socialists doesn’t change the truth, I”m afraid.

          And you saying that socialists/marxists aren’t allowed to run for Parliament does remove your democratic credentials also, doesn’t it??

        • Jackthesmilingblack

          *Milllliband”
          Only one “l” luv. However, “millipede”, in the witty word-play of the schoolyard bully, has two.

          • Fergus Pickering

            What has bullying got to do with it. I am sure Ed can look after himself. He saw his brother off didn’t he?

          • George Smiley

            More of your autistic Tourette’s diarrhea!

        • Tom Prescott

          “I can’t stand you creeps trying to make political capital out of child abuse…….”

          Me neither, I hate creeps like that, since ALL parties are involved.

          “…….when most of the abusers are of the leftard persuasion.”

          Oh, wait, it seems you are one of those creeps you refer to, how ironic.

    • Fergus Pickering

      Do you feel the overwhelming desire to hit her?

    • Tom Prescott

      “My sister is a raving lefty teacher. Am I no longer allowed to comment here? What a load of opportunistic tosh from the party of perverts and spin.”

      What are you talking about? All parties are implicated, and they all want it to go away. they really are “all in it together”. And if you think it is “tosh” to say that the person heading the enquiry into the biggest political scandal in modern times shouldn’t be the sister of one of the people heavily implicated, you really don’t seem to get the concept of impartiality.

  • MC73

    Doesn’t matter who is appointed. We will have a very expensive and pointless witch hunt which will be even less successful than Yewtree but get the same result – a small handful of convictions, a couple of dozen elderly men dragged through the press and the courts, plus a lot of hearsay about the dead being treated as evidence.

    • BoiledCabbage

      Maybe some hearsay FROM the dead for good measure?

  • Michael H Kenyon

    Any possible conflict of interest in the appointment…?

  • Makroon

    Labour will keep this going (with the usual smears), as long as it can.

    • Tom Prescott

      Smears? you think investigating crimes is a smear? This is not a party political issue and is not being orchestrated by Labour. Labour members of parliament are involved too.

      • Fergus Pickering

        How do you know this or do you just think it?

  • Blindsideflanker

    Cameron got more agro from his back benches than he did from Miliband.

    He got knobbled on the EU arrest warrant, and got knobbled on his failure to ring fence defence spending, unlike his willingness to ring fence the wasteful Aid budget.

    (People might have missed the program, but it was revealed that we were giving Aid to an American Private Equity company who were investing in an crooked Nigerian politician’s companies, companies he was using to launder money)

    Cameron’s response to the question on Aid was how good it was we were giving Aid to Pakistan and Nigeria.

  • Aberrant_Apostrophe

    test

Close
Can't find your Web ID? Click here