kdubya Posted March 19, 2015 Report Share Posted March 19, 2015 (edited) I just read that article and my feeling was one of absolute fury and rage. I am not so naive to not appreciate that grace and favour goes on, but for something so sickening to be swept away so easily is beyond comprehension. This article doesn't really change anything, it is more of the same, but these continual revelations that are coming out almost everyday move us closer to the tipping point. If this scandal isn't fully exposed and investigated there will be (should be) riots. I have said it before on here? that Westminster is a large deviant colony that has no boundaries when it comes to their singular self serving aims.guy fawkes had the right idea. KW Edited March 19, 2015 by kdubya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grrclark Posted March 19, 2015 Report Share Posted March 19, 2015 I have to believe KW that it cannot be all of Westminster. I agree that there many who abuse their privilege of power and when it comes to things like expenses there were very many, but for something so vile and insidious surely it cannot have been common knowledge. I sincerely hope it wasn't common knowledge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keg Posted March 19, 2015 Report Share Posted March 19, 2015 The fact of the matter in this case is that the police sergeant who recommended his licence renewal not be granted also wanted him arrested for his behavior at a boys summer camp. The sergeant lost out on both counts. I had heard something along these lines so it's interesting to hear it confirmed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poontang Posted March 19, 2015 Report Share Posted March 19, 2015 I have to believe KW that it cannot be all of Westminster. I agree that there many who abuse their privilege of power and when it comes to things like expenses there were very many, but for something so vile and insidious surely it cannot have been common knowledge. I sincerely hope it wasn't common knowledge. You can bet your bottom dollar the party whips will have known (and probably still know) who the perpetrators were/are. Safe to say Prime Ministers and senior cabinet members are privy to names too. Security services, high ranking police, senior civil servants will all be 'in the know'. The problem, of course, is how do you 'out' the perpetrators without destroying government, and parliament as a whole? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harpoonlouis Posted March 19, 2015 Report Share Posted March 19, 2015 When Governments create laws like the Official Secrets Act, D Notices, etc etc they are always justified as acts to protect the public good but they are never time limited or limited to a specific threat so after a while they can be used for other things convenient to a subsequent government. Beware giving the power of obfuscation to those who may wish to hide things from the public for as sure as eggs is eggs they will use it for their benefit which is rarely the public benefit. I expect our shady services know a great deal about a lot of public servants and use it to "control" some of them in some way. Every new Prime Minister probably gets an eye opening briefing from the spooks when they finally get to the top of the greasy pole but suddenly that information seems far more useful than shocking.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
955i Posted March 19, 2015 Report Share Posted March 19, 2015 I have to believe KW that it cannot be all of Westminster. I agree that there many who abuse their privilege of power and when it comes to things like expenses there were very many, but for something so vile and insidious surely it cannot have been common knowledge. I sincerely hope it wasn't common knowledge. Dear god man, how deluded are you?? The establishment is rotten to the core and always has been. Knowing and not saying is as bad as doing so there is no innocence in WarMinster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
955i Posted March 19, 2015 Report Share Posted March 19, 2015 (edited) Every new Prime Minister probably gets an eye opening briefing from the spooks when they finally get to the top of the greasy pole but suddenly that information seems far more useful than shocking.... I expect that the information they are given is about them so the money men can be sure they are the good little puppets they need them to be!! Edited March 19, 2015 by 955i Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grrclark Posted March 19, 2015 Report Share Posted March 19, 2015 Dear god man, how deluded are you?? The establishment is rotten to the core and always has been. Knowing and not saying is as bad as doing so there is no innocence in WarMinster I like to think that I have a realistic take on things, not full of cynicism, but not blindly trusting either. Do I believe there is corruption and deceit in the heart of government with both elected members and civil servants? yes I do. Do I think that is all encompassing? No I don't. I hope I'm not so feeble minded and ignorant as to automatically be dismissive of all in government whilst believing there is some sort of conspiracy to the ordinary man. There are rogues and shysters across all walks of life that use their influence where they can to favour themselves, but not everybody does that so why should government be any different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grrclark Posted March 19, 2015 Report Share Posted March 19, 2015 You can bet your bottom dollar the party whips will have known (and probably still know) who the perpetrators were/are. Safe to say Prime Ministers and senior cabinet members are privy to names too. Security services, high ranking police, senior civil servants will all be 'in the know'. The problem, of course, is how do you 'out' the perpetrators without destroying government, and parliament as a whole? I think that is a reasonable shout, whether that exists through every successive government by an automatic transfer of knowledge I don't know, but I do suspect that those at the top of the tree now probably do now know a great deal more than is published. My suspicion is much less toward elected members and much more toward the dark ministers, the Whitehall mandarins and power players, that are a permanent part of the fabric. I strongly suspect that our ministers are also kept on a need to know basis by the mandarins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted March 20, 2015 Report Share Posted March 20, 2015 I think part of the problem would have been insider jokes and sniggering about "so and so" having a taste for little boys without people really thinking through the true implications of what that meant for the victims. Jokes about "little boys" go way back, in Rugby songs etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TriBsa Posted March 20, 2015 Report Share Posted March 20, 2015 (edited) I think part of the problem would have been insider jokes and sniggering about "so and so" having a taste for little boys without people really thinking through the true implications of what that meant for the victims. Jokes about "little boys" go way back, in Rugby songs etc Yes, but don't those that turned a blind eye have/have had kids or nephews etc. Can't they think what if it was my kids, relatives etc that were being abused? What sickens me most about Cyril Smith and the Rotherams that have emerged is the idea that perhaps they thought Care Home Kids were somehow so far down the social strata that it didn't matter. Like the lowest caste. I know they hold the electorate in contempt, but to allow society's most vulnerable; and supposedly in the protection of society, to be so abused is appalling. Edited March 20, 2015 by TriBsa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penelope Posted March 20, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2015 Security services, high ranking police, senior civil servants will all be 'in the know' From what alleged info that is out there, that reads like a list of the abusers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted March 20, 2015 Report Share Posted March 20, 2015 Yes, but don't those that turned a blind eye have/have had kids or nephews etc. Can't they think what if it was my kids, relatives etc that were being abused? What sickens me most about Cyril Smith and the Rotherams that have emerged is the idea that perhaps they thought Care Home Kids were somehow so far down the social strata that it didn't matter. Like the lowest caste. I know they hold the electorate in contempt, but to allow society's most vulnerable; and supposedly in the protection of society, to be so abused is appalling. I think you are absolutely right, and I think it has always been the same for the poor. It wasn't just MPs and the like either. Servant girls, factory workers etc, farm girls have always been 'taken advantage of' by their bosses and we all know what happened to choir boys! Part of the largely still unresolved investigations into the mysterious deaths at Deepcut revealed massive sexual abuse of recruits by NCOs but nothing was ever done about it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
islandgun Posted March 20, 2015 Report Share Posted March 20, 2015 I think part of the problem would have been insider jokes and sniggering about "so and so" having a taste for little boys without people really thinking through the true implications of what that meant for the victims. Jokes about "little boys" go way back, in Rugby songs etc I wonder about the influence of public schools Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul65 Posted March 20, 2015 Report Share Posted March 20, 2015 Interesting to see that MPs are suddenly keen on anonymity for sex crime suspects http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31970034 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted March 20, 2015 Report Share Posted March 20, 2015 Interesting to see that MPs are suddenly keen on anonymity for sex crime suspects http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31970034 I wondered how long it would be before this link was posted after seeing it this morning. I was going to do so myself but don't know how I stand regards this matter. I recall the horrendous ordeal of Matthew Kelly when he was named after being investigated many years ago, and then cleared, or not charged, and how sorry I felt for him at the time. But then again, if this legislation had been in force say 5 years ago, could Saville and indeed Smith both have been named? After all, neither was ever charged with anything. Food for thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grrclark Posted March 20, 2015 Report Share Posted March 20, 2015 There are a great many cases where the falsely accused have suffered life changing effects and I am sympathetic to a level of anonymity. Your point is a valid one though Scully, if such a rule had been in place then would we know about Saville & Smith? I really don't know what the answer is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norfolk dumpling Posted March 20, 2015 Report Share Posted March 20, 2015 On a slightly different tack, and I know I'll get shot down fairly quickly, wasn't this to a degree a sign of the times and possibly some of the so called child abuse cases need to be re-appraised. As a child of the 50s I personally found lots of strange sexual things going on around me as I reached an age where I began to be aware of these things ie in the early to mid 60s. Things that came to mind are a male teacher who liked to fondle our bottoms (he was disabled so couldnt do more and we lads all laughed it off), a mates older brother who tried it 'on' with me - again I laughed it off as I ran like hell! And at my first job in the late 60s a gay manager who massaged all the new boys shoulders and an older lady who liked to embarrass me (I blushed very easily) or maybe was trying it 'on' (she was on her third marriage) with this 16yo. Xmas parties at this company were almost an orgy and the managers loved to watch! I realise with Cyril Smith and co this appears to be on a different level but there are quite a few who have been through the media circus (DLT?) where their offences (proven or otherwise) were possibly not that different to what we had going on in our office regularly. Not sure how you set a 'tariff' for this but surely there must be some commonsense applied here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STOTTO Posted March 20, 2015 Report Share Posted March 20, 2015 On a slightly different tack, and I know I'll get shot down fairly quickly, wasn't this to a degree a sign of the times and possibly some of the so called child abuse cases need to be re-appraised. As a child of the 50s I personally found lots of strange sexual things going on around me as I reached an age where I began to be aware of these things ie in the early to mid 60s. Things that came to mind are a male teacher who liked to fondle our bottoms (he was disabled so couldnt do more and we lads all laughed it off), a mates older brother who tried it 'on' with me - again I laughed it off as I ran like hell! And at my first job in the late 60s a gay manager who massaged all the new boys shoulders and an older lady who liked to embarrass me (I blushed very easily) or maybe was trying it 'on' (she was on her third marriage) with this 16yo. Xmas parties at this company were almost an orgy and the managers loved to watch! I realise with Cyril Smith and co this appears to be on a different level but there are quite a few who have been through the media circus (DLT?) where their offences (proven or otherwise) were possibly not that different to what we had going on in our office regularly. Not sure how you set a 'tariff' for this but surely there must be some commonsense applied here? The fact that it may have been accepted practise in the corridors of power and celebrity who were protected by their position and/or knowledge of perhaps more senior transgressors does not mean that it was a victimless crime nor should it be now treated as such, ‘They were all at it is no excuse or justification. I do like the latest suggestion from parliament that their names should be withheld unless there are charges brought against them, guess what is happening to the evidence as we speak? I am a total cynic it is how the world has forged me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southeastpete Posted March 20, 2015 Report Share Posted March 20, 2015 I am quite cynical and untrusting. Especially of politicians, government etc. but this has knocked me for six, it's appalling and I just can't get over it. I think everyone in parliament should be locked out and we could start again. I used to think that anonymity in these cases would be better, seeing innocent men dragged through hell, names tarnished. But the MP's never though it mattered, until now all of a sudden? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmydean Posted March 20, 2015 Report Share Posted March 20, 2015 We will now believe anything is possible amongst the ranks of the rich, famous, establishment figures etc. This belief has been largely borne out of experience and the fact that excess breeds more excess and abuse of power corrupts all within reach. However, an innocent person has committed no crime and a person is innocent until proven guilty - in my view it should remain so or the 'no smoke without fire' view takes hold. There is no justification to name anyone until they are found guilty, no matter what the crime and plenty of reasons to keep identities protected. There perhaps needs to be a 'Champion' for such crimes as sexual abuse so people would be able to lodge evidence and names under a 'protection' for both parties but the role would act to attract those who have evidence to pass on. A focal point needs to be provided so that people abused can use the service even for accusations against the rich and famous and powerful and, linked to the DPP. The evidence can then be reviewed in confidence and a case brought and the victim protected in the event of a guilty verdict and both parties named if an innocent verdict is handed down. The 'champion' could also rule about the continuing anonymity of the victim, or decide the accusation was vexatious and legally name the accuser. Much as bullying is dealt with in the work environment. We need to create a climate where all is done to protect those with genuine accusations and those who are targets from the loss of a 'good name' and the sorts of sums of money which goes with the 'stain', P Gambuchini for example - £200,000. Guilty is that - there should be no 'conditional innocence' - you are or are not innocent the punishment (even naming) should fit the crime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grrclark Posted March 20, 2015 Report Share Posted March 20, 2015 Good post Jimmydean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmydean Posted March 20, 2015 Report Share Posted March 20, 2015 (edited) Good post Jimmydean. Thank you kindly Sir, I have to try hard as most of yours are 'worthy'. Missed off an 's'. Edited March 20, 2015 by jimmydean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STOTTO Posted March 21, 2015 Report Share Posted March 21, 2015 We will now believe anything is possible amongst the ranks of the rich, famous, establishment figures etc. This belief has been largely borne out of experience and the fact that excess breeds more excess and abuse of power corrupts all within reach. However, an innocent person has committed no crime and a person is innocent until proven guilty - in my view it should remain so or the 'no smoke without fire' view takes hold. There is no justification to name anyone until they are found guilty, no matter what the crime and plenty of reasons to keep identities protected. There perhaps needs to be a 'Champion' for such crimes as sexual abuse so people would be able to lodge evidence and names under a 'protection' for both parties but the role would act to attract those who have evidence to pass on. A focal point needs to be provided so that people abused can use the service even for accusations against the rich and famous and powerful and, linked to the DPP. The evidence can then be reviewed in confidence and a case brought and the victim protected in the event of a guilty verdict and both parties named if an innocent verdict is handed down. The 'champion' could also rule about the continuing anonymity of the victim, or decide the accusation was vexatious and legally name the accuser. Much as bullying is dealt with in the work environment. We need to create a climate where all is done to protect those with genuine accusations and those who are targets from the loss of a 'good name' and the sorts of sums of money which goes with the 'stain', P Gambuchini for example - £200,000. Guilty is that - there should be no 'conditional innocence' - you are or are not innocent the punishment (even naming) should fit the crime. Fine words, but you should have added ‘and Elvis is alive and living on the dark side of the moon’! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmydean Posted March 21, 2015 Report Share Posted March 21, 2015 Fine words, but you should have added ‘and Elvis is alive and living on the dark side of the moon’! Sad to see such cynicism and disaffection. But hey, if you know he's there why not go and ask him what the answer is ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.