Cyril Smith - the revellations
Discussion
I think special branch should have "suicided" smith instead of his victims.
Would have stopped future problems and if that fat nonce dropped dead of a heart attack nobody would have suspected any foul play.
Instead they let him carry on and have more victims making it far more likely his pederasty would be discovered.
Would have stopped future problems and if that fat nonce dropped dead of a heart attack nobody would have suspected any foul play.
Instead they let him carry on and have more victims making it far more likely his pederasty would be discovered.
Re. the above responses, yes it's no surprise that the Establishment and those in similar fields stick together, but it still boggles them mind how much influence these people wield, and to the degree (the unbelievable horror of some things they seem willing to cover up) they are willing, and complicit. The govt. need to start a root and branch reform, and to pursue these cases and the villains, several of whom are clearly implicated in all sorts, whatever the so called cost. They find money easily enough for things when it suits.
The discovery of his behaviour looks, with the benefit of hindsight, to have been only potentially something of an unknown quantity to be dealt with in the distant future - if it ever came to light at all, with an apparent top-down agenda in place intending that it wouldn't ever come to light? 
The movers and shakers are fully aware of the gravity and extent of the pox that permeates amongst them. They are also aware that to allow a root and branch exposure would start a landside and the disruption to the state machine would amount to a revolution which nobody wants and which would ultimately lead to their own demise as a result of the ensuing anarchy.
A full top-down investigation is 'not in the public interest' and they would prefer to manage such a difficult situation piecemeal. That's why it won't happen and why it's taking such a long time to find successors to Butler-Schloss and Woolf. Word has got round that it's a poisoned chalice and the once perceived rewards of chairing such a review are now just not worth the candle.
A full top-down investigation is 'not in the public interest' and they would prefer to manage such a difficult situation piecemeal. That's why it won't happen and why it's taking such a long time to find successors to Butler-Schloss and Woolf. Word has got round that it's a poisoned chalice and the once perceived rewards of chairing such a review are now just not worth the candle.
Thorodin said:
The movers and shakers are fully aware of the gravity and extent of the pox that permeates amongst them. They are also aware that to allow a root and branch exposure would start a landside and the disruption to the state machine would amount to a revolution which nobody wants and which would ultimately lead to their own demise as a result of the ensuing anarchy.
A full top-down investigation is 'not in the public interest' and they would prefer to manage such a difficult situation piecemeal. That's why it won't happen and why it's taking such a long time to find successors to Butler-Schloss and Woolf. Word has got round that it's a poisoned chalice and the once perceived rewards of chairing such a review are now just not worth the candle.
Does it have to have a Chair? Can't the format be rejigged?A full top-down investigation is 'not in the public interest' and they would prefer to manage such a difficult situation piecemeal. That's why it won't happen and why it's taking such a long time to find successors to Butler-Schloss and Woolf. Word has got round that it's a poisoned chalice and the once perceived rewards of chairing such a review are now just not worth the candle.
Is one of the reasons a Chair is needed so it can be steered and managed towards the prescribed outcomes?
Some have suggested a Grand Jury like they have in the US. But it seems even that was manipulated in the case of the police taking down 'loosie' vendor Eric Garner in NYC. It seems they sat for something like 50 odd days and were 'guided' by a Prosecutor, and concluded it was a 'no trial'. So it seems like a pre-trial trial to decide not to prosecute.
CGHQ will hunt out Paedos on the dark net, but we can't deal with the ones in the establishment?
Doesn't have to be the 'chair' but useful to have the person who controls the admissibility of witnesses and so-called evidence in charge of proceedings. The controlling elite will have not only a common or associative guilt but also be able to call on long standing filial or business loyalties with the other members of the committee; favours that can be called on at any time (and repeatedly). The extent of influence, nay, coercion, is vastly underestimated and there is no department of state or service that is not affected. Basically, a mix of blackmail and bribery is running the country. Surprise, surprise. It's a result of the increasingly knowledgeable and suspicious media that these events are coming to light, hence the pressure about Press legislation.
Thorodin said:
Doesn't have to be the 'chair' but useful to have the person who controls the admissibility of witnesses and so-called evidence in charge of proceedings. The controlling elite will have not only a common or associative guilt but also be able to call on long standing filial or business loyalties with the other members of the committee; favours that can be called on at any time (and repeatedly). The extent of influence, nay, coercion, is vastly underestimated and there is no department of state or service that is not affected. Basically, a mix of blackmail and bribery is running the country. Surprise, surprise. It's a result of the increasingly knowledgeable and suspicious media that these events are coming to light, hence the pressure about Press legislation.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2233681/Le...I hadn't seen that, thanks. Don't read the DM but glad of the chance to do so! They all seem like a jolly crowd, just the job if you want a foregone conclusion. Some of the personal attributes are enlightening:
Julia Middleton - "brilliant networker", others "well connected". In other words gossipy busybody, posh creep. Not one 'independently minded' or 'authoritative source'. Several Charity luminaries (money for nothing biddable establishment appointees) who more or less disqualify open debate.
In spite of everything I'd hazard a bet that most have sizeable investments in on-line news outfits as hedging strategies. Always been my belief that any control on personal freedom is to be avoided and the ritual "if you've done nothing you've nothing to fear" is pathetic; all this anti-press stuff does nothing to change my view. People seem to ready to rely on keyboard protest in the mistaken belief they are 'taking action', nothing further from the truth.
Julia Middleton - "brilliant networker", others "well connected". In other words gossipy busybody, posh creep. Not one 'independently minded' or 'authoritative source'. Several Charity luminaries (money for nothing biddable establishment appointees) who more or less disqualify open debate.
In spite of everything I'd hazard a bet that most have sizeable investments in on-line news outfits as hedging strategies. Always been my belief that any control on personal freedom is to be avoided and the ritual "if you've done nothing you've nothing to fear" is pathetic; all this anti-press stuff does nothing to change my view. People seem to ready to rely on keyboard protest in the mistaken belief they are 'taking action', nothing further from the truth.
Read today (re my earlier post but 1) that there have over 100 names put forward as 'chair' to succeed (in every sense of the word) Woolf! Still no choice! What chance Blair?
Also M. Mansfield to head alternative review to produce a report to be presented to 'official' committee when available. Wonder just who thinks he is independent. Very strategic.
Also M. Mansfield to head alternative review to produce a report to be presented to 'official' committee when available. Wonder just who thinks he is independent. Very strategic.
You are right. I don't know any, nor anyone that does know any. Even if we did, we couldn't be sure of their incorruptibility. Surely there must be a nationally known and respected figure with no baggage. Or is it to be a case of if you can't get rid of the skeleton in your cupboard, you'd better teach it to dance.
Derek Smith said:
We need a foreigner. Someone well respected abroad with no UK connections.
Thorodin said:
You are right. I don't know any, nor anyone that does know any. Even if we did, we couldn't be sure of their incorruptibility. Surely there must be a nationally known and respected figure with no baggage. Or is it to be a case of if you can't get rid of the skeleton in your cupboard, you'd better teach it to dance.
Malala Yousafzai.Derek Smith said:
We need a foreigner. Someone well respected abroad with no UK connections.
Jesus wept. How sad a state of affairs in the UK when this is the only option.Derek, you and I have had our disagreements re UKIP in the past, but this is way more important!
I asked a few pages back why the victims, who have rejected the Establishment's attempts at a full enquiry, cannot just get together with the police and go after anyone still alive who committed these abhorrent crimes?
Thorodin said:
You are right. I don't know any, nor anyone that does know any. Even if we did, we couldn't be sure of their incorruptibility. Surely there must be a nationally known and respected figure with no baggage. Or is it to be a case of if you can't get rid of the skeleton in your cupboard, you'd better teach it to dance.
I don't know any either, and that is part of the point. Are we so limited as to people who are unimpeachable?Anyone in this country who is not part of the establishment or who has not fraternised with them is probably unqualified for the role.
Edited by Derek Smith on Sunday 14th December 20:31
Derek Smith said:
I don't know any either, and that is part of the point. Are we so limited as to people who are unimpeachable?
Anyone in this country who is not part of the establishment or who has not fraternised with them is probably unfitfor the role.
Derek, do you mean unqualified because of lack of legal training?Anyone in this country who is not part of the establishment or who has not fraternised with them is probably unfitfor the role.
Result of a bit of surfing:
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/book-revi...
How the establishment get away with it. If that's a picture of the author, he's about 12.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/book-revi...
How the establishment get away with it. If that's a picture of the author, he's about 12.
Edited by Derek Smith on Thursday 18th December 09:49
Child murders - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30534235
Det Supt Kenny McDonald - who is overseeing Operation Midland - said officers ... thought his account was "credible and true".
Hopefully supporting evidence from others and some doors kicked in over Christmas.
Det Supt Kenny McDonald - who is overseeing Operation Midland - said officers ... thought his account was "credible and true".
Hopefully supporting evidence from others and some doors kicked in over Christmas.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff