Cyril Smith - the revellations
Discussion
greygoose said:
carinaman said:
She doesn't come across as reassured as she was when she stuck the boot into the police at the federation conference at Bournemouth in May.
Where do her 'hopes' sit with the delays caused by her appointing Baroness Butler-Closed-Shop and Dame Fiona Woolf?
She delayed it till after the election so achieved what the top politicians wanted. The longer it drags on the more chance there is that witnesses and those involved will die so the truth may never come out. Where do her 'hopes' sit with the delays caused by her appointing Baroness Butler-Closed-Shop and Dame Fiona Woolf?
I remember being appalled at the paedophile scandal in Belgium after the Dutroux affair but it appears that the UK is just as corrupt.
The norm is that such officers fall into groups:
There are those who, through lack of knowledge of systems, do what they think is right. This is a supervisory problem.
There are those who panic because it becomes too difficult, or they have made an honest mistake, and try and hide the error. This is often the fault of immediate supervisors who are martinets.
There are those who become stressed and can’t cope with continual reports of people in dire circumstance. These often become adept at hiding their problems and it is very difficult to pick up the subtle symptoms (that’s my excuse for my failures anyway to notice this on those I supervised).
There are those who are bone idle and, as many of these are intelligent, they dedicate their lives to deflecting work, deflecting blame and often seem to be a repository of knowledge and experience.
Another group is those who are ordered to ‘forget’ offences and offenders. These have the option of creating a massive stir and getting slapped back into position. Or they could be subversive, informing others, including the press, of their position. These latter ones are wasting their time of course.
I can’t see any police officer sleeving a crime against a child because he or she is of the same mind as that would draw suspicion onto them.
We can see that those in authority look to their own needs first of all. Just before a general election is no time to hope for an open and energetic enquiry into the revelations.
As someone pointed out, the investigation against Smith was at a politically difficult time. One can, perhaps, see the reasoning behind not prosecuting a person who could bring massive scandal on MPs of all parties at what was a time of war.
OK, one might not agree with it but there is a certain logic and MI5 has a specific role and, no doubt, concentrated on it.
However, the offending continued. Kids were sacrificed. Lives were ruined whilst those whose job it was to police and protect looked on. There can be no justification, no excuses, for that. It is a despicable act, worse in many ways than what Smith and his fellow offenders did.
smegmore said:
Derek.
I've re-read your post and please excuse the snip and perhaps I've taken your post out of context, but how were Cyril Smiths alleged crimes committed during a time of war?
Thanks.
It depends on your definition of war I suppose but at a time of bombs going off in the UK, funded by foreign countries, when MPs and the PM are attacked, and killed, over a long period of time, then it is a war. One might call it a civil war, but given that many of the protagonists were not UK born then I don't see why we need the modifier of civil.I've re-read your post and please excuse the snip and perhaps I've taken your post out of context, but how were Cyril Smiths alleged crimes committed during a time of war?
Thanks.
The government was attacked. In essence it was a failure and Thatcher's response turned it into a victory to an extent, but that doesn't alter the fact that they tried to blow up the government. They killed members of the royal family as well.
It was a war to my view.
smegmore said:
I agree on the terrorism aspect but it wasn't a war as defined by international law, was it?
Although the IRA at the time (as I recall) were classed as a proscribed terrorist organisation, if there had been an actual declaration of war by either side, I think that it would have been concluded very quickly. The IRA were by definition an undercover organisation which never intended to go toe to toe with the British army, but that's for a different thread.
I take your point about the international definition and I don't want to go all Humpty Dumpty but:Although the IRA at the time (as I recall) were classed as a proscribed terrorist organisation, if there had been an actual declaration of war by either side, I think that it would have been concluded very quickly. The IRA were by definition an undercover organisation which never intended to go toe to toe with the British army, but that's for a different thread.
I worked with ex army and, as I am tee-total, I was often the designated driver. Some of the stories I heard when my passenger was not quite out of it, but voluable, was that they felt the PIRA was of the opinion it was war, so they felt happy defining it as such.
I once corrected an ex-officer when he used the word and I was treated to a long question along the lines of examples of where war had been declared and the situation was exactly the same as soldiers experienced in NI.
One told a story and mentioned a town in Eire. I asked him if he had crossed the border. He said: What border?
I will bow to the blokes who were out there rather than lexicographers. I might listen to Suzi Dent. A bit.
There is, of course, nothing unusual in them at the top protecting their own. It goes on throughout society: every group protects itself to an extent. There is a suggestion that this is part of what attracts people to groups.
There was a pop song some years ago that had the title: You can't get me I'm part of the union a revamp of a feminist song from way back. Before feminism. Our 'shop steward', in name father of the chapel, said that whilst the bosses didn't like 'our' unions, they had their own. As we can now see.
At the time it was in the charts I was still in a union and the blokes used to whistle the tune to irritate the bosses.
What has been shocking is that the church has shown itself not so much to be included in all this, but in the vanguard.
Mental impairment is a way out of course, and is similar to whiplash in that it is very difficult to disprove.
The best the victims can hope for is for their accusations to be given a fair airing and a conclusion being allowed. The 'fact' that this person is unable to defend himself is something that is a shame, but not something that should be enough to block such a case.
The penalty would not be imprisonment or any substantial inconvenience, but it would, if the accusations are true, an exposure but I doubt that would affect him, but might harm the family. But it should be balanced against the need for the victims to have their say.
There's a bit on YouTube of victims of systemised abuse by Irish priests. One of the most heart-rending videos you'll ever see. Not to be viewed if you are feeling a bit down.
In it it is apparent from the reaction of the victims that what they want is to be believed and have the fact that they were assaulted to be accepted. For decades, and for some the vast majority of their lives, the church had denied them this, accusing them of telling lies despite the fact that they knew it was all true. These were threatened with excommunication and all that happened to the various vicars was that they were dealt with by their own version of sahria law, just like in some plantagenet despotic regime.
Absolutely horrific but there was a light: they were, at long last, believed and many said that they could, for the first time, say that they have been abused and the church had to accept it.
These victims, of some honoured chap they suggest, should be allowed to pursue the matter, fully funded, just as if the bloke was compos mentis.
Also, you never know, his faculties might, miraculously, become reestablished.
It is unfortunate, but it was ever thus. Recent changes, proposed and established, have put the likelihood of such revelations never seeing the light of day in future. All this has proved is that the tin-foil hat brigade preach a certain truth. If MI5 and SB can't protect them, then other parts of the establishment will.
A newspaper exposes the corrupt MPs and Lords and the next thing we get is an attempt, successful it seems, to limit the freedom of the press. The police federation funds a civil case against someone in their little enclave and the next thing that happens is that the home sec attacks all the money the federation has, suggesting that it was all public money.
They are all bent. And in three weeks or so I will go through the facade of cooperating with the systems and voting.
We'd all be happier if we just accepted our surfdom and believed the myth that anyone in power gives a damn.
There was a pop song some years ago that had the title: You can't get me I'm part of the union a revamp of a feminist song from way back. Before feminism. Our 'shop steward', in name father of the chapel, said that whilst the bosses didn't like 'our' unions, they had their own. As we can now see.
At the time it was in the charts I was still in a union and the blokes used to whistle the tune to irritate the bosses.
What has been shocking is that the church has shown itself not so much to be included in all this, but in the vanguard.
Mental impairment is a way out of course, and is similar to whiplash in that it is very difficult to disprove.
The best the victims can hope for is for their accusations to be given a fair airing and a conclusion being allowed. The 'fact' that this person is unable to defend himself is something that is a shame, but not something that should be enough to block such a case.
The penalty would not be imprisonment or any substantial inconvenience, but it would, if the accusations are true, an exposure but I doubt that would affect him, but might harm the family. But it should be balanced against the need for the victims to have their say.
There's a bit on YouTube of victims of systemised abuse by Irish priests. One of the most heart-rending videos you'll ever see. Not to be viewed if you are feeling a bit down.
In it it is apparent from the reaction of the victims that what they want is to be believed and have the fact that they were assaulted to be accepted. For decades, and for some the vast majority of their lives, the church had denied them this, accusing them of telling lies despite the fact that they knew it was all true. These were threatened with excommunication and all that happened to the various vicars was that they were dealt with by their own version of sahria law, just like in some plantagenet despotic regime.
Absolutely horrific but there was a light: they were, at long last, believed and many said that they could, for the first time, say that they have been abused and the church had to accept it.
These victims, of some honoured chap they suggest, should be allowed to pursue the matter, fully funded, just as if the bloke was compos mentis.
Also, you never know, his faculties might, miraculously, become reestablished.
It is unfortunate, but it was ever thus. Recent changes, proposed and established, have put the likelihood of such revelations never seeing the light of day in future. All this has proved is that the tin-foil hat brigade preach a certain truth. If MI5 and SB can't protect them, then other parts of the establishment will.
A newspaper exposes the corrupt MPs and Lords and the next thing we get is an attempt, successful it seems, to limit the freedom of the press. The police federation funds a civil case against someone in their little enclave and the next thing that happens is that the home sec attacks all the money the federation has, suggesting that it was all public money.
They are all bent. And in three weeks or so I will go through the facade of cooperating with the systems and voting.
We'd all be happier if we just accepted our surfdom and believed the myth that anyone in power gives a damn.
Is anyone surprised?
If so, would they like to buy Tower Bridge from me?
One bit of good advice from my father was that if you can't change it, get used to it or find a work around. A most sensible point of view in most cases, but this situation is a leap too far. As with Smith and his like, the establishment is showing, it seems, that we can be treated with contempt.
The first thought that went through my mind was to wonder what information he had on those with power and authority.
A lord for heaven's sake. What a joke. People like him have authority over us and there's nothing we can do. At least some rubbish MPs will be voted out in a couple of weeks but if they are in the in crowd, presumably with information that could hurt one of the parties, they will, after being rejected by the electorate, be made lords to continue their milking of the system.
If so, would they like to buy Tower Bridge from me?
One bit of good advice from my father was that if you can't change it, get used to it or find a work around. A most sensible point of view in most cases, but this situation is a leap too far. As with Smith and his like, the establishment is showing, it seems, that we can be treated with contempt.
The first thought that went through my mind was to wonder what information he had on those with power and authority.
A lord for heaven's sake. What a joke. People like him have authority over us and there's nothing we can do. At least some rubbish MPs will be voted out in a couple of weeks but if they are in the in crowd, presumably with information that could hurt one of the parties, they will, after being rejected by the electorate, be made lords to continue their milking of the system.
rover 623gsi said:
the whole thing stinks - there is a cover-up of epic proportions going on right under our noses. And they're going to get away with it.
It isn't really a cover-up, is it. We can all see it but 'they' just refuse to do anything about it. We are being treated with contempt.A woman who was at a friend's dinner party was writing a book on a particular style of artist and wanted to examine a painting that someone posh had put against death duties. Part of the deal, which was very remunerative for the son, was to make the painting available for examination to certain people. I don't know the details apart from the fact that this woman had the necessary authority.
For some time, over a year, she was given the run-around. She went to someone important to get their assistance and she was told not to bother as, no doubt at all, the painting had been sold to some Russian or American. There might be a high quality copy in its place but then again most people didn't even bother with that. She wanted to report it but the chap said that no one cares. He'd tried and was stone-walled.
He said (something like) even if someone does have a copy made and it is proved to be false, they'd just say that their father/etc must have been conned years ago.
Those with the power to do something might also have been approached by oligarchs about their inheritance, and those who do care have no power to alter anything.
Everything is all right.
Lewis Hill, 90, given a 2-year suspended sentence for historical offences against children, and a sufferer from dementia and diabetes, was found fit to be tried, convicted and, on appeal against sentence, had it increased to 5 years.
I mean, with such a clear-cut case, surely no one could object to Janner being tried? I mean, there'd have to be some sort of conspiracy to block it, wouldn't there.
His defence brief argued that Hill '. . . was nothing other than a benefit to society, working as a civil servant . . .'. The fantasy world of defence teams.
What is more remarkable is that Hill seems to be actually ill, being deaf and having a catheter.
Info. from yesterday's Times.
One of the arguments for not prosecuting Janner was that he 'no longer posed any threat'. Surely that is used to suggest no custodial punishment. Hill poses no threat, being really ill and some years older but gets 5 years.
One law for us, no law for them it appears.
Not only that, you can recover from dementia. One bloke, I won't name him to spare his blushes, was diagnosed with dementia in 1991, and then went on to workd as a business consultant, including advising mobile phone retailer Carphone Warehouse from its early days until prior to its flotation, later appointed chairman of the executive committee of a US-based multinational petrol credit-card company, Harpur-Gelco and acted as a consultant to Seed International Ltd.
Sort of gives you a warm feeling inside as the bloke must have felt that his life had ended nearly 24 years ago, and here his is, still going strongish.
As i say, I'll keep the identity of this man a secret as, you never know, he might want to take out yet another high paying job and knowing that he was all but out of it in 1991 and with a short time to think, he might not get any extra money, and the poor bloke probably needs it.
Lewis Hill, 90, given a 2-year suspended sentence for historical offences against children, and a sufferer from dementia and diabetes, was found fit to be tried, convicted and, on appeal against sentence, had it increased to 5 years.
I mean, with such a clear-cut case, surely no one could object to Janner being tried? I mean, there'd have to be some sort of conspiracy to block it, wouldn't there.
His defence brief argued that Hill '. . . was nothing other than a benefit to society, working as a civil servant . . .'. The fantasy world of defence teams.
What is more remarkable is that Hill seems to be actually ill, being deaf and having a catheter.
Info. from yesterday's Times.
One of the arguments for not prosecuting Janner was that he 'no longer posed any threat'. Surely that is used to suggest no custodial punishment. Hill poses no threat, being really ill and some years older but gets 5 years.
One law for us, no law for them it appears.
Not only that, you can recover from dementia. One bloke, I won't name him to spare his blushes, was diagnosed with dementia in 1991, and then went on to workd as a business consultant, including advising mobile phone retailer Carphone Warehouse from its early days until prior to its flotation, later appointed chairman of the executive committee of a US-based multinational petrol credit-card company, Harpur-Gelco and acted as a consultant to Seed International Ltd.
Sort of gives you a warm feeling inside as the bloke must have felt that his life had ended nearly 24 years ago, and here his is, still going strongish.
As i say, I'll keep the identity of this man a secret as, you never know, he might want to take out yet another high paying job and knowing that he was all but out of it in 1991 and with a short time to think, he might not get any extra money, and the poor bloke probably needs it.
9mm said:
You couldn't possibly be referring to Ernest Saunders perchance? A walking medical miracle.
I'll just run my answer past my legal team.LEGAL NOTE: My client had no idea who Ernest Saunders is or was or might be. Like everyone else, he does not know of any incurable disease that can be cured. And my client has never posted on this forum and indeed is not my client.
Edited by Derek Smith on Wednesday 20th May 19:48
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff