Missing Dossier ! ?
Discussion
El Guapo said:
It looks like Leon Brittan is playing the amnesia card.
I wonder if there could be another copy of the Dickens dossier in a safe somewhere.
Seems Dickens' widow had one but destroyed it:I wonder if there could be another copy of the Dickens dossier in a safe somewhere.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/elm-guest-hou...
desolate said:
The problem is that at the moment all the noise is coming from people who are all too easily discredited.
It is frankly insulting for the home office to say the file is lost.
It has the makings of a House of Cards, but my bet is that it's dragged on, then a minor scapegoat will be found then some semblance of truth being revealed when the major players are dead. By which time it will read like the pages of a history book.
If you search on William Goad and Shirley Thompson, a police officer that went to the BBC as she wasn't happy about being told to drop an investigation into 'well connected' paedophiles, I think it was reported that the 'policy book' that documented the decisions made in that case was 'lost' as well.It is frankly insulting for the home office to say the file is lost.
It has the makings of a House of Cards, but my bet is that it's dragged on, then a minor scapegoat will be found then some semblance of truth being revealed when the major players are dead. By which time it will read like the pages of a history book.
BBC News website 5 October 2004 said:
Goad was described in court as a "voracious, calculating, predatory and violent homosexual paedophile" who once boasted of beating his own "record" of abusing 142 boys in a year.
from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/3716866.s...Seems he could have been tipped off by the police:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-26388164
They've recently looked at that case again, to do try to track down further victims and offenders but an IPCC Email would seem to indicate that it had to be done for the sake of public confidence in the police.
That force also had a dodgy copper about a decade ago using their police access to give leads to snooping journalists, which could possibly be linked to the Murdoch press, but the case was dropped as the Judge said they couldn't afford the prosecutions. It was dealt with behind closed doors and not in court.
So it turns out the missing dossier is the tip of the iceberg. Another 114 files 'lost'.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10949117/...
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/05/lo...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10949117/...
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/05/lo...
The Guardian said:
David Mellor, a Home Office minister under Brittan, spoke out, claiming his former boss was being unfairly "pilloried" over his handling of the dossier. Mellor said the file was spoken of at the time as "not very substantive". Speaking on his LBC radio show, Mellor said he remembered "sort of chat around the department" that it "wasn't a very substantive thing at all". He added: "People are talking about this document as if it's a carefully worked-through exposé of people. There's no reason to think it was. It is so unfair that, on the basis of what is becoming a witchhunt, he's being pilloried for handling a document … that he did pass on."
As I was I was making my way from the House of Commons on Monday night after a late vote a Tory minister stepped out of the shadows to confront me. I'd never spoken to him before in my life but he blocked my way and ushered me to one side.
He warned me to think very carefully about what I was going to say the next day before the Home Affairs Select Committee when I'd be answering questions on child abuse.
'I hear you're about to challenge Lord Brittan about what he knew about child sex abuse,' he said. It wouldn't be a wise move, he advised me.
'It was all put to bed a long time ago.'
He warned me I could even be responsible for his death.
We looked at each other in silence for a second. I knew straight away he wasn't telling me this out of concern for the man's welfare.
There was no compassion in his voice.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2681949/...
Simon Danczuk deserves a medal, but I doubt he'll ever get one
He warned me to think very carefully about what I was going to say the next day before the Home Affairs Select Committee when I'd be answering questions on child abuse.
'I hear you're about to challenge Lord Brittan about what he knew about child sex abuse,' he said. It wouldn't be a wise move, he advised me.
'It was all put to bed a long time ago.'
He warned me I could even be responsible for his death.
We looked at each other in silence for a second. I knew straight away he wasn't telling me this out of concern for the man's welfare.
There was no compassion in his voice.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2681949/...
Simon Danczuk deserves a medal, but I doubt he'll ever get one
Powerful people have ways of protecting themselves.
A lot of what we've read over the years suggests there is some form of cadre protecting its own.
On top of that we have the various security systems which see their role entirely as protecting the person, the position, the state. It is easy enough to convince someone whose job is protection that others are out to get their subject, that it is all a communist/fascist plot designed by those who wish to bring down the establishment or that the edifice needs protecting and whatever it was in that file is part of the cost.
We've seen it in the catholic cover-up of child abuse - the needs of the church (virtually a state) are greater than the needs of justice, and in any case they can twist everything so that it is logical. I can't believe that all catholic vicars were happy with the cover up but felt a bit 'what are you going to do' sort of thing.
The same would go for the state.
SB officers are told all the time that it is they who are the real thin blue line, protecting the wall in the sense of Nicholson's monologue in A Few Good Men.
Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded . . . I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way . . .
One of the great political criticisms in film, remarkably for an American one. It explains a mentality: those who covered up the dossier/Cyril Smith/the all so many others did so because it was important not to have breeches in the wall.
MPs like to think they run the country despite everyone knowing it is multi-national corporations. Or rather like to make out they run the country, rather than trying to run it down. There is an 'in-crowd'. Threaten one and you are in the frame. They have power, influence and weaponry.
It goes on all the time and only on occasion does it falter. The Profumo Affair springs to mind. The Ward trial is well worth reading up on, the judge's summing up being, to put it kindly, a classic of its kind. Ward killed himself, Keeler was a pauper and Profumo got a CBE. I'm not suggesting he did not deserve it - indeed just the reverse. He was seen as a hero by charities for the homeless in the East End. But, as always, the establishment wins and the DBE was there just to prove it.
But, of course, such things wouldn't happen nowadays. Any police officer who believed there was some form of cover-up could go to the press confident that his job, reputation and freedom were not at risk. We have a totally free press with laws to protect journalists who get it wrong for the right reasons. Papers and other media outlets are not controlled by lawyers whose advice must be followed. And no government branch can punish the press for upsetting the establishment.
We had mosley apparently getting his socks of by buying women in order to beat and humiliate them yet search for the evidence of this online and Google says it didn't happen. So now we can't say it did.
This is the perfect breeding ground for those in power to indulge their whims and desires. I doubt it is any worse than it used to be but I would bet it is no better. The trials we've had where TV celebrities have been found guilty and imprisoned do nothing to convince me that the same proportion of MPs aren't at it as much as ever.
Smith's files, this dossier and no doubt more: the establishment looks after itself.
A lot of what we've read over the years suggests there is some form of cadre protecting its own.
On top of that we have the various security systems which see their role entirely as protecting the person, the position, the state. It is easy enough to convince someone whose job is protection that others are out to get their subject, that it is all a communist/fascist plot designed by those who wish to bring down the establishment or that the edifice needs protecting and whatever it was in that file is part of the cost.
We've seen it in the catholic cover-up of child abuse - the needs of the church (virtually a state) are greater than the needs of justice, and in any case they can twist everything so that it is logical. I can't believe that all catholic vicars were happy with the cover up but felt a bit 'what are you going to do' sort of thing.
The same would go for the state.
SB officers are told all the time that it is they who are the real thin blue line, protecting the wall in the sense of Nicholson's monologue in A Few Good Men.
Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded . . . I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way . . .
One of the great political criticisms in film, remarkably for an American one. It explains a mentality: those who covered up the dossier/Cyril Smith/the all so many others did so because it was important not to have breeches in the wall.
MPs like to think they run the country despite everyone knowing it is multi-national corporations. Or rather like to make out they run the country, rather than trying to run it down. There is an 'in-crowd'. Threaten one and you are in the frame. They have power, influence and weaponry.
It goes on all the time and only on occasion does it falter. The Profumo Affair springs to mind. The Ward trial is well worth reading up on, the judge's summing up being, to put it kindly, a classic of its kind. Ward killed himself, Keeler was a pauper and Profumo got a CBE. I'm not suggesting he did not deserve it - indeed just the reverse. He was seen as a hero by charities for the homeless in the East End. But, as always, the establishment wins and the DBE was there just to prove it.
But, of course, such things wouldn't happen nowadays. Any police officer who believed there was some form of cover-up could go to the press confident that his job, reputation and freedom were not at risk. We have a totally free press with laws to protect journalists who get it wrong for the right reasons. Papers and other media outlets are not controlled by lawyers whose advice must be followed. And no government branch can punish the press for upsetting the establishment.
We had mosley apparently getting his socks of by buying women in order to beat and humiliate them yet search for the evidence of this online and Google says it didn't happen. So now we can't say it did.
This is the perfect breeding ground for those in power to indulge their whims and desires. I doubt it is any worse than it used to be but I would bet it is no better. The trials we've had where TV celebrities have been found guilty and imprisoned do nothing to convince me that the same proportion of MPs aren't at it as much as ever.
Smith's files, this dossier and no doubt more: the establishment looks after itself.
Strangely enough.... I think the missing dossier is a bit of red herring, albeit a very useful one for Simon D & Tom W to help raise the issue.
There are / will be people who have investigated these claims at the time and subsequently, their recall will have far more detail than the missing dossier, and I would hope enough information to start proceedings.
Here's why I think this will not go away this time :
Post Leverson the press have an itch they want to scratch, the cosy relationships are in part broken, I believe there will be an element of revenge in the media and justification for no regulation. It's all too tempting for the Ediitors because it's a win win - great story, get the politicians, aligned to the public outrage and leverage the situation to stop regulation.
Private Eye will be unmissable read for the next few months !
There are / will be people who have investigated these claims at the time and subsequently, their recall will have far more detail than the missing dossier, and I would hope enough information to start proceedings.
Here's why I think this will not go away this time :
Post Leverson the press have an itch they want to scratch, the cosy relationships are in part broken, I believe there will be an element of revenge in the media and justification for no regulation. It's all too tempting for the Ediitors because it's a win win - great story, get the politicians, aligned to the public outrage and leverage the situation to stop regulation.
Private Eye will be unmissable read for the next few months !
Derek Smith said:
Powerful people have ways of protecting themselves.
A lot of what we've read over the years suggests there is some form of cadre protecting its own.
On top of that we have the various security systems which see their role entirely as protecting the person, the position, the state. It is easy enough to convince someone whose job is protection that others are out to get their subject, that it is all a communist/fascist plot designed by those who wish to bring down the establishment or that the edifice needs protecting and whatever it was in that file is part of the cost.
We've seen it in the catholic cover-up of child abuse - the needs of the church (virtually a state) are greater than the needs of justice, and in any case they can twist everything so that it is logical. I can't believe that all catholic vicars were happy with the cover up but felt a bit 'what are you going to do' sort of thing.
The same would go for the state.
SB officers are told all the time that it is they who are the real thin blue line, protecting the wall in the sense of Nicholson's monologue in A Few Good Men.
Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded . . . I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way . . .
One of the great political criticisms in film, remarkably for an American one. It explains a mentality: those who covered up the dossier/Cyril Smith/the all so many others did so because it was important not to have breeches in the wall.
MPs like to think they run the country despite everyone knowing it is multi-national corporations. Or rather like to make out they run the country, rather than trying to run it down. There is an 'in-crowd'. Threaten one and you are in the frame. They have power, influence and weaponry.
It goes on all the time and only on occasion does it falter. The Profumo Affair springs to mind. The Ward trial is well worth reading up on, the judge's summing up being, to put it kindly, a classic of its kind. Ward killed himself, Keeler was a pauper and Profumo got a CBE. I'm not suggesting he did not deserve it - indeed just the reverse. He was seen as a hero by charities for the homeless in the East End. But, as always, the establishment wins and the DBE was there just to prove it.
But, of course, such things wouldn't happen nowadays. Any police officer who believed there was some form of cover-up could go to the press confident that his job, reputation and freedom were not at risk. We have a totally free press with laws to protect journalists who get it wrong for the right reasons. Papers and other media outlets are not controlled by lawyers whose advice must be followed. And no government branch can punish the press for upsetting the establishment.
We had mosley apparently getting his socks of by buying women in order to beat and humiliate them yet search for the evidence of this online and Google says it didn't happen. So now we can't say it did.
This is the perfect breeding ground for those in power to indulge their whims and desires. I doubt it is any worse than it used to be but I would bet it is no better. The trials we've had where TV celebrities have been found guilty and imprisoned do nothing to convince me that the same proportion of MPs aren't at it as much as ever.
Smith's files, this dossier and no doubt more: the establishment looks after itself.
Derek - A thoughtful, well written piece ( as ever )A lot of what we've read over the years suggests there is some form of cadre protecting its own.
On top of that we have the various security systems which see their role entirely as protecting the person, the position, the state. It is easy enough to convince someone whose job is protection that others are out to get their subject, that it is all a communist/fascist plot designed by those who wish to bring down the establishment or that the edifice needs protecting and whatever it was in that file is part of the cost.
We've seen it in the catholic cover-up of child abuse - the needs of the church (virtually a state) are greater than the needs of justice, and in any case they can twist everything so that it is logical. I can't believe that all catholic vicars were happy with the cover up but felt a bit 'what are you going to do' sort of thing.
The same would go for the state.
SB officers are told all the time that it is they who are the real thin blue line, protecting the wall in the sense of Nicholson's monologue in A Few Good Men.
Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded . . . I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way . . .
One of the great political criticisms in film, remarkably for an American one. It explains a mentality: those who covered up the dossier/Cyril Smith/the all so many others did so because it was important not to have breeches in the wall.
MPs like to think they run the country despite everyone knowing it is multi-national corporations. Or rather like to make out they run the country, rather than trying to run it down. There is an 'in-crowd'. Threaten one and you are in the frame. They have power, influence and weaponry.
It goes on all the time and only on occasion does it falter. The Profumo Affair springs to mind. The Ward trial is well worth reading up on, the judge's summing up being, to put it kindly, a classic of its kind. Ward killed himself, Keeler was a pauper and Profumo got a CBE. I'm not suggesting he did not deserve it - indeed just the reverse. He was seen as a hero by charities for the homeless in the East End. But, as always, the establishment wins and the DBE was there just to prove it.
But, of course, such things wouldn't happen nowadays. Any police officer who believed there was some form of cover-up could go to the press confident that his job, reputation and freedom were not at risk. We have a totally free press with laws to protect journalists who get it wrong for the right reasons. Papers and other media outlets are not controlled by lawyers whose advice must be followed. And no government branch can punish the press for upsetting the establishment.
We had mosley apparently getting his socks of by buying women in order to beat and humiliate them yet search for the evidence of this online and Google says it didn't happen. So now we can't say it did.
This is the perfect breeding ground for those in power to indulge their whims and desires. I doubt it is any worse than it used to be but I would bet it is no better. The trials we've had where TV celebrities have been found guilty and imprisoned do nothing to convince me that the same proportion of MPs aren't at it as much as ever.
Smith's files, this dossier and no doubt more: the establishment looks after itself.
I hope you are wrong for all the right reasons - justice for poor victims would be great for all, apart from people who are the 'list' and no doubt in the dossier.
Los Endos said:
Derek - A thoughtful, well written piece ( as ever )
I hope you are wrong for all the right reasons - justice for poor victims would be great for all, apart from people who are the 'list' and no doubt in the dossier.
Thanks for that. But there does seem to be an attack on the press and the other systems - the law against police officers telling it like it is, Private Eye being able to be sued and having to pay costs even if they win, Leveson's attack on press freedom, google no longer a search engine - does seem to mitigate against those in authority being brought to book.I hope you are wrong for all the right reasons - justice for poor victims would be great for all, apart from people who are the 'list' and no doubt in the dossier.
Whatever you feel about the way the NotW exposed mosely, a bloke in such a position indulging himself in similar ways in the police, a big company, a public utility or such would have been out of a job. Whether his connections had anything to do with it or not, the truth is that the spin is that he is the victim.
We had a judge award massive damages for use of the word nazi linked with mosely. I kn9ow this history of the bloke, seen him in action in the East End and I fail to see where any damage could be caused to him with that word. But then, I wasn't aware of all the evidence, and nowadays, with secret trials (this is the UK and we're having trials in secret!) we are unlikely to see all the evidence anyway.
I would love to be proved wrong. But where are the politicians standing up exposing this remarkable trend for secrecy?
Derek Smith said:
Powerful people have ways of protecting themselves.
A lot of what we've read over the years suggests there is some form of cadre protecting its own.
On top of that we have the various security systems which see their role entirely as protecting the person, the position, the state.
Theresa May AKA 'Kinky Boots' and 'That woman' said 'We need the Snooper's Charter to protect us from Paedophiles and Terrorists'.A lot of what we've read over the years suggests there is some form of cadre protecting its own.
On top of that we have the various security systems which see their role entirely as protecting the person, the position, the state.
Seems they're not protecting Simon Danczuk?
I am not Tebbit:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2682151/Th...
Someone mentioned Terry May earlier.
She, of course, mentioned, to great media support, that the police need to regain public confidence after Hillsboro'.
One wonders if, should these allegations be proved, the new Fed chairman might mention that the (kinky) boot's on the other foot.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2682151/Th...
Someone mentioned Terry May earlier.
She, of course, mentioned, to great media support, that the police need to regain public confidence after Hillsboro'.
One wonders if, should these allegations be proved, the new Fed chairman might mention that the (kinky) boot's on the other foot.
number 46 said:
MarshPhantom said:
Leon Brittan has been arested over "historical rape allegation"
See, told you he was most likely to loose the files !!! I mean if your name was in the files you would loose them too!!!!!!http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/06/ch...
Doesn't get any better. And it won't go away this time.
Doesn't get any better. And it won't go away this time.
Los Endos said:
....It's all too tempting for the Ediitors because it's a win win - great story, get the politicians, aligned to the public outrage and leverage the situation to stop regulation....
Totally agree.Distracts totally from their own misdemeanours - including hiding/protecting those with dubious habits.
This whole affair leaves a significantly bad taste, and no matter what the outcome I can't see it going away. Our system is extremely unpleasant.
And we've all been upset with the banking fraternity. Makes you wonder where our priorities are.
Derek Smith said:
The problem is that it is now a political situation. It is not about the abused children and their right to be heard after all these years.
It's a situation where plod and the CPS need to do the job they are paid to do, and they need to do this efficiently and effectively.V8 Fettler said:
Derek Smith said:
The problem is that it is now a political situation. It is not about the abused children and their right to be heard after all these years.
It's a situation where plod and the CPS need to do the job they are paid to do, and they need to do this efficiently and effectively.In the present day I would be more concerned over corruption within the Police than any in parliament.
We have seen child and sexual abuse by entertainers over the past 40 years and it appears the exploits and rumours regards them were widespread and relatively commonplace within the industry. It wouldn't be much of a surprise to find a number of politicians of the time behaved in a similar manner. The same could be said for many groups who hold power and might be prepared to abuse it, including the Police.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff