The peado finder general appointment
Discussion
What's the difference between victim and survivor Sharon Evans, who was on the panel before it was disbanded, allegedly leaking stuff to the Press and South Yorks. Police and the BBC working together to televise the raid on the apartment of Sir Cliff Richard, something that the BBC feels is deserved of an award?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc/11379153/BBCs-...
The BBC were goal hanging or spoon fed by the police? Perhaps they'll share the award with the police if they win it?
Sharon Evans claimed she was being bullied by Ben Emmerson QC? The BBC and the police didn't bully Sir Cliff Richard?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc/11379153/BBCs-...
The BBC were goal hanging or spoon fed by the police? Perhaps they'll share the award with the police if they win it?
Sharon Evans claimed she was being bullied by Ben Emmerson QC? The BBC and the police didn't bully Sir Cliff Richard?
dingg said:
oh well maybe I should have asked why hasn't any of the people who he perhaps slanders/libels in his films taken a civil case against him?
(are you happy now?)
Surely libel only applies to the written/printed text.......Slander is spoken.....(are you happy now?)
Edited by dingg on Wednesday 22 October 16:57
Thorodin said:
Read today Justice Lowell is expanding investigations to 1945! And witnesses who have previously given evidence to be quizzed with a view to perjury? She seems a bit of a renegade.
It will really take someone to dig deep and root out the privileged elite. If she is of a mind to dig deep enough and go far enough back, she could unearth some real shockers.29 minutes in, this says that NZ Judges, like Scottish Judges don't have to declare their interests:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9dcnyYi1Oo
So the NZ judicial system was being compared to ours, but Judges in England have to declare their interests.
I'm not sure where Scottish Judges not having to declare their interests sits with all of that 'We can be like Scandinavian Countries' stuff before the referendum on Scottish independence? I'm assuming the judiciary in those Countries doesn't allow Judges not to declare their interests?
While I am here, I may as well mention her colleague Lance and the stuff about him keying car(s) on the Internet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9dcnyYi1Oo
So the NZ judicial system was being compared to ours, but Judges in England have to declare their interests.
I'm not sure where Scottish Judges not having to declare their interests sits with all of that 'We can be like Scandinavian Countries' stuff before the referendum on Scottish independence? I'm assuming the judiciary in those Countries doesn't allow Judges not to declare their interests?
While I am here, I may as well mention her colleague Lance and the stuff about him keying car(s) on the Internet.
Baryonyx said:
It will really take someone to dig deep and root out the privileged elite. If she is of a mind to dig deep enough and go far enough back, she could unearth some real shockers.
maybe just asking some of this lot might help ? http://labour25.com/labour25/ very interesting quote attributed to harman alongside her picture. wonder if she will be suing for libel ? i think possibly not as it has been there a while.So Justice Lowell Goddard reckons it could take a decade.
How old is Baroness Butler-Closed-Shop?
And how old is Dame Fiona Woolf?
Giving such an important inquiry to someone aged that may cease to breath before it's finished doesn't sound very thought through.
And Theresa May won't say how much Justice Goddard is to be paid for her services.
How old is Baroness Butler-Closed-Shop?
And how old is Dame Fiona Woolf?
Giving such an important inquiry to someone aged that may cease to breath before it's finished doesn't sound very thought through.
And Theresa May won't say how much Justice Goddard is to be paid for her services.
I read yesterday (can't remember where) the remuneration details are to be published in the near future. Given the built in time slide usual on enquiries of this nature, we should all live so long. I posted earlier that on her appointment it was stated she would publish periodic interim reports rather than wait until finished. I now realise that it just might have been waffle to forestall the usual cynicism. I think I can hear shredders shredding and lighters lit.
It is unlikely to be top wonga, by lawyer standards, or by PH well built director of many companies/self employed consultant standards. Junior bazzers on Government civil work usually get sixty quid an hour before expenses and tax. Sixty quid may sound like a lot, but isn't far off plumber money in some places, and from that sixty quid you take, say, thirty percent expenses, and then you pay tax on the remaining forty odd quid. The Inquiry might opt to pay a daily rate instead, which will tend to work out cheaper for the taxpayer.
In Planet Earth terms, not bad money, but it's not City Boy money, and I know many IT contractors and self employed management consultants (ie: PH types) who bill a bigger gross figure per hour.
More senior lawyers get more. For example, I get one hundred and twenty quid an hour gross for Government civil work in Court. This is just under a quarter of my most expensive commercial rate (I vary my rate according to the client and the case, but the Government does not negotiate - one hundred and twenty quid is the set rate). VAT on top, but that goes straight back to HMG. Silks get about one fifty to one sixty gross an hour, IIRC, for Gov civil work. All these rates were set some time in the 1990s, from memory, and have never been raised since then. I would expect the inquiry to want to pay less than the usual hourly rate, but may be wrong.
The scope of the inquiry is huge. The amount of info to be sifted through is vast. Hiring a group of people who are experienced in sifting evidence, asking questions, and so on, doesn't seem to me to be an obviously daft idea. No doubt I will be Mandy Rice Daviesed for saying this, but I say it anyway.
Those who believe that it is all a carefully planned cover up will believe that anyway, regardless of anything that is said or done.
I add that I am not involved in the inquiry in any way. I have done a few public inquiry gigs, and they are rather a two edged sword, business wise, as although they can give you some sense of contributing to an important debate and doing your bit, can be very interesting, and may add some lustre to your CV, you can also get stuck on them for ages on far below private market rates. I am not sure that I would want to do another one.
In Planet Earth terms, not bad money, but it's not City Boy money, and I know many IT contractors and self employed management consultants (ie: PH types) who bill a bigger gross figure per hour.
More senior lawyers get more. For example, I get one hundred and twenty quid an hour gross for Government civil work in Court. This is just under a quarter of my most expensive commercial rate (I vary my rate according to the client and the case, but the Government does not negotiate - one hundred and twenty quid is the set rate). VAT on top, but that goes straight back to HMG. Silks get about one fifty to one sixty gross an hour, IIRC, for Gov civil work. All these rates were set some time in the 1990s, from memory, and have never been raised since then. I would expect the inquiry to want to pay less than the usual hourly rate, but may be wrong.
The scope of the inquiry is huge. The amount of info to be sifted through is vast. Hiring a group of people who are experienced in sifting evidence, asking questions, and so on, doesn't seem to me to be an obviously daft idea. No doubt I will be Mandy Rice Daviesed for saying this, but I say it anyway.
Those who believe that it is all a carefully planned cover up will believe that anyway, regardless of anything that is said or done.
I add that I am not involved in the inquiry in any way. I have done a few public inquiry gigs, and they are rather a two edged sword, business wise, as although they can give you some sense of contributing to an important debate and doing your bit, can be very interesting, and may add some lustre to your CV, you can also get stuck on them for ages on far below private market rates. I am not sure that I would want to do another one.
Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 12th July 14:45
So she's jacked it in - select which excuse you find most convincing.
1. Missed family in New Zealand
2. Press hounded her
3. Realised she wasn't as familiar with UK law as she needed to be.
So there goes up to £1 million of tax payers' money on her salary, relocation package, and benefits (e.g. four flights to NZ)
Surely someone in charge could have noticed she was taking the piss after she went on holiday for three months in the first year of the job.
Probably returned to duties at her New Zealand law firm of Grabbet and Runne.
1. Missed family in New Zealand
2. Press hounded her
3. Realised she wasn't as familiar with UK law as she needed to be.
So there goes up to £1 million of tax payers' money on her salary, relocation package, and benefits (e.g. four flights to NZ)
Surely someone in charge could have noticed she was taking the piss after she went on holiday for three months in the first year of the job.
Probably returned to duties at her New Zealand law firm of Grabbet and Runne.
audidoody said:
So she's jacked it in - select which excuse you find most convincing.
1. Missed family in New Zealand
2. Press hounded her
3. Realised she wasn't as familiar with UK law as she needed to be.
So there goes up to £1 million of tax payers' money on her salary, relocation package, and benefits (e.g. four flights to NZ)
Surely someone in charge could have noticed she was taking the piss after she went on holiday for three months in the first year of the job.
Probably returned to duties at her New Zealand law firm of Grabbet and Runne.
Or you could perhaps acknowledge the comments of one of the victims, who said she had done an incredible job during her time in charge.1. Missed family in New Zealand
2. Press hounded her
3. Realised she wasn't as familiar with UK law as she needed to be.
So there goes up to £1 million of tax payers' money on her salary, relocation package, and benefits (e.g. four flights to NZ)
Surely someone in charge could have noticed she was taking the piss after she went on holiday for three months in the first year of the job.
Probably returned to duties at her New Zealand law firm of Grabbet and Runne.
Or perhaps note that she was entitled to 30 days' annual leave, and that the other 44 days outside the UK were spent working on inquiry business.
Or tell us which calendar you work from where 74 days = 3 months.
I'm not being paid out of public money - so how and where I work is no-one's business.
Could you explain how someone leading an enquiry into UK public and private institutions needs to spend 44 days abroad on the job? I can't be arsed to Google the reason.
Could you also explain how it's OK to take on a job with the expectation that it could last 10 years and then jack it in after 18 months.
I'm all ears.
Doubtless the fact that you are a solicitor means your comments are entirely neutral
Could you explain how someone leading an enquiry into UK public and private institutions needs to spend 44 days abroad on the job? I can't be arsed to Google the reason.
Could you also explain how it's OK to take on a job with the expectation that it could last 10 years and then jack it in after 18 months.
I'm all ears.
Doubtless the fact that you are a solicitor means your comments are entirely neutral
audidoody said:
I'm not being paid out of public money - so how and where I work is no-one's business.
Could you explain how someone leading an enquiry into UK public and private institutions needs to spend 44 days abroad on the job? I can't be arsed to Google the reason.
Could you also explain how it's OK to take on a job with the expectation that it could last 10 years and then jack it in after 18 months.
I'm all ears.
Doubtless the fact that you are a solicitor means your comments are entirely neutral
To be honest I think the whole thing is a colossal waste of public money - without in any way seeking to deny or belittle the suffering of the victims, to expect any inquiry to come up with reliable, meaningful findings based on events decades ago seems misguided at best. The inclusion of the Lord Janner allegations into an inquiry established to look into allegations of institutional wrongdoing also seems misguided, and as with many aspects of the inquiry, seems to be pandering to the wants of the fourth estate.Could you explain how someone leading an enquiry into UK public and private institutions needs to spend 44 days abroad on the job? I can't be arsed to Google the reason.
Could you also explain how it's OK to take on a job with the expectation that it could last 10 years and then jack it in after 18 months.
I'm all ears.
Doubtless the fact that you are a solicitor means your comments are entirely neutral
To appoint someone from overseas was, in my view, also a mistake - although the New Zealand legal system is not dissimilar from the system in England and Wales, it is different, and in an inquiry of this magnitude, those differences could be material. However, appointing someone from overseas was presumably the only pragmatic solution to find someone who wasn't, in the eyes of some of the more hysterical sections of the media, "tainted" because they were related to/knew/mingled with/met someone potentially connected with the subject matter of a massively far-reaching inquiry. Given that someone from overseas was appointed, then I don't particularly have a problem with them working from their home base if they can effectively do so and it's not prejudicing their output. If people have a beef in this particular instance, then it should be with the people who agreed the individual's service terms.
I suspect that resigning wasn't a decision she reached easily, but I assume she had reasons - people's circumstances change, or they realise they have made a mistake. Would you rather she stayed for a further 8 and half years in a job her heart wasn't in?
Breadvan72 said:
Those who believe that it is all a carefully planned cover up will believe that anyway, regardless of anything that is said or done.
1. The full stupidity of the South Yorks. BBC televised raid of the Berkshire apartment of Sir Cliff Richard is now known with Sir Cliff suing.2. Exaro and their secure drop box of leads about historic paedophila closes.
3. Lowell Goddard who was ranked 63 out of 63 judges in a survey of NZ judges resigns as she doesn't understand the 'local scene' and seemed very slow on the uptake with Emmerson QC having to spoon feed her in public?
4. BBC Radio news ending with 'Perhaps it's too difficult' lastnight even though local police forces are securing convictions for historic sex offences from 1970s?
It's not possible to sabotage an Inquiry?
Look at the 'Learning Lessons' mega tome from Chilcot. Wasn't Chilcot involved in the Hutton Inquiry too?
The IPCC pull a Misconduct hearing against three police officers for tasering an off duty Fireman as it seems some people have with held evidence or didn't look for evidence?
IPCC seek to shred their own report into the tasering and death of Jordon Begley?
It would seem entirely possible that this historic sex abuse Inquiry could be sabotaged from within or nudged to help it towards a pre-determined outcome.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff