Leon (censored) Brittan has died.
Scroll to see replies
Original post by nulli tertius
The first is a deliberate cover up. The second has no intent to cover up. They believe that they will conduct a fair and impartial investigation into their relatives and pals.
Ok, but doesn't Woolf seem a slightly odd choice even if you ignore her connection to Brittan?
Original post by democracyforum
Never trust anyone who has a name like , Butler-Sloss,
and looks like Jimmy Savile.
and looks like Jimmy Savile.
Original post by n00
Ok, but doesn't Woolf seem a slightly odd choice even if you ignore her connection to Brittan?
You need a lawyer and the rumour was that the serving judiciary wouldn't touch it with the proverbial barge pole because of the impossible terms of reference.
These are the terms of reference
https://childsexualabuseinquiry.independent.gov.uk/terms-of-reference/
So the inquiry has to consider the failings of a scout troop in Much Binding in the Marsh (a non-state institution) as well as high jinx in high places. This inquiry was always unmanageable in scope and would mean that whoever takes it on will never get back to the day job. You will be doing this for the rest of your active life.
The number of serious volunteers would not be high.
Apparently 200 people have now applied to head this inquiry. How many of those are credible candidates, I have no idea. Whether any offer is on the table to rewrite the terms of reference, I do not know. You still need a lawyer to head it or it will be a car crash.
And just to complete the omnishambles the rest of the panel is dysfunctional.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jan/21/child-abuse-inquiry-legal-adviser-westminster-bullying-row
Posted from TSR Mobile
I disagree.
They are making it up as they go along, they don't know who should chair it or what the requirements are, they don't know what to do at all.
Greville Janner could recover from dementia and chair it probably.
"Q: What are the main qualities required of a chair?
Emmerson says it must be someone with absolute independence from the executive, and demonstrable ability to hold the executive to account. They must have very considerable forensic skills. They must be passionate about the need to bring justice to survivors, and to scourge the establishment. They must have the imagination to see that this is a once in a lifetime opportunity to address this issue. And they need real courage.
“You need someone with absolute independence from the executive, the ability to hold the executive and institutions to account, very significant forensic skills… to analyse vast quantities of information, to penetrate deep into the institutions that have failed survivors over the years, someone passionate about the need to bring justice to victims and survivors … the inspiration … the imagination to realise that society … has a once in a lifetime opportunity to address decades and decades of abuse, and draw a line. Someone with real courage.”
Q: And how long should the inquiry last? We’ve been told five years. "
So it will take 5 years, and they have no clue what they are doing.
The only hope is that the ongoing police investigations find something, because this enquiry will not.
They are making it up as they go along, they don't know who should chair it or what the requirements are, they don't know what to do at all.
Greville Janner could recover from dementia and chair it probably.
"Q: What are the main qualities required of a chair?
Emmerson says it must be someone with absolute independence from the executive, and demonstrable ability to hold the executive to account. They must have very considerable forensic skills. They must be passionate about the need to bring justice to survivors, and to scourge the establishment. They must have the imagination to see that this is a once in a lifetime opportunity to address this issue. And they need real courage.
“You need someone with absolute independence from the executive, the ability to hold the executive and institutions to account, very significant forensic skills… to analyse vast quantities of information, to penetrate deep into the institutions that have failed survivors over the years, someone passionate about the need to bring justice to victims and survivors … the inspiration … the imagination to realise that society … has a once in a lifetime opportunity to address decades and decades of abuse, and draw a line. Someone with real courage.”
Q: And how long should the inquiry last? We’ve been told five years. "
So it will take 5 years, and they have no clue what they are doing.
The only hope is that the ongoing police investigations find something, because this enquiry will not.
Original post by nulli tertius
Why do you need a lawyer ?
You don't.
They are making it up as they go along
Original post by nulli tertius
You need a lawyer and the rumour was that the serving judiciary wouldn't touch it with the proverbial barge pole because of the impossible terms of reference.
These are the terms of reference
https://childsexualabuseinquiry.independent.gov.uk/terms-of-reference/
So the inquiry has to consider the failings of a scout troop in Much Binding in the Marsh (a non-state institution) as well as high jinx in high places. This inquiry was always unmanageable in scope and would mean that whoever takes it on will never get back to the day job. You will be doing this for the rest of your active life.
The number of serious volunteers would not be high.
Apparently 200 people have now applied to head this inquiry. How many of those are credible candidates, I have no idea. Whether any offer is on the table to rewrite the terms of reference, I do not know. You still need a lawyer to head it or it will be a car crash.
And just to complete the omnishambles the rest of the panel is dysfunctional.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jan/21/child-abuse-inquiry-legal-adviser-westminster-bullying-row
Posted from TSR Mobile
These are the terms of reference
https://childsexualabuseinquiry.independent.gov.uk/terms-of-reference/
So the inquiry has to consider the failings of a scout troop in Much Binding in the Marsh (a non-state institution) as well as high jinx in high places. This inquiry was always unmanageable in scope and would mean that whoever takes it on will never get back to the day job. You will be doing this for the rest of your active life.
The number of serious volunteers would not be high.
Apparently 200 people have now applied to head this inquiry. How many of those are credible candidates, I have no idea. Whether any offer is on the table to rewrite the terms of reference, I do not know. You still need a lawyer to head it or it will be a car crash.
And just to complete the omnishambles the rest of the panel is dysfunctional.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jan/21/child-abuse-inquiry-legal-adviser-westminster-bullying-row
Posted from TSR Mobile
Were the terms of reference not agreed after the appointments?
Original post by democracyforum
Why do you need a lawyer ?
You don't.
They are making it up as they go along
You don't.
They are making it up as they go along
In theory you do not need a lawyer. In practice in any procedure that is going to result in blame, whether as perpetrator, coverer-up or for negligence, you need a process that is going to be robust enough to withstand judicial review. In practice that means a senior lawyer as chairman. As soon as you don't, it is an open invitation to those who are criticised to take the inquiry apart in the courts. You might not like that but that is the way the world is.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by n00
Were the terms of reference not agreed after the appointments?
I assume so but you don't have to be President of the Family Division or Lord Mayor of London to see that these terms of reference are far too wide.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by nulli tertius
I assume so
Then how can they be to blame for the appointments of Butler-Sloss or Woolf?
Original post by n00
Then how can they be to blame for the appointments of Butler-Sloss or Woolf?
The terms of reference were announced when Woolf was appointed but they must have been in draft beforehand. Of course they are not to blame for the appointments but for the absence of serving judges.
Prosecutors are considering charging an elderly Labour peer with child sex offences and have promised a decision "soon".
Greville Janner, 86, has not been arrested in connection with the allegations.
Crown Prosecution Service lawyers are now considering if there is enough evidence to charge him after recently being handed a full file of evidence for the first time.
If they decide there is they will consider if it is in the "public interest" to prosecute taking into account his age and health.
The new CPS statement comes after calls for inquiries into allegations of historical child sex abuse to be speeded up following the death of Leon Brittan last week.
Greville Janner, 86, has not been arrested in connection with the allegations.
Crown Prosecution Service lawyers are now considering if there is enough evidence to charge him after recently being handed a full file of evidence for the first time.
If they decide there is they will consider if it is in the "public interest" to prosecute taking into account his age and health.
The new CPS statement comes after calls for inquiries into allegations of historical child sex abuse to be speeded up following the death of Leon Brittan last week.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/lord-janner-decision-whether-charge-5053347#ICID=sharebar_twitter
Original post by nulli tertius
The terms of reference were announced when Woolf was appointed but they must have been in draft beforehand. Of course they are not to blame for the appointments but for the absence of serving judges.
So we agree that post 83 was a load of *******s? Do you have an alternative explanation for Woolf?
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by n00
So we agree that post 83 was a load of *******s? Do you have an alternative explanation for Woolf?
Nonsense.
I said that the rumours are that the serving judiciary wouldn't touch it and there wouldn't have been many people interested in a role that looked potentially endless.
I do not have any information beyond that. My guess, but this is pure speculation, is that the Home Office approached a lot of people, and she was the first one who said "yes". I would be very surprised if she came top of a shortlist in a normal, though private, recruitment competition. I would also be surprised if hers was the first shoulder tapped.
The Home Office seemed genuinely surprised by her connection to Brittan. It isn't clear that anyone in the press knew anything more than the coincidence that she lived on the same street as him. It seems that the true position only emerged when she was asked directly.
Why did she accept? I think her comment has the ring of truth. She referred to networking. I think she saw the role as the next stage of climbing a greasy pole. President of the Law Society, then Lord Mayor and to follow a very high profile public role with almost certainly a peerage at the end of it.
Woolf is her married name. She is a member of the Church of England. I did wonder if there was a Jewish connection on her husband's side. There is no obvious sign of any connection to either Harry Woolf the former LCJ or Leonard Woolf the husband of Virginia (who are descended from different Jewish immigrants) and he doesn't seem to be connected to any Jewish organisations. He is trustee of an eye hospital in Jerusalem but that is linked to the Christian Order of St John.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by democracyforum
I disagree.
They are making it up as they go along, they don't know who should chair it or what the requirements are, they don't know what to do at all.
Greville Janner could recover from dementia and chair it probably.
"Q: What are the main qualities required of a chair?
Emmerson says it must be someone with absolute independence from the executive, and demonstrable ability to hold the executive to account. They must have very considerable forensic skills. They must be passionate about the need to bring justice to survivors, and to scourge the establishment. They must have the imagination to see that this is a once in a lifetime opportunity to address this issue. And they need real courage.
“You need someone with absolute independence from the executive, the ability to hold the executive and institutions to account, very significant forensic skills… to analyse vast quantities of information, to penetrate deep into the institutions that have failed survivors over the years, someone passionate about the need to bring justice to victims and survivors … the inspiration … the imagination to realise that society … has a once in a lifetime opportunity to address decades and decades of abuse, and draw a line. Someone with real courage.”
Q: And how long should the inquiry last? We’ve been told five years. "
So it will take 5 years, and they have no clue what they are doing.
The only hope is that the ongoing police investigations find something, because this enquiry will not.
They are making it up as they go along, they don't know who should chair it or what the requirements are, they don't know what to do at all.
Greville Janner could recover from dementia and chair it probably.
"Q: What are the main qualities required of a chair?
Emmerson says it must be someone with absolute independence from the executive, and demonstrable ability to hold the executive to account. They must have very considerable forensic skills. They must be passionate about the need to bring justice to survivors, and to scourge the establishment. They must have the imagination to see that this is a once in a lifetime opportunity to address this issue. And they need real courage.
“You need someone with absolute independence from the executive, the ability to hold the executive and institutions to account, very significant forensic skills… to analyse vast quantities of information, to penetrate deep into the institutions that have failed survivors over the years, someone passionate about the need to bring justice to victims and survivors … the inspiration … the imagination to realise that society … has a once in a lifetime opportunity to address decades and decades of abuse, and draw a line. Someone with real courage.”
Q: And how long should the inquiry last? We’ve been told five years. "
So it will take 5 years, and they have no clue what they are doing.
The only hope is that the ongoing police investigations find something, because this enquiry will not.
I tend to agree with you.
I am also very nervous about Emmerson's comments which read as if the narrative of what the inquiry will find has already been written. It is a lot easier to say that some institution in the historic past was responsible, rather than that specific individuals did or omitted to do specific things on specific dates. If everyone is to blame, then no-one is to blame.
Is this inquiry merely about drawing lines under the past or is it about changes to ways of operating now?
If it is the latter, then frankly the panel seems ill-equipped to make those decisions. The panel is stuffed full of people who are obsessed about child abuse It is unlikely that they are going to see and understand other competing policy objectives and be willing and able to see where balances need to be struck.
One problem with public inquiries as a tool of policy-making is that it is very hard for governments to reject their conclusions but no-one whose interest lies outside of the subject matter of the inquiry gets a hearing.
Butler-Sloss made her reputation in the Cleveland inquiry. Children had been taken into care by social workers and doctors who were applying very tendentious theories about child abuse. She decided that in most cases the alleged abuse (which in many cases was being denied by the alleged victims) had never happened. The passage of time has supported the conclusions she reached.
However she went on to advise on how to prevent this happening again. Her solution was to throw lots of very expensive, and very senior, lawyers at the problem. As a result the cost of protecting children has spiralled out of control. Much of the budget for child protection is spent on the legal process rather than on social workers. The cost is a deterrent to local authorities taking action. The cost of care proceedings has been one of the reasons for legal aid cutbacks under both the last and the present government.
However no one was giving evidence to Butler-Sloss to say that we couldn't afford what she was proposing. We needed to do something cheaper even if it was less perfect.
Something similar happened after Soham. The inquiry recommended a level of surveillance of the public working with children and the dissemination of tittle-tattle that the public eventually found unacceptable on civil liberties grounds and for the impact on the numbers willing to volunteer. Again, no- one made these points to the inquiry.
Another example is the bureaucracy created after the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry to monitor racial issues in the Met. The evidence before the inquiry was to the effect either that the Met had no problems or that it did have problems that should be addressed by a panoply of red tape. No one told truth to power by saying the Met had a problem, many of the proposed methods of dealing with that problem would reduce the effectiveness of the Met as a crime fighting force, that as members of ethnic minorities were disproportionately the victims of crime, the effect of addressing the problem in the ways proposed would bear hardest on them. It has taken until the financial cuts under the present government to scale back that bureaucracy.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by nulli tertius
Nonsense.
I said that the rumours are that the serving judiciary wouldn't touch it and there wouldn't have been many people interested in a role that looked potentially endless.
I do not have any information beyond that. My guess, but this is pure speculation, is that the Home Office approached a lot of people, and she was the first one who said "yes". I would be very surprised if she came top of a shortlist in a normal, though private, recruitment competition. I would also be surprised if hers was the first shoulder tapped.
I said that the rumours are that the serving judiciary wouldn't touch it and there wouldn't have been many people interested in a role that looked potentially endless.
I do not have any information beyond that. My guess, but this is pure speculation, is that the Home Office approached a lot of people, and she was the first one who said "yes". I would be very surprised if she came top of a shortlist in a normal, though private, recruitment competition. I would also be surprised if hers was the first shoulder tapped.
I see the lord chief justice has blocked Theresa May from having any serving judge to chair, too controversial.
Original post by nulli tertius
Woolf is her married name. She is a member of the Church of England. I did wonder if there was a Jewish connection on her husband's side. There is no obvious sign of any connection to either Harry Woolf the former LCJ or Leonard Woolf the husband of Virginia (who are descended from different Jewish immigrants) and he doesn't seem to be connected to any Jewish organisations. He is trustee of an eye hospital in Jerusalem but that is linked to the Christian Order of St John.
Woolf is her married name. She is a member of the Church of England. I did wonder if there was a Jewish connection on her husband's side. There is no obvious sign of any connection to either Harry Woolf the former LCJ or Leonard Woolf the husband of Virginia (who are descended from different Jewish immigrants) and he doesn't seem to be connected to any Jewish organisations. He is trustee of an eye hospital in Jerusalem but that is linked to the Christian Order of St John.
Original post by n00
I see the lord chief justice has blocked Theresa May from having any serving judge to chair, too controversial.
Initially or now?
That shows there is something flawed with the inquiry. An inquiry into the perpetrators of, possible concealers of and those who negligently failed to prevent, what undoubtedly would be serious crime, would normally seem to be bread and butter for a judge.
Go on then i'll bite, whats the relevance?
I do not think there is any. Given that Woolf is well known Jewish name I wondered if the link to Brittan was through her husband's (possible) religion. It is a speculation that went nowhere.
Original post by nulli tertius
n00 has drawn attention to these allegations
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/top-tory-leon-brittan-photographed-5037869#ICID=sharebar_twitter
which apart from the fact that they concern Brittan are entirely distinct from these allegations:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/westminster-paedophile-ring-abuse-victims-4638748
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/top-tory-leon-brittan-photographed-5037869#ICID=sharebar_twitter
which apart from the fact that they concern Brittan are entirely distinct from these allegations:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/westminster-paedophile-ring-abuse-victims-4638748
Leon Brittan is connected to the murders and bodies found near elm guest house. And the abuse too
Original post by nulli tertius
Initially or now?
I have learnt from a reliable source that Theresa May’s plans to appoint two highly qualified women judges on the short list to chair the Child Sex Abuse inquiry have been blocked by Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, Lord Chief Justice.
She originally wanted Lady Hale, who is deputy president of the Supreme Court or Lady Hallett, a senior court of appeal, as a preferred candidate for the post.
Lady Hallett turned down the post previously as it is likely to sit for five years and she is a potential candidate for the lord chief justice’s job in the future.
Lady Hale may have been more interested but the lord Chief Justice is not keen to spare Supreme court judges because of the growing case load of the court.
I understand however that Lord Thomas has told colleagues that he wants no serving judge to chair the inquiry. Evidently the controversy surrounding the inquiry panel and its appointments has made him think the judiciary should steer well clear of it.
She originally wanted Lady Hale, who is deputy president of the Supreme Court or Lady Hallett, a senior court of appeal, as a preferred candidate for the post.
Lady Hallett turned down the post previously as it is likely to sit for five years and she is a potential candidate for the lord chief justice’s job in the future.
Lady Hale may have been more interested but the lord Chief Justice is not keen to spare Supreme court judges because of the growing case load of the court.
I understand however that Lord Thomas has told colleagues that he wants no serving judge to chair the inquiry. Evidently the controversy surrounding the inquiry panel and its appointments has made him think the judiciary should steer well clear of it.
https://davidhencke.wordpress.com/2015/01/28/lord-chief-justice-blocks-theresa-may-from-appointing-serving-judges-to-child-sex-abuse-inquiry/
Original post by nulli tertius
Initially or now?
That shows there is something flawed with the inquiry. An inquiry into the perpetrators of, possible concealers of and those who negligently failed to prevent, what undoubtedly would be serious crime, would normally seem to be bread and butter for a judge.
That shows there is something flawed with the inquiry. An inquiry into the perpetrators of, possible concealers of and those who negligently failed to prevent, what undoubtedly would be serious crime, would normally seem to be bread and butter for a judge.
It's very odd. Why wouldn't it be judge-led?
I detect a circling of the establishment wagons to prevent the whole thing. Clearly some of the names to be named can never reach public ears. Royalty perhaps? We can all think of at least one plausible royal name with what seemed to be a very close relationship with Savile. Given what we know, that is suspicious in itself.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
It's very odd. Why wouldn't it be judge-led?
I detect a circling of the establishment wagons to prevent the whole thing. Clearly some of the names to be named can never reach public ears. Royalty perhaps? We can all think of at least one plausible royal name with what seemed to be a very close relationship with Savile. Given what we know, that is suspicious in itself.
I detect a circling of the establishment wagons to prevent the whole thing. Clearly some of the names to be named can never reach public ears. Royalty perhaps? We can all think of at least one plausible royal name with what seemed to be a very close relationship with Savile. Given what we know, that is suspicious in itself.
ermmm remind me ?
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- The Fast Food Restaurants Hurt/Heal game
- English books set in Japan/China for NEA English Literature A-Level
- What is the best/ worst Christmas present you've ever received?
- Im broke af and i need a job
- Places to chill at Guy’s Campus
- Blur Vs Oasis
- what are the top 5 hatchbacks to buy
- Scholarships
- Can I quote an acronym for a swear word in a history essay?
- Who else is happy that their GCSE's are finished?!
- Maine **** cats
- Name a boy's name which starts with the last letter of the above name
- Make it More Japanese Food-ey !!
- AQA 1L (quest for political stability; Germany)
- Inheritance
- Make it More American State-ey !!
- Book quotes
- Make it More Egg-ey !!
- posting gcse certificates / art coursework online
- Called rude and disrespectful by the ward manager, in front of a staff huddle
Latest
Last reply 11 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 44 minutes ago
Official University of Edinburgh Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 56 minutes ago
Official UCL Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 1 hour ago
Virgin/O2 Technology Placement - Virtual Assessment and embarrassing questionLast reply 1 hour ago
What games did everybody play on their computers at school or when they were youngerGaming
11
Trending
Last reply 13 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 16 hours ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 18 hours ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 13 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 16 hours ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 18 hours ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
