Anna B Posted February 2, 2015 Author Share Posted February 2, 2015 Well it shouldn't be hard to post links to the threats to newspaper proprietors and journalists. Are these coming from the papers themselves or is it the usual chinese whispers we see on conspiracy theory sites when a post "I wouldn't be surprised if...." becomes hard fact within a few hours. As if they'd try to lean on Murdoch..................... The journalist in question was Don Hale of the Bury Messanger, who had received incriminating documents from friend Barbara Castle MP. He was pinned up against a wall and threatened, his offices searched, and the files removed. This is the link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2697947/chilling-day-special-branch-swooped-seize-ANOTHER-dossier-VIP-abusers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 The journalist in question was Don Hale of the Bury Messanger, who had received incriminating documents from friend Barbara Castle MP. He was pinned up against a wall and threatened, his offices searched, and the files removed. This is the link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2697947/chilling-day-special-branch-swooped-seize-ANOTHER-dossier-VIP-abusers That one allegation is for 30 years ago - so any paper been leant on recently given the huge volume of reporting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted February 2, 2015 Author Share Posted February 2, 2015 That one allegation is for 30 years ago - so any paper been leant on recently given the huge volume of reporting? Who knows? You're never satisfied are you. You asked for a link, I supplied it. I'm sure all these people, (and there are many) would be happy to stand up and have their day in court, putting themselves and their stories up for public scrutiny, indeed from what I've read, they would welcome it. But will they ever get the chance, that's the point. At the moment they're struggling to even get an enquiry off the ground, and that's not subject to the same rules as a trial. so that is a long way off, and may never happen. In the mean time they have to listen to people like yourself dismissing what is possibly the most life changing and important event in their lives, as mere 'speculation.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 Who knows? You're never satisfied are you. You asked for a link, I supplied it. You found one - your earlier post said proprietors and reporters implying more than one. I find Hale's story odd - Cyril Smith was a member of a very small party - 17 seats back then - he never held any sort of office apart from Liberal Chief Whip. I'd be hugely surprised that he would have that sort of influence - remember the previous year Cecil Parkinson had been forced to resign from the Tory cabinet over the Sarah Keays affair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted February 2, 2015 Author Share Posted February 2, 2015 You found one - your earlier post said proprietors and reporters implying more than one. I find Hale's story odd - Cyril Smith was a member of a very small party - 17 seats back then - he never held any sort of office apart from Liberal Chief Whip. I'd be hugely surprised that he would have that sort of influence - remember the previous year Cecil Parkinson had been forced to resign from the Tory cabinet over the Sarah Keays affair. Sorry, not with you. What do you mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Ladd Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 No, I never like Keith Vaz and he doesn't suit the role of a Labour politician IMO; he comes across as a nasty person to me and would be more at home on the right Funny that, I always liked him, could never see why he hooked up with the lefties. He will cross the floor eventually. Really nice chap by the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 (edited) Well here is one file that is finally seeing the light of day. The existence of the file was revealed by Sky News last month. On Friday the Cabinet Office announced it had reviewed the decision to keep the file secret beyond the standard 30-year deadline and was releasing it to the National Archives in Kew. A preview of the file was issued to the media. Why did it take Sky News to reveal the existence of the file? Surely the Cabinet Office should be doing all it can to find and disclose all evidence of paedophile activity without prompting from the media. Edited February 3, 2015 by taxman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 The existence of the file was revealed by Sky News last month. Nothing like Sky keeping up to date on the matter is there when I knew about it 25-30 years ago. I mean. this thread is over 2 years old Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted February 5, 2015 Author Share Posted February 5, 2015 (edited) The child sex abuse enquiry has at last found a new head to lead it. She is 66 year old New Zealander, High Court Judge Justice Lowell Goddard QC. She was chosen from 150 possible candidates after officials gave her the all clear over inflamatory claims that she had covered up alleged misconduct by a judge following an extortion case in 1994. At the time she was New Zealand's deputy Solicitor General. There were also unsubstantiated claims that she had 'covered up serious complaints' while chairman of New Zealand's Independent Police Conduct Authority. However abuse victims said they were 'comfortable' there had been no wrongdoing. She was also married in 1969 to an influential member of the British aristocracy and landowner, Sir Walter John Scott, 5th Baronet of Beauclerc, but they are now divorced. She is due in Britain in the next few days to attend a 'pre-appointment hearing' before MPs on Wednesday. Mrs May (Home Secretary,) also said she was scrapping the existing panel and reconstituting it as a new statutory enquiry with the power to compel witnesses to give evidence. Ben Emmerson QC will stay on as counsel to the inquiry - a vote of confidence after bullying allegations made against him by a member of the former panel. The new enquiry can look back on cases earlier than 1970. It is due to take longer than 12 months to report back, but Mrs May said 'it must not be allowed to go on endlessly.' New files that could expose historical abuse have been discovered, Mrs May said yesterday. The Cabinet office had re-examined its records and found a 'small number' of additional documents, after a separate file about the paedophile government minister, Sir Peter Hayman, was unearthed at the National Archives last month. On a personal note, can I just add that an enquiry is not a trial. All sorts of restrictions apply. As with the enquiries into Hillsborough, Princess Diana, Dr Kelly etc. they are no guarantee of getting to the truth. Although certain witnesses can be summoned to give evidence, other witnesses have no right to give their side of it unless summoned. Lets hope this gives the victims some peace. Edited February 5, 2015 by Anna B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 The child sex abuse enquiry has at last found a new head to lead it. She is 66 year old New Zealander, High Court Judge Justice Lowell Goddard QC. She was chosen from 150 possible candidates after officials gave her the all clear over inflamatory claims that she had covered up alleged misconduct by a judge following an extortion case in 1994. At the time she was New Zealand's deputy Solicitor General. There were also unsubstantiated claims that she had 'covered up serious complaints' while chairman of New Zealand's Independent Police Conduct Authority. However abuse victims said they were 'comfortable' there had been no wrongdoing. She was also married in 1969 to an influential member of the British aristocracy and landowner, Sir Walter John Scott, 5th Baronet of Beauclerc, but they are now divorced. She is due in Britain in the next few days to attend a 'pre-appointment hearing' before MPs on Wednesday. Mrs May (Home Secretary,) also said she was scrapping the existing panel and reconstituting it as a new statutory enquiry with the power to compel witnesses to give evidence. Ben Emmerson QC will stay on as counsel to the inquiry - a vote of confidence after bullying allegations made against him by a member of the former panel. The new enquiry can look back on cases earlier than 1970. It is due to take longer than 12 months to report back, but Mrs May said 'it must not be allowed to go on endlessly.' New files that could expose historical abuse have been discovered, Mrs May said yesterday. The Cabinet office had re-examined its records and found a 'small number' of additional documents, after a separate file about the paedophile government minister, Sir Peter Hayman, was unearthed at the National Archives last month. On a personal note, can I just add that an enquiry is not a trial. All sorts of restrictions apply. As with the enquiries into Hillsborough, Princess Diana, Dr Kelly etc. they are no guarantee of getting to the truth. Although certain witnesses can be summoned to give evidence, other witnesses have no right to give their side of it unless summoned. Lets hope this gives the victims some peace. Wouldn't she be part of the NZ establishment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now