Longcol Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 Why should it have anything to do with Mecky's post..? Just read the thread from about #474. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 I see that government is trying to do exactly what I said it would do - Merge the whole issue of child abuse into one big enquiry so the effect of it can be watered down and possibly be used in targeted political attacks to their own advantage. We have already seen two people who have already had to quit because of their links to the establishment. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31449341 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bloom Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 (edited) How are the police getting on, since they've announced months ago that they have witnesses to murders relating to the Westminster paedophile ring? It's all gone quiet? Why? Nearing election time? How long are we waiting for? Until they are all dead? I understand a 91 year old former teacher has got sentenced today - so what's the difference? We need new laws in place now, that if justice is withheld from individuals, then those responsible for cover ups are punishable by the law for denying or delaying justice to victims, whether that be Hillsborough, Rotherham, Westminster, or any other crime. And if video tapes/computers/files are lost etc - then this should incur an extra two years for those involved in the cover ups - I'm sure then a lot of these 'lost' materials might suddenly come to light. Edited February 13, 2015 by Mr Bloom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 We need new laws in place now, that if justice is withheld from individuals, then those responsible for cover ups are punishable by the law for denying or delaying justice to victims, whether that be Hillsborough, Rotherham, Westminster, or any other crime. And if video tapes/computers/files are lost etc - then this should incur an extra two years for those involved in the cover ups - I'm sure then a lot of these 'lost' materials might suddenly come to light. The common law crimes "perverting the course of justice" and "conspiring to pervert the course of justice" would suffice IMHO. The maximum sentence is life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bloom Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 The common law crimes "perverting the course of justice" and "conspiring to pervert the course of justice" would suffice IMHO. The maximum sentence is life. So, for instance, Thatcher was aware of Hayman's activities, and basically 'buried' it, so could she have been prosecuted under this law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 So, for instance, Thatcher was aware of Hayman's activities, and basically 'buried' it, so could she have been prosecuted under this law? IMHO quite possibly - concealing evidence can be classed as "perverting the course of justice" - when Jeffrey Archer was convicted of perverting the course of justice, part of this was down to concealing his diary. "R v Archer [2003] 1 Cr. App. R. (S) 86 Appellant was the plaintiff in libel proceedings arising from newspaper allegations that he had had sexual intercourse with a prostitute. Convicted following trial on four counts and sentenced as follows: Perverting the course of justice by procuring a false alibi - two years imprisonment. Perverting the course of justice by concealing the existence of a diary, providing his secretary with a blank diary and details to fill in, and using it as genuine - four years imprisonment. Perjury by falsely swearing an affidavit about documents in his possession - three years imprisonment. Perjury that the diary was in existence and contained certain entries - four years imprisonment." http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/perverting_the_course_of_justice/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted February 14, 2015 Author Share Posted February 14, 2015 So, for instance, Thatcher was aware of Hayman's activities, and basically 'buried' it, so could she have been prosecuted under this law? Maybe. But this government has been busy putting all sorts of legislation in place to now make this very unlikely. All they have to do is invoke the 'anti-terrorism' law and the secret courts, and we wouldn't know anything about it. Let's not forget that the Speaker of the House of Commons (George Martin?) tried to invoke anti-terrorism laws to hush up the MPs expenses scandal. It didn't work then, but much has been put in place since. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 Maybe. But this government has been busy putting all sorts of legislation in place to now make this very unlikely. All they have to do is invoke the 'anti-terrorism' law and the secret courts, and we wouldn't know anything about it. Let's not forget that the Speaker of the House of Commons (George Martin?) tried to invoke anti-terrorism laws to hush up the MPs expenses scandal. It didn't work then, but much has been put in place since. I've just tried to google this and can't find anything about anyone trying to use anti-terrorism laws during the expenses scandal - for example here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_parliamentary_expenses_scandal Got any sources to evidence your claims? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted February 14, 2015 Author Share Posted February 14, 2015 I've just tried to google this and can't find anything about anyone trying to use anti-terrorism laws during the expenses scandal - for example here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_parliamentary_expenses_scandal Got any sources to evidence your claims? Sorry, my mistake. The former Speaker of the house of commons at the time of the expenses scandal was Michael Martin, (not George.) Wikipedia has a page in his name and he also features in 'United Hingdom parliamentary expenses scandal' page, as well as others but I haven't had time to read them all. Nearest I got was 'he raised objections' and obstructed enquiries. But I do remember the 'anti-terrorists' claim being used as a cover up and attributed to him in the papers. He was sacked through a vote of no-confidence (first speaker to be sacked since 1600 and something...) But that didn't stop him being elevated to the House of Lords as Baron somebody-or-other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 Sorry, my mistake. The former Speaker of the house of commons at the time of the expenses scandal was Michael Martin, (not George.) Wikipedia has a page in his name and he also features in 'United Hingdom parliamentary expenses scandal' page, as well as others but I haven't had time to read them all. Nearest I got was 'he raised objections' and obstructed enquiries. But I do remember the 'anti-terrorists' claim being used as a cover up and attributed to him in the papers. I think perhaps you're getting mixed up with the "Freedom of Information Act". "Martin was also criticised at the same time for trying to block the publication of details of MPs' £5m-a-year travel expenses under the Freedom of Information Act." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Martin,_Baron_Martin_of_Springburn#Personal_expenses 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