VIP paedophile ring

[Obelix]

Here's the OSA 1920: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/10-11/75/contents

Its substantive provisions all seem to apply to "...any person..."

 

Silly of me. I'd assume your be using the 1989 act myself.

[Anna B]

Whistleblowers don't have a very happy time of it, and I don't believe they've broken any laws, have they?

[Obelix]

Whistleblowers don't have a very happy time of it, and I don't believe they've broken any laws, have they?

 

Official Secrets Act 1989 section 5...

[Anna B]

Official Secrets Act 1989 section 5...

 

OK, if you say so.

 

But don't you think it is right that certain iniquities should be brought to the attention of the public?

The situation at the Staffordshire hospital for example?

 

Of course, we shouldn't need whistleblowers, but we clearly do.

[redfox]

Its all very interesting the discussion about the OSA and maybe a few will be surprised as to its terms and how wide it is drafted -

 

I posted a link to the Judge's explanation for her standing down (no mention in it of her inability to deal with applications made to her in the course of the inquiry - and the view of many she was out of her depth in terms of her legal experience /knowledge) because it sets out the ludicrous scope of the investigation and the rather obvious lack of resource being allocated to it - which was not something that could be said of the Hillsborough inquiry.

 

You either do it properly or not at all.

[Harrystottle]

The job of chair of the committee? He was elected.

 

He certainly was, but Harriet Harman made sure that he was the only candidate!

[Santo]

He certainly was, but Harriet Harman made sure that he was the only candidate!

 

Wrong.

 

http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2015/june/winning-candidates-for-select-committee-chairs-announced/

 

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/committee-chair-election-results.pdf

[the_bloke]

That is true. There are exceptions. But the point I`m making is that the investigation into Leon Brittan and others linked to him in the so called "nick" inquiry seems, after all this time with no hard evidence, like a smear campaign.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37912886

 

'The review found 43 failings in Operation Midland, including believing the complainant, a man known as "Nick", for too long; one officer announcing that Nick's claims were "credible and true"; and applying for search warrants with flawed information.

 

The Met have confirmed that Nick is now being investigated for allegedly attempting to pervert the course of justice.

 

Sir Richard said: "The principal cause of the many failures in this investigation was poor judgement and a failure to accurately evaluate known facts and to react to them.'

 

Be interesting to see if 'Nick' is ever charged with anything.

[Flanker7]

Do we get to know the 'known facts'?

 

The Police were slated for not taking any notice of victims.

The Police are slated for taking notice of victim(s).

 

On the balance of successful prosecutions to inquiries dropped. I would prefer the first situation.

[Anna B]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37912886

 

'The review found 43 failings in Operation Midland, including believing the complainant, a man known as "Nick", for too long; one officer announcing that Nick's claims were "credible and true"; and applying for search warrants with flawed information.

 

The Met have confirmed that Nick is now being investigated for allegedly attempting to pervert the course of justice.

 

Sir Richard said: "The principal cause of the many failures in this investigation was poor judgement and a failure to accurately evaluate known facts and to react to them.'

 

Be interesting to see if 'Nick' is ever charged with anything.

 

I'll be very surprised if he is.

 

It seems to me that one of the main objectives has always been to keep the 'victims' out of court, and not let their voice be heard.

 

I'd like to read the whole report and see what the other 40 odd findings were.