Fiona Woolf Must Go !

No one can accuse me of being the boy who cried Woolf. I had written that Fiona Woolf should be given a chance.

She’s had that chance. She IS too close to Leon Brittan. She must go.

Fiona Woolf is now a liability, she now stands in the way of any successful inquiry.

There are other concerns that I have in the light of yesterday’s Home Affairs Select Committee meeting.

It looks like the chair has absolutely no control over this inquiry process. It looks like it is being driven by the Home Office with Fiona Woolf just being a convenient, and generally absent from the UK, figurehead.

We learnt that it was the Home Office who had the final say on who was on the panel, Mrs Woolf hasn’t even expressed an opinion.

We learnt that the Inquiries head of secretariat is seconded from the Home Office.

We even learnt that the Home Office even helped draft her letter to the Home Secretary.

We learnt that this is not yet a formal full inquiry and is not able to compel anyone to provide evidence and yet it is still bound by the restrictions of a formal inquiry, in that it will only cover England and Wales. Jersey (Haut de la Garrene) Northern Ireland (Kincora) and the whole of Scotland will not be included.

Is this the ‘Overarching Child Abuse Inquiry’ that we were promised ?

Fiona Woolf must go and the sooner the better. Frankly, appointing someone at the beginning of September who has made it clear that they couldn’t get involved until mid November and isn’t due to report to parliament until after the general election next May is ridiculous.

It begins to look like Teresa May is deliberately trying to kick this into the long grass.




Filed under Abuse, News, Politics

21 responses to “Fiona Woolf Must Go !

  1. Pingback: Fiona Woolf Must Go ! | Alternative News Network

  2. sxjack

    T May hoped that Fiona Woolf would be able to talk her way through HASC’s questions. With apparent minimal preparatory work Mrs Woolf tried, but wasn’t able, to put on a convincing performance. That’s good. It proved what we all knew and was clear evidence of who’s behind the curtain, pulling the strings of this ‘independent’ #CSAInquiry. Start again, Mrs May. Listen to and act upon what survivors are asking for and you might just get it right.

  3. Anon

    Well you’ve certainly changed your tune Gojam !

    • “When my information changes, I change my mind. What do you do?” – John Maynard Keynes

      Yesterday, I discovered that Fiona Woolf had had 5 dinner parties with Leon Brittan. Since yesterday I’ve watched the HASC 3 times.

      Would you prefer that I stubbornly stuck to a position regardless of the new evidence ?

      • Sabre

        Too many people end up in entrenched positions. You are of course absolutely right, take a position on the available evidence and change that position without hesitation as soon as new evidence dictates.
        Should even more evidence emerge that dictates retaking a former position then that is what should be done.

  4. nuggy

    i wonder if there deliberately putting up unsuitable candidates to stall the inquiry.

  5. You are wrong and in any event she will not resign which will only add to further delay. There were no questions at PMQ’s this morning from Labour and the Shadow Home Sec chose a different subject for an emergency question session

    The Inquiry was never established as a CSA Inquiry but Hillsborough style ie documentation review but from what was said it is already migrating into something more akin to an CSA inquiry as longa s government provides the funding. Labour/Lib dems have not said they will fund the inquiry after the General Election and the Government may back down from outing up ongoing funding if there is continuing debate about who chairs.

    The chair is being given a traditional role unlike Leveson which became a one man act with the panel sidelined under pressure from the medial moguls and their lawyers

    Remember the saying Be careful what you wish for. If Woolf is driven o resign there will be no inquiry. We already know what there is to find!

  6. I am damn sure there is someone suitably qualified from say, the Scandinavian countries, that speaks perfect English who has no connections whatsoever to the British establishment who could do the job. One cannot help think that, that’s the last thing that May and the current government actually wants and that they are consistently appointing people they feel are “onside” and won’t ask too many difficult questions let alone, demand a larger remit.

    A simple statement along the lines of the following would , in my humble opinion , make a huge difference.

    “Given the level of and quantity of the accusations levelled at current and historical executives and members of all British Political parties, the Judiciary, the Law Enforcement and Intelligence agencies, the current legislative feels that, to have any genuine credibility with the wider British public and give those who have obviously suffered great trauma confidence in the whole procedure we have to seek someone to chair the committee who has absolutely no connection to those who might well find themselves under investigation. As such, we have decided to seek help from outside of this country and appoint a person from another EU country. All those candidates for consideration for the post will of course, have an extensive knowledge of the English language. We hope that, by doing so that, the British public will understand how seriously we are taking this investigation and furthermore that, should evidence come to light that those involved in decision making at the highest levels were somehow complicit in ignoring or actually encouraging illegal activities then, any evidence pertaining to such activities will be presented to the British Public”

  7. gw

    Agreed. Totally unsuitable. Like her predecessor I gave her the benefit of the doubt however it is verging on the ridiculous now!

    BBC reports that a legal challenge has been filed:

  8. dpack

    able to do the job if one does have good intent is not the same as being seen as able to do the job .
    defining the nature of this inquiry is a big part of the problem in that some want it to be historic and limited to local administrative errors etc and some want it to be have a much broader agenda and to account for the deliberate disregard of child protection for a variety of reasons .

    i was willing to reserve judgement and know her by her works but any real inquiry into such matters needs a broader acceptance of it’s decency than my hope it will be honest if it is to do a proper job .

    i dont know what to suggest

  9. dpack

    scandinavia might seem a possible source of a chair but some are pro nato,some are hambro,some are royalty(dickie had a big role in reinventing a well known scandinavian royal house ) etc etc .
    maybe a perfect inquiry chair in this context is impossible ,im not sure a jury would be the right model either .

    maybe somebody random from a pool of capable folk is the best option but that is not likely .

    i am trying to ignore the idea that the first two options have been presented in order to get rejected because the implication of that is that other means will be required to establish truth and justice .

    • gw

      Think all this talk of getting a Scandivanian is over-complicating it somewhat. All’s I want is

      – not a friend/acquaintance of the Brittans
      – not someone who hasn’t covered up CSA for fear of hurting the church

      That’s it!

  10. Busy Bee

    So is she going to investigate Sheffield abuse and the South Yorks Police as BBC today. Will she also investigate the London carehome girls being raped by officers, being used for gun running, drug mules by the same officers? Paperwork…oh yeh !

  11. dpack

    the economy of recollection regarding the date of her last meeting with mrs b might be a deal breaker

    she has lost my “let’s see if she is decent and honest”

  12. GMB

    Has Fiona Woolf been given the names of the people under current and ongoing Metropolitan Police Operations who have been identified in MG11 statements as child abusers? If not, why not?

    • I doubt it. She’s been out of the country for most of the last year and seemed extremely incurious about the Wanless/Whitham report which the HO now have.

  13. GMB

    Sorry, perhaps accused instead of identified. Surely she can be trusted to kept those names secret, she is afterall a Lawyer.

  14. GMB

    Not the Wanless report going up to the HA select committee? The same report that states the files cannot be found.

  15. GMB

    I have been told it is a very short report. Not Peters fault.