Why I Believe Jim Gamble Should Chair The CSA Inquiry.


What a mess!

What an appalling and horrendous mess!

Following the announcement in July by the Home Secretary Teresa May of an ‘overarching and independent inquiry into child abuse’ there was a sense of momentum, a feeling of optimism, and a sense of trust that finally the horrible truth about child sexual abuse in UK institutions over many decades and allegations of establishment complicity and even involvement would at last be exposed.

That momentum has been lost, that optimism has been worn down, that trust has been squandered.

At the time of writing this, Fiona Woolf is still chair of the Inquiry but I doubt anyone would suggest that she will be for much longer. She will be the second chairperson to forced to resign due to conflicted  links to those involved in issues that will almost certainly need to be looked at by the CSA Inquiry.

But the suitability of the chair alone is not the only concern that many have. This supposedly ‘independent’ inquiry appears to have had significant Home Office involvement. From the selection of the panel, providing Home Office staff to serve as the Inquiry’s secretariat, to even revising and redrafting Fiona Woolf’s public letter to the Home Secretary, the Home Office’s fingerprints are all over this. If the CSA Inquiry had made significant progress in the last couple of months then perhaps that wouldn’t have mattered but the entire process is stalled and questions are starting to be asked whether it was the intention of the Home Office all along to ‘sponsor’ a stalled, flawed, and impotent inquiry.

It is now abundantly clear that if this Inquiry is to be salvaged it is going to need decisive, independent and professional leadership and that is why I believe that Jim Gamble, the formerly the chief executive of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) and more recently, since  he resigned in October 2010 after the Home Secretary Theresa May’s money saving decision to merge CEOP with SOCA and other bodies into a new National Crime Agency, he has continued to actively promote child safeguarding.

There are many great potential candidates who might credibly take over the chairmanship of the CSA Inquiry but very few, like Jim Gamble, could walk into a Home Affairs Select Committee meeting  tomorrow and demonstrate a broad understanding of the complexity, scope, and sensitivity of the issues involved.

Simon Danzuk MP has suggested that someone from inside the panel should be promoted to chair but I sincerely disagree because the effect of this recent Home Office debacle has been to  undermine to a greater or lesser degree all those connected to it. I would not expect to see an entirely new panel but I would hope to see a new uncontaminated chairperson accompanied by a panel that can provide balance and oversight.

Brian Moore would be an excellent addition to the panel.

Why ?


And to be frank, not accepting bollocks right now, after Home Office civil servants have been tinkering, is an essential qualification.

A well respected professional journalist would also add weight, required skill sets, and balance to the panel.

It is impossible for a chairman and a panel to be selected which will be supported by every survivor. Child sexual abuse is extremely personal and traumatic and the individual survivor is the only person that can express how they feel and that is why survivors will need a voice in this process. Every survivor must be given the opportunity to give testimony to this inquiry. Whether it is in private or in public, written or oral, whether in their own names or anonymously, that should be their choice but everyone should be given the chance if they wish.

I personally believe that Jim Gamble can rescue this travesty of an inquiry and deliver the answers that everyone wants. I believe he will deliver the clear leadership and independence which will give survivors confidence in the CSA Inquiry as a whole.



Filed under Personal

23 responses to “Why I Believe Jim Gamble Should Chair The CSA Inquiry.

  1. Pingback: Why I Believe Jim Gamble Should Chair The CSA Inquiry. | Alternative News Network

  2. Bishop Brightly

    Unfortunately the whole thing is now obviously a stalling sham, to continue the cover up and then for the press and politicians to forget it as the election looms.

    My own thought is that it will soon be time for people to just start publishing full accusations made to police with evidence to create a complete shit storm. I can’t see any other way fat Tories will be arrested amongst others.

  3. pongo

    Brian Moore, Brian Moore, Brian Moore, etc, etc, etc – very brave man, very honest man and a survivor of childhood abuse. Keep Woolfe IF Brian Moore is on the panel. As Lawrence of Arabia said on the retreating Turkish Army, “take no prisoners”. That fucker of a rugby player/man would do the same.

  4. Sabre

    Bishop, Pongo,
    I did say some time ago that the bastards would stall and cover up so why not just put it all out there.
    We should remember though that we are communicating via Gojam’s blog and he and we would be jointly and severally liable in regard to anything that becomes actionable, I am sure that Gojam is well able to moderate appropriately in respect of mitigating any liabilities as I’m sure that most of us understand the position too. Just thought it worth reminding everyone given that this sort of thing does get the blood up !

  5. dpack

    having now seen 2 serious conflicts of interest that did not bother the candidate (or who ever is proposing/vetting them) and the cynical development of a presentable legend for the second candidate i have no faith whatsoever in any “inquiry”organized by those who plenty to fear from the truth.

    2 attempts to pass off a person”compromised” in a way that would exclude them as judge ,lawyer or jury as an impartial chair strikes me as a deliberate attempt to discredit,delay,avoid or control this so called inquiry that goes beyond attempting to limit it in terms of date ,location and access to evidence .

    mr gamble might be a decent chap.
    this format would be very difficult for a decent chap to work with.

    perhaps these matters require a much stronger and truly broad approach.

  6. jan

    Sorry, I disagree, definitely not Jim Gamble.

    • Why ?

      I think you should explain rather than just make a statement like that.

      • sadpanda

        his involvement in the ongoing establishment-led McCann cover-up absolutely stinks of corruption. Google Jim Gamble CATS file. More recently he was one of the players in the establishment’s attempts to portray anyone who disbelieves the McCann’s version of events as a ‘troll’ which had tragic consequences (Brenda Leyland). He blindly promotes the Summers&Swan ‘looking for madeleine’ book which is so obviously an attempt to whitewash the truth (read the reviews on amazon, its quite pitiful how bad this book is). He is not who you think he is; be very, very careful when giving your support to somebody like this.

        IMO the establishment put forward two candidates for the historic child-abuse inquiry that they knew would not be credible. And now Gamble rides in to save the day!? he’s probably who they wanted from the outset.

      • ‘MacCann cover-up’ ??

        Is that your unhealthy obsession?

      • Sabre

        Once bitten twice shy (actually twice bitten thrice shy and counting !).

        The man is probably of the highest integrity and has been shown to be competent, however, SOCA/NCS/NCIS/RUC Special Branch the Man has obviously been positively vetted on a continuous basis, it isn’t even a conspiracy theory to label him a spook, he just isnt a hidden spook.

        Some of the worst excesses by the Security Services and their right hand men (Special Branch) have involved the ongoing troubles in Ulster.
        We’ve all heard about Kincora, Cahill was compromised re child abuse, did the Det break cover and rescue the kid, did they fuck, Cahill was obviously used to influence leaders of SF and the PIRA Council toward the Good Friday Agreement.

        As I asked in another thread, do people REALLY want to know?
        A child molested on the one hand the Good Friday Agreement on the other? A means to an end !

    • Sabre

      Sorry to butt in Jan, your objections may be different.

      I’m quite possibly wrong about Jim Gamble, the problem is who among those able to conduct an inquiry is worthy of trust?

      • dpack

        a third face of the same blackmail coin might be that the “brothel papers”were possibly used to influence “the brits” towards the good friday agreement(as well as for” insurance”).
        apart from that the analysis of the situation seems plausible .
        coins with at least 3 faces are truly byzantine.

        a chair or panel of a inquiry designed to conceal or collapse however decent or otherwise they may be is part of a process intended to avoid the truth becoming public and the guilty held to account.
        i was willing to give woolf opportunity to prove she was of good intent and impartial but i was mistaken as can be seen from the redrafts , that she could think her conflict of interests issues based on her first letter were insufficient to rule her unsuitable when she was first asked .that the home office /number ten etc persisted with an attempt to render her unsuitability invisible or irrelevant indicates that this “inquiry” is intended to be a whitewash.
        therefore the bone fides or mala fides of mr gamble (there are some decent spooks)would make no difference to the outcome which would be whitewash or collapse.

  7. artmanjosephgrech

    you don’t get it the Home Affairs Committee is one of the institutions with a vested interest in wrecking the Inquiry and the big mistake Woolf made or those who advised her was to go anywhere near the inquiry. The Home Sec has set a nice trap for Keith Vaz offering him the position as veto vetter given he is on the list of some survivors and Bloggers re the cover up.

    See the early day motion signed by 23 MPs already trying to rescue something however I cannot see them succeeding.

    .Remember there would have never been any police or political action without the Tom Watson PMQ and he told everyone to stay focused because of the plotting in Westminster and elsewhere to wreck the inquiry especially by the Labour leadership.

    PS did you know that Al-fayed wanted to put money into the People’s Tribunal and Liz Davies was against any survivor involvement in the Home Sec Inquiry

  8. Sabre

    The fact that Home Office officials and an ‘Independent Chairman’ effectively collaborated on 7 drafts of a supposedly one way communication says it all really. No?

    • dpack

      the redrafting is a bit like a head teacher forging the kid’s sats test answers .

      • Sabre

        It’s exactly like the Permanent Secretary writing the letter he wants the Minister to receive on behalf of the ‘Independent Chairman’ who should be the sole author. In short a corrupt practice and on its face evidence of rigging.

  9. IWTT

    I also agree that Jim Gamble is NOT an appropriate choice for Chair, panel or adviser. There is evidence coming through on GripTweets to show that he was in touch (assisting?) the people making the dossier of alleged trolls. That dossier was given to Sky News and acted upon by Martin Brunt which led to the death of Brenda Leyland. Anyone working in the public domain, for the public can’t get involved in niche cliques or personal campaigns. Jim Gamble has therefore, IMO, compromised himself.

    • These ‘alleged trolls’ are people who have cruelly used their perceived right to free speech to persecute the McCanns online ?

      Parents make mistakes. Cameron left his daughter in a pub, few have not had the heart stopping moment when their child runs toward a road or the cold fear one feels when they notice that their child is standing too close to a pond and might fall in. There is panic and every parent knows how that panic feels. It is a cold numbing dread and even after you’ve reassured yourself that your child is OK the sickening feeling in your stomache goes sour with guilt for that moment of inattention. It’s truly horrible and every parent knows how it feels.

      Thankfully, very few parents ever have to suffer the dreadful consequences that the McCanns have and have to live with them every day and even fewer have to put up with the horrible public treatment they have.

      Those ‘alleged trolls’ do not have the moral high ground that they think they do. The overwhelming majority of the public are appalled by it.

      They should get a life. It’s an extremely unhealthy and cruel obsession and they are deluded if they think otherwise.

      PS, I’ve noticed that some of these ‘alleged trolls’ are even now suggesting that I’m in fact Jim Gamble myself. As I said they are totally deluded.

  10. IWTT

    Firstly, I do NOT think that you and Jim Gamble are the same person.

    I can tell you categorically that I will NEVER have contact with Jim Gamble as I have never trusted him since 2007 when his CEOP website asked for all holiday photos from PDL should be sent to them to support the Madeleine McCann case – and no photos have been released since.

    (I know for a fact that over 5,000 photos were sent by Mumsnetters and friends. Jane Tanner herself was a Mumsnet poster – I won’t give you her user name)

    Secondly, the use of the word “troll” is over-used and mis-used. Just because a person disagrees with an opinion does not make them a ‘cyber troll’. I am concerned that the government is attempting to limit free speech and opinion by increasing the custodial sentence to 2 years.

    We should all remember what happened to Brenda Leyland. She was told by Martin Brunt that Scotland Yard were investigating her. I noted that she went off in the 4×4 with her friend (she was the passenger) and on her return, she invited Martin Brunt into her house without cameras.

    What happened? What was suggested to her – during that in private conversation?

    Thirdly, of course parents make mistakes. Nobody delivers a baby with a manual. However, although I am not a birth mother, I have never left my step-daughter, my niece or nephew alone without them being in my ‘eye contact’. I do think it is that simple!

    My Little Nephew lost his Daddy at aged 6.5 yrs so is a lone child. His Mum and I worked with him with walkie-talkies to give him confidence whilst he had the dog walking alongside of him. We wanted Little Nephew to have independence but security at the same time.

    In all the years I have looked after Little Nephew, I have never taken my eye off the child-caring responsibilities.

    I don’t wish ill on the McCanns – I just simply don’t understand their decision to leave children alone in Apartment 5A over 6 nights. I have never done it with my LN – nor could I think of a parent in my circle who could have done it.

    I hope that Gojam will allow this post.

    • Of course I’ll allow your post.

      We’ve both put our view across and I hope we can respect each others positions, even if we do not agree with them

  11. IWTT

    I have to concur with your remark about the Camerons leaving their baby in a pub.

    My Mum had 9 children (and I am sure she must have suffered from ‘baby brain’ which was not recognised). One day, after taking 4 infants/toddlers and a baby in a pram to the shops, she came home with the 4 infants/toddlers. My Dad asked her where the baby was …..then there was a frantic 2 mile run by my Dad to get back to the shops Mam had visited. The pram was still parked outside of Uptons store where Mam had left it. My little brother was safe and unharmed – still sleeping soundly!

    But you can imagine the tears and worry when we thought Mam had ‘lost’ our little baby brother.