I’m neither surprised or unsurprised by this statement by Northamptonshire Police and I absolutely accept that the force is investigating the Cyril Smith allegations with complete transparency, a point they are at pains to reassure the public on.
Obviously, it is always preferable if an allegation like this can be corroborated but if I’m candid there is such a catalogue of genuine and substantiated cases against Cyril Smith that the bigger picture isn’t really affected.
Still, it would be ideal if anyone who has information regarding this alleged incident could come forward.
Assistant Chief Constable Ivan Balhatchet said:
“On behalf of Northamptonshire Police, I would like to reassure everyone there is complete transparency in the investigation into the allegations that Cyril Smith was stopped in Northamptonshire with indecent images of children in the early 1980s.
“A thorough and far-reaching investigation by the Force’s Cold Case Team is continuing and we have been working with other forces involved in the wider investigation.
“We have actively spoken to the author of the book where the original claims were made and he and his co-author, and another journalist who has investigated Smith, have all been interviewed as witnesses.
“A large number of former and serving officers, who were serving in various ranks at the time of the alleged incident, and a member of police staff, have also been interviewed, and none can support the events alleged in Mr Danczuk’s book.
“We have also made enquiries with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and no archive CPS materials relating to the specific allegations can be found.
“As yet, no witnesses have been found in relation to these allegations, however, we are continuing to search our archives and have widened the scope of our witness search, which includes contacting the people who were chief officers at the time.
“The investigation will continue until all reasonable lines of enquiry have been exhausted and the public can be assured that further updates will be provided as soon as we are in a position to do so.”
theneedleblog 
Just to update anyone interested on this thread, IPSO have agreed that my complaint about factual inaccuracy and embellishment regarding http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3025076/EXPOSED-Liberals-offered-hush-money-hide-Cyril-Smith-s-abuse-MP-SIMON-DANCZUK-reveals-devastating-new-evidence-raises-deeply-troubling-questions-David-Steel-Nick-Clegg.html falls within their remit of investigation.
I will forward my email from IPSO to GoJam so that this statement can be verified
Thanks for the update, IWTT.
You may be in for a long wait, although some of their rulings seem to relate to fairly recent complaints, so who knows? Good luck with it, and please let us know how it turns out.
On a slightly related note…
Gojam, the truth-bomb that you were promising to detonate – result of a “two year investigation” – is now over two weeks late.
Are you having a “who has the longest blue touchpaper” competition with Exaro? Is poor old Roy Castle burning a hole in his tap-shoes as his little legs dance away in the background, waiting for the record-breaking attempt to complete?
Before he starts up on the trumpet, eh?
The following may be of interest to IWTT and/or other curious people and/or other people with curiosity:
http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/simon-danczuk-janner-smokescreen.html?m=1
Matt Baker revealed as the SOLE author of the book which also carries the name of Danczuk (a man whose employ Baker will shortly be leaving).
Also, the unquestioning acceptance of a ludicrous Danczuk assertion by Channel 4 News (similar to the BBC’s fawning over the fool).
IWTT already knew that MB wrote the book, as did I.
SD gets 50% of the royalties BUT 100% of the serialisation rights in newspapers.(Not a bad deal for a book that he didn’t write.)
Way ahead of me like always, Gojam – ho ho ho!
I think most sensible people believed it to be the case, but I’d never seen it expressly stated before. (Mind you, I didn’t go looking, largely because it seemed so obvious). Still, the man’s front is astonishing – misleading the press is one thing, lying to Parliament quite another.
eg. “11 July 2014, received £12,915, for the publication of excerpts from a book I co-wrote. Hours: approx. 24 hrs over 12 months. 1 (Registered 5 November 2014)”
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/24808/simon_danczuk/rochdale#register
That being said, keeping Baker busy with the Big Moneymaking Scam kept him out of other mischief:
“Mr Baker’s methods have at times been controversial, during the 2010 election campaign he was exposed as having a number of accounts on internet forums and using those accounts to support Mr Danczuk and attack his opponents and critics.”
On a totally unrelated note, are we any nearer to seeing your long overdue exposé of summat-or-other that was going to have even the police scrambling for cover?!? More “what a wait” than Watergate!
Yes, way way ahead of you.
Reblogged this on Armor Of God Foundation.
http://www.geopolitics.co/2015/03/11/hidden-history-of-the-incredibly-evil-khazarian-Mafia/
This article will no doubt join a few dots as to why child abuse is not dealt with in the manner in that it should be. Maybe the self confessed zionists have something to say on this. Maybe not. Are the people subject to the law of the talmud ? Who knows….
http://www.economist.com/blogs/blighty/2014/06/anti-semitism-britain
An ex lib dem has been accused according to Exaro. Aaronovitçh to the defence ?
By the way Bandini – my late DH was a SPECIAL Traffic Officer for 9 years. He escorted Princess Margaret in Germany, he supervised road closures and drilled all staff for ‘VIP visits’. (He used to be horrified that every rank added on an extra 1 hour to the times he put in his memo. By the time the memo got the the sergeant (with every rank adding on 1 hour) the constables were in spruced-up uniforms, standing to attention for up to 6 hours before the Royal/VIP visit.)
My late husband was HAUNTED for years by his experience of the Moors Murders. He had to listen to every tape of those children being tortured and crying out. He walked Saddleworth Moors tirelessly and stayed on beyond his police hours.
Don’t ask me to be “I Want to Believe” – I supported a good man for 25 years. My heart was broken also and I grew up fast!
truth or troll ,both have 2 out of 5 letters in common ,tis identifying the nature of the last three that makes the difference.
Bandini, Thank you for your response. However, I will ignore your rant on this occasion. I have handed over my Late Husband’s personal diaries to the police – and I assure you they confirm much of Don Hale’s testimony.
Listen to Don Hale here on Survivors Voices: https://www.mixcloud.com/Survivors_Voices/ep-12-don-hale-on-child-abuse-cover-ups-police-investigations-special-branch-and-more/
Don Hale is the investigative reporter whose thorough investigation led to the release of Steven Dowling. Barbara Castle gave him a damning dossier about paedophile cover-ups when he was editor of The Bury Messenger. As a former resident of Prestwich/Bury (at that same time as Don was editor) I can say that the local Bury newspaper was in front of its contemporaries!
http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/jul/15/daily-star-sunday-cyril-smith
I Want The Truth, you are in the priviledged position of knowing full well how the media works, thanks to your unpleasant Danczuk experience. I’ve oftentimes thought that if only EVERY person in the country had had dealings with the press then they – the press – wouldn’t be held in such unaccountably high regard by many. And yet here you are pinning hope on Don Hale! Have a quick run-through these Hale-specials & see if any of it rings a bell:
[By the way, Hale’s “thorough investigation” did NOT lead to the release of Dowling. Dowling was released on a technicality, and not because of Dossier Don’s moronic idea that there was a shadowy group of powerful people that were responsible.]
– Hale’s shot his poisoned darts of accusation at a mere – ahem! – 22 people. The police wasted much time & effort investigating/interviewing them, all co-operated fully, and all were completely cleared. Hale was totally wrong – twenty-two times over. Only one person refused to co-operate, the only man who the police have been unable to rule out of their enquiries: Dowling.
– “Never mind”, thought D-Notice Don. And sod that shadowy cabal idea, I’ll just invent some more rubbish & see if I can eek out another tale or two. And so it came to pass that the shadowy cabal were forgotten, and the supposed involvement of – suspenseful music! – the Ripper was mooted. Was it the Yorkshire one or was it Jack? Who cares?!? It makes no difference… none whatsoever.
– The police were somewhat surprised when their investigations – prompted by time-wasting Hale – revealed that some of his supposed interviewees didn’t recognise their twisted words in his silly book. And yet others had never even spoken to him! They made it plain what they thought of him in a detailed press release.
There is more, so much more, but the sun is shining and I’m off to enjoy it. One cherry on Hale’s Bakewell Tart – he is apparently blessed with supernatural powers! That’s right, Hale somehow managed to arrange an interview with a dead pal about Savile’s alleged activities: what a guy!
Not only that, the dead man with a story to tell – the disgraceful Hale with one to SELL – was another of those ‘saved’ by Hale’s “thorough investigations” (allegedly, that is, as there is blessed little to back up his claim, but by this point who on earth would be bothering with his bullshit anyway?) – a man sentenced for arranging to have an ex-partner murdered. Luckily, the murder attempt failed. Unluckily, the bomb did manage to blow half her face off. Thank god Don was there to ‘campaign’ to have him released!
I’m wasting my breath. You ought to consider changing your name to ‘IWTB’ (I Want To Believe) as you’re not going to find much ‘truth’ flowing from the lips of frauds like Hale. Why anyone even believes his Barbara Castle tale is beyond me, a woman in a totally different class to the ridiculous Dickens. It is so obviously bullshit.
More on Hale’s journey into madness here:
http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.com.es/2015/04/a-victim-law-ghost-writer.html
(Why is it only the so-called ‘naysayers’ bother to investigate properly? Unblinded by belief, I suppose.)
Tablets, Bandini.
Individual allegations must be followed up, however, those charged with the following up no longer have the presumption of good faith.
The most alarming part of the statement refers to continued searches through police and CPS archives, had these matters been dealt with properly at the time the question of searches through the archives wouldn’t have arisen.
It SHOULD go without saying that the archives contain nothing but contemporaneous documents that had been properly dealt with, the tacit admission that the archives could contain material that has been suppressed and improperly dealt with is a scandal.
Sorry, I should have given a link to the Simon Danzcuk embellished/fabricated Daily Mail article for reference:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3025076/EXPOSED-Liberals-offered-hush-money-hide-Cyril-Smith-s-abuse-MP-SIMON-DANCZUK-reveals-devastating-new-evidence-raises-deeply-troubling-questions-David-Steel-Nick-Clegg.html
“none can support the events alleged in Mr Danczuk’s book”
I beg to differ Bandini. I can support the allegation that my late-husband made in 1979. I was there at the time of the groping but didn’t see it as clearly as my DH (then my fiance) did!
I re-reported to my current local police station in December 2012 because BBC News said “Nobody had reported Smith during his life-time”. I absolutely KNEW that he had been reported to police, regional Liberal Office and Liberal HQ. I made a full witness statement, and took supporting photographs of Smith being in my flat at that time.
I shared the story with GoJam in a comment and he re-published as a main article here: https://theneedleblog.wordpress.com/2013/03/10/cyril-smith-eyewitness-account/
My concern about the Danzcuk/Baker serialisation of the book is that ‘my story’ is clearly embellished and parts are fabricated. I cannot believe any other chapter of the book because I know how he turned my story into sensational headlines for personal remuneration and to sell his book.
Having returned from a holiday visiting my family, I picked up a Twitter DM from MB to tell me that the DMail were about to publish the story.
So, I phoned Matt Baker to seek clarification and understanding. During that phone call to Matt Baker on 3rd April, he couldn’t tell me which photos would be used by the Daily Mail. The Daily Mail had previously refused to print the story because David Steel had allegedly said , “I will sue the woman”. But I had a message from MB saying that the DM were happy to print the story now it was an extra chapter in the book. I was quite unhappy after the MB phone call and started to worry about ‘photo-shopping’. That evening, I arranged with GoJam that he would accept copies of all photos I had sent to Matt Baker. So, when the newspaper article came out on 4th April (no photos) both GoJam and I knew that the story was embellished and some aspects were fabricated.
– I have never met Simon Danzcuk (I met Matt Baker)
– I did not drink tea (I drank coffee)
– There is no photo of the 14 year old staring out with innocent eyes next to Cyril Smith (GoJam will confirm this I am sure)
– I didn’t watch with horror (I saw the 14 year old jump up, it was my late DH who saw what had happened to cause the jump.)
– The activists did not look around and stare with amazement and disgust (it was dealt with in a manner to cause the least amount of distress at that time). In fact, I told the police and MB that one of our older activists complained that Cyril Smith hadn’t stayed long and had only addressed 3 envelopes!
Bandini, I am posting here to indicate that there ARE some of us with eye-witness testimony and photographs to back up the allegation. Please don’t dismiss all the stories as fabrication – just be on guard for embellishments.
GoJam would never have made an article of my original comment had he thought it was ‘made up’. I have since sent him emails from the police to confirm that they followed through on this element of the Smith investigation. It is now under Operation Clifton.
Hello IWTT.
Just to be clear, the quote “none can support the events alleged in Mr Danczuk’s book” came from the police & was referring specifically/solely to the alleged motorway incident.
If you click on the link in my comment you will see that I have previously quoted from your tweets about Danczuk’s Daily Mail fabrications. As your other half was a copper – and I’ve just realised how the title of the article below which my comments appear, “All Coppers Are Bastards”, has taken on an added significance – you might quite rightly be incensed by Danczuk’s smearing of around 100 CID officers (not to mention the British Transport Police & sundry others). Because they are NOT all bastards, as you yourself well know.
I have complained to the BBC about the Newsnight rubbish (see link for updates), and I suggest you do the same with IPSO & The Mail. It’s a worrying belief among many ‘campaigners’ that we can forget the lies, deceit & general madness of our ‘campaigning heroes’ so long as they occasionally hit the bullseye. I doubt we’ll agree about what Savile may or may not have been guilty of, but it was an oft-mentioned claim of his that his good deeds somehow balanced out whatever wickedness he may have indulged in; how strange to see the idea co-opted by the self-proclaimed good & the great: ‘The Savile Defence’.
I have followed your advice Bandini and reported http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3025076/EXPOSED-Liberals-offered-hush-money-hide-Cyril-Smith-s-abuse-MP-SIMON-DANCZUK-reveals-devastating-new-evidence-raises-deeply-troubling-questions-David-Steel-Nick-Clegg.html to IPSO. (I feel sick – and I wish I have never opened this can of worms in 2012!) It’s easy to complain when you are not exposing your own life and experiences.
Well done, IWTT. I wish you all the best with it. Best not to hope for too much but the mere act of reporting may cause more caution to be exercised by those considering accepting his ‘articles’ in future.
I had planned on replying to a couple of your other points below but have used up all available energy answering others. Your late husband sounds like he was a genuinely upright man. I’d like to think that he also believed fervently in the presumption of innocence & rule of law, despite those unavoidable flaws. I’m only going to say that every time some one “believes” an accusation – without having access to all the evidence & with no possible way of knowing whether or not it is true – they are also implicitly denying the accused those rights which have made us a more-or-less civilised society. And that is what we are, despite the gloom-merchants, your mention of the Moors’ murderers a case in point, as that case & others like it will still cause a shadow to fall across the faces of those who have ever read or heard about them. Because they are so far from the norm, so unacceptable to all but a tiny handful of really sick minded people. And the revulsion that all decent people – and that’s the vast majority – feel for these crimes might suggest to us that some of the more horrific & fantastical tales of all-pervading evil are just that – fantastical tales.
Good luck.
Madam,
You are a genuine hero.
loving the hypocrisy of british journalists demanding sepp blatter stand down because of alleged corruption by others in his organisation. strangely they don’t ask for Rupert Murdoch to stand down for PROVEN corruption,law breaking and jail time for people in his organisation.
Be fair, Sepp is a footy bureaucrat and in a righteous and just world we can’t have footy bureaucrats condoning chicanery with respect to the beautiful game.
Rupert, on the other hand, is an important man, he controls great swathes of the fourth estate, he can mobilise the unwashed against kings, presidents and prime ministers, on the other hand he can sway the hearts and minds of the lumpenproletariat to accord with the policies set before them.
Sepp seeks the support of premiers, premiers seek the support of Rupert.
Murdochs choose the sides to fight for their own unenlightened self-interest.
They “fought” for the Australians “against” the British at Gallipoli, both at the time and in their subsequent Film, but this now-Citizen of the former American Colonies then choose to “fight” under the Jolly Jingoist Union Jack in the Falkland War,
It’s rather Like Robert the Bruce fighting against the Scots for Edward the First against Braveheart and then going on to becoming King of Scotland themselves.
just seen the book THE WILSON PLOT by David Leigh has been put up. did british and American intelligence try to bring Harold Wilson down in the 70s
thanks ,background reading is a valuable tool in establishing where events fit into context.
“Still, it would be ideal if anyone who has information regarding this alleged incident could come forward.”
You may as well have written that it would be ideal if anyone who has information regarding the alleged man-in-the-moon could come forward.
Given that they have interviewed the authors & many others, and that “none can support the events alleged in Mr Danczuk’s book”, mightn’t one wonder where in green blazes the allegation came from? Maybe it was one of the 100 or so members of CID who – according also to Danczuk – sat around watching a video of Cyril Smith actually “paedoing” on the concourse at Euston Station?!?
http://annaraccoon.com/2015/03/17/all-coppers-are-bastards/#comment-94809
Does this pass your “relevancy” test, Mr Sawyer?
Yes,
Thank you.
How can you possibly know that the “Tory Minister” didn’t “step out of the shadows” ?
The “Tory Minister”, just like the man-in-the-moon, doesn’t exist.
We can, therefore, be fairly confident that he “didn’t step out of the shadows”. And neither did the man-in-the moon.
Hi Bandini, conflation is best left to Aaronovitch.
You assert that the Tory Minister doesn’t exist, how do you know, I assume that you do know, that he doesn’t exist.
Bandini, I was under the impression that you’d already expressed your appreciation to me on an earlier occasion here when I informed you that the Tory Minister who advised Simon Danczuk against revealing Leon Brittan’s name to Parliament was Edward Garnier. I believe that Garnier has since willingly acknowledged his involvement in this episode, although as one of the Tory Party’s sharpest legal minds (he was also renowned libel counsel to the late Lord McAlpine), he is very careful to demarcate the separation between advice and the threat you refer to.
Worth popping outside and having another look at the moon?
Sabre, it might help to know that the writer of the article to which we are referring & from whence came the Tory Minister claim was not, in fact, Simon Danczuk at all.
One afternoon his bustiferous wife accidentally stumbled upon a daytime showing of an inspiring Daniel Day-Lewis film (whilst zapping between daytime magazine-programmes about hair & nails & “like, shit” – my impeccable source anonymously reveals to me).
Not so much ‘My Left Foot’ as ‘My Fat Baps’, the gal gigglingly discovered that by jamming a selfie-stick between what her husband helpfully has assured us are cupsized-C mammaries she was able to hammer out dramatic-sounding fiction for the Daily Mail on a big computer. And all the while simultaneously spraying her own-brand perfume (‘Eau de cash’, well, I think it’s a ‘c’) over badly printed photographs of herself, extracting tiny pieces of her soul (from a specially installed catheter to make their selling-of slightly less bothersome), and even occasionally helping her hubby pluck a hair or two from his palms – the multi-tasking maiden!
She confessed later that the bit about a ‘Tory Minister’ was “just for a laff! I’m mad, me!!!” when dropping off her GHD hair-straighteners to be fixed by a close personal friend of mine.
And so, Sabre, I think you can see that I can be absolutely certain that the Tory Minister did NOT exist. If you are unwilling to accept this version of events that perhaps you would like to waste YOUR time on a fool’s errand – trying to prove a negative – which is what you had asked me to do.
[Alternately see my reply to Owen below which I’ll now generously waste yet more seconds of my life writing.]
Bandini, too late probably to save you those moments of precious existence, but there does seem to be a connection between Simon Danczuk and the claim that Garnier intervened, it’s not simply a figment of Karen’s imagination:
Christopher Hope, Senior Political Correspondent of the Telegraph, 27 Nov 2014
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11258889/Sir-Edward-Garnier-tried-to-stop-Labour-MP-challenging-Lord-Brittan-over-child-abuse-claims.html
“… Mr Danczuk told MPs: “Earlier this year I told the Home Affairs Select Committee that a dossier containing allegations about child abuse by politicians had been handed by Tory MP Geoffrey Dickens to the then Home Secretary Leon Brittan.
…
“The night before my appearance at the committee I had an encounter with the right honourable learned Member for Harborough [Sir Edward Garnier].
After the 10pm vote he drew me to one side outside the chamber and warned me to think very carefully about what I was going to say the following day.
He told me that challenging Lord Brittan on child abuse would not be a wise move and that I might even be responsible for his death as he was unwell.
…”
Some of the elements of your version appear to be at odds with Christopher Hope’s account.
Owen, Owen, Owen…
Why persist with this? Seriously, why? What do you possibly hope to gain by stating that: “I informed you that the Tory Minister who advised Simon Danczuk against revealing Leon Brittan’s name to Parliament was Edward Garnier” when we both know full well that Edward Garnier was NOT a Tory Minister?!?
We can argue & disagree about interpretations, but a fact is a fact. And Garnier was not a Minister.
It was Danczuk who very clearly – and under his own name – made the FALSE claim that a Tory Minister had spookily sought to interfere in one of his infernal Daily Mail stories (5th July 2014):
“As I was I was making my way from the House of Commons on Monday night after a late vote a Tory minister stepped out of the shadows to confront me. I’d never spoken to him before in my life but he blocked my way and ushered me to one side… We looked at each other in silence for a second. I knew straight away he wasn’t telling me this out of concern for the man’s welfare. There was no compassion in his voice.”
http://web.archive.org/web/20140707140848/http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2681949/Call-public-inquiry-historic-child-abuse-Forget-expenses-scandal-If-MPs-harboured-paedophiles-damage-British-democracy-fatal-says-MP-SIMON-DANCZUK.html
The Mail followed this up on the 7th July in an article referring back to Danczuk’s bullshit that he had spouted two days earlier “writing in The Mail”:
“Simon Danczuk claims he came under ‘pressure’ from several people, including a CURRENT Conservative minister, not to name Lord Brittan in front of a Commons committee.”
http://web.archive.org/web/20150515185858/http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2683105/I-warned-asking-Leon-Brittan-paedophile-dossier-claims-Labour-MP.html
As you mentioned I did indeed thank you for bringing the sweaty & nervous performance of Danczuk before the Channel 4 news’ cameras to my attention – he found himself unable to back-up his ‘Tory Minister’ claim (for the simple reason that it was FALSE). Garnier’s name was brought forth by Channel 4 and it was made quite plain that he – Garnier – flatly rejected the twisted interpretation offered by the lying Danczuk.
Let’s fast-forward now to November 27th when The Telegraph shone a light on matters but did not, unfortunately, haul Danczuk across the coals for making the quite deliberately FALSE claim that a ‘Tory Minister’ was involved (to hammer-home the all-important ‘Tory Minister Meme’):
“One of David Cameron’s FORMER top legal advisers tried to stop a Labour MP “challenging” Lord Brittan of Spennithorne over child abuse allegations in the Houses of Parliament, it has been claimed.
Simon Danczuk said Sir Edward Garnier, who was made Solicitor General by the Prime Minister in May 2010, tackled him on the evening before he was due to give evidence to the Home Affairs select committee in the summer…”
“Sir Edward was the Coalition’s solicitor-general from May 2010 to September 2012…”
He was NOT a ‘Tory Minister’. He was NOT a ‘current Tory Minister’.
And another thing:
“It is understood that Sir Edward was intervening after a personal request by Lady Brittan, who was worried about the strain on her husband’s health.”
Six-months later and Brittan would be door-nail-dead. What was that you were saying, Simon? “…he wasn’t telling me this out of concern for the man’s welfare. There was no compassion in his voice.” Aye, no compassion whatsoever…
http://web.archive.org/web/20150215132400/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11258889/Sir-Edward-Garnier-tried-to-stop-Labour-MP-challenging-Lord-Brittan-over-child-abuse-claims.html
Now would you please do me two enormous favours?
Firstly, for the love of God, just accept that the ‘Tory Minister stepping out of the shadows’ story is UNTRUE.
Secondly, another stubborn-headed/wrong-headed combo-merchant – David ‘Espousing The Dream World I Want You To Believe Is Real’ Hencke – recently worried both of us, I think, when he came charging to the rescue of what seemed quite likely to be a dangerous violent nutter here:
https://davidhencke.wordpress.com/2015/03/04/judge-bans-a-facebook-page-exposing-paedophiles-and-awards-20000-damages-to-convicted-sex-offender/
Now that the explosive bombshell truth has been revealed – that he is, indeed, a nasty piece of work, career criminal, violent thug & serial sex offender – I had hoped that Hencke’s factual-forcefield might have been turned off long enough for a quick shot of truth, but he ain’t having it:
Would you be so kind as to update the foolish man’s article with a link or summat? I know it’s generally frowned upon, “being right on the internet”. But I’d take it over the alternative every time.
Owen,
“Bandini, too late probably to save you those moments of precious existence…”
Too late indeed, Owen: I was penning my reply of 8:52 without having seen yours of 8:35. I’m a little tired, but I don’t think it would have altered my response.
Right, I’m fancying a drink & an episode or two of ‘Curb Your Enthusiasm’. Apt, really, as that’s exactly what you’ve managed to do! ¡Diós!
Bandini, I really am not worthy of this expenditure of so much subtle existential capital. Truly, I’m not. The rape-mockers and predator-sanitisers of Anna Raccoon’s kennels seem far more appreciative. Give them a line or two about mattresses and that’ll make them happy.
Bandini, thanks for the reply and please accept my abject apology for the waste of your time.
It has been alleged that the minister existed, I don’t claim to know whether it is true or not, it appears that someone informed you of a Tory that interfered, you dismiss that on account that the person named wasn’t a minister although an influential figure nonetheless.
You claim that it is impossible, a fools errand indeed, to prove a negative and yet you consider it proved?
Perhaps, your position is that you don’t accept that it happened which isn’t the same thing.
If you have wasted your time reading this, I can only reiterate my apology.
Bandini, try and remember that this isn’t the Anna Raccoon Savile Memorial Gardens. The Solicitor General is an officer of the Crown who serves as a member of the government with status equivalent to a minister of state. In normal company, among people who aren’t trying to find every way possible of denigrating and mocking the victims/survivors of abuse and their supporters, the label “Tory minister” would be considered to pass muster as a description of Garnier as he was at the time.
Owen,
A pin-head balanced angel would scoff at your unaccountable attempt to paint serial-liar Danczuk’s lies as something that would “pass muster” as being truthful amongst “normal company” – pitiful dissembling, just pitiful.
However, we can at least agree on one point: when you state that you are “not worthy of this expenditure of so much subtle existential capital.” No, truly you are not. So goodbye.
Bandini, my apologies for having distracted you from your enjoyment of Anna’s report on the FACT conference:
http://annaraccoon.com/2015/06/02/like-british-rail-snow-the-wrong-sort-of-victims/