HASC: Evidence Given By DAC Steve Rodhouse And DAC Patricia Gallan [21/10/15]

Patricia Gallan, Metropolitan Police, Deputy Assistant Commissioner – Specialist Crime and Operations and Steve Rodhouse, Metropolitan Police, Deputy Assistant Commissioner – Head of Crime and Operations giving evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee 21 Oct 2015.


Any objective viewer of yesterday’s evidence session of the Home Affairs Select Committee session would have to conclude that the decision making of the Metropolitan Police senior management was at fault.

I personally found DAC Steve Rodhouse’s evidence particularly unconvincing and his manner shifty.


Filed under Abuse, HASC, News

6 responses to “HASC: Evidence Given By DAC Steve Rodhouse And DAC Patricia Gallan [21/10/15]

  1. Andy Barnett

    Watch from 9mins 50 secs.

    Vaz refers to the ‘politics of fear’ suggesting that, due to media pressure and the fear of public cynicism, the Police have treated prominent people differently, that “the more famous you are, the more the Police will want to investigate you?”

    The irony of this is that the HASC is only investigating this case because Brittan is a prominent person. In other words, the more famous the accused, the more the HASC will want to investigate how the Police handle the case. So the Politics of Fear is ok, so long as it’s fear of the HASC that influences the Police rather than the public. And because the HASC has ahown itself concerned ONLY with the impact on Leon Brittan and his family and NOT AT ALL on the alleged victim, this influence will clearly result in the Police treating prominent people more leniently.

    Great job Mr Vaz. You are maintaining the system of protection for prominent people in our country admirably.

  2. Pingback: Timeline For The Investigation Into The Late Lord Brittan | theneedleblog

  3. artmanjosephgrech

    Disagree. They were initially bullied by the chair who had prejudge the issue without hearing the position and not allowed the explain the context of the decision taking and clearly acted with the overall; context they faced and the wider set of allegations against Lord Brittan The committee did not apply the kind of due process required.

  4. I cannot understand how you formed this impression after watching the session.

    In my opinion Rodhouse comes across as brave, clear, honest – and no pushover.
    His integrity shines through like a beacon against Vaz & co’s bullying interruptions.

    He clearly states that he believes Brittan should’ve been interviewed for the rape allegation and that the investigation was not concluded when Brittan died.
    He criticises Settle’s handling of the rape case and there is an implication that Brittan’s VIP status allowed him to escape interview.

    He repeats the fact that Brittan has not been exonerated and that investigations into Brittan for other allegations are still ongoing.

    Vaz repeatedly interrupts Rodhouse and tries to silence him when he makes important points which go against the pro-Brittan agenda.
    Vaz wrongly “paraphrases” what Rodhouse has said, twisting his words to imply the opposite!
    He suggests that Rodhouse sought review of Brittan’s case from the CPS because of media/public pressure to pursue it, and despite a lack of evidence.
    Rodhouse corrects these attempts to mislead, making it clear that he sought review for exactly the opposite reason, because there was a danger that Brittan was avoiding interview and being given special treatment because of his VIP status.

    After watching the HASC session I think Rodhouse and Watson hold the high moral ground, standing up for truth and honour, and ordinary people’s right to justice, against Vaz and co’s attempts to protect powerful interests.

    As a child sex abuse blogger, I honestly can’t imagine how you could have formed such a different impression.

  5. Pingback: Was The Met’s Interview Under Caution Of Leon Brittan ‘Unlawful’? | theneedleblog

  6. Pingback: Abe/Drifloud a victim of mind control? | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH