The Friday Night Song
Filed under FNS, Personal
Pingback: Bye Bye BabyAlternative News Network | Alternative News Network
there are a few reasons to have used bye bye baby as a friday night song but it reminded me of a recent conversation.
perhaps it would be interesting to list the assorted documents,statements,websites,bits of books etc etc that “disappeared” from the www very soon after they were spotted.
i will open with ,the huddersfield examiner reports of geoffrey dickens handing his “dossier” to the home secretary. as they were from the 1980’s they had been posted more recently rather than as part of an entire online archiveiirc gone within 24 hrs of me spotting them.
another was what purported to be an account from a seaside panda car copper who along with his colleague found a distressed young lad in the street in the middle of the night,they went with him to the house the boy showed them and found the scary men who had distressed the boy. after 20 mins men in suits from “security” took over and sent the coppers away.i kept that one short and vague but i can remember most of the details ,it disappeared within a few hours.
there are quite a few more on my list but a collection from a variety of researchers might be a rather useful tool .
The legal pressure behind the scenes to stop the Inquiry looking into the Janner case becomes more evident in the press.
An argument that Daniel Janner gives against the Inquiry investigating Janner Sr. is that his father wasn’t an ‘institution’ and so the case doesn’t come under the remit of the inquiry. This argument obviously has holes as the victims of Janner’s aledged abuse were mainly, very vulnerable boys in care home institutions, so an inquiry into Janner’s case would seem very relevant.
the last paragraph is rather revealing, trying to take credit for posing objections to chair two whilst suggesting that this inquiry should not be evidence led,no stone unturned and victim centred might indicate that there is a well justified fear among those with much to lose that what was supposed to be a safety valve might become a worm can opener.
that she was pushed rather than she jumped is probable but the reasons are open to interpretation.
imho she seems to have fulfilled her terms and conditions regarding attendance etc etc so trying to suggest she was”distracted “elsewhere or was not capable seems a bit unbelievable.
after nearly 4 years of research into detail and context from primary and secondary sources still knowing only some parts of the contents of some of the worm cans i can understand why there is a great reluctance to allow a proper inquiry into these matters to proceed by following the evidence and then joining the dots or at least showing the dots for the public to join.
spose it is daft to expect the specimen to dissect itself .
therefore it might be we, the people, have to whack it on the head and get the pins tweezers and instruments of examination to establish the sort of beast that has been at large.
things are starting to look as though watergate was dampmousehole
Saw your Clockwork Orange mentioned in the Mail lately.
How much of the rabbit hole worm can involves dodgy handshakes?
It is important to remember the government did not a inquiry until after police and Police Complaints reviews were completed although we still await Leveson 2
2 the pressure for a statutory legal based inquiry came from lawyers representing survivors campaigners and some survivors
The government wanted and I agreed what was needed was the kind of document search carried out by the Hillsborough and then the new Inquest and now the judicial processes and perverting course of justice and cover up participation
3 the inquiry was too narrow and too wide from the outset… too wide in terms of the institutions bodies organisations involved and too narrow in terms of not covering all form of abuse and being restricted only to England and Wales
the problem is that those pressing for the inquiry wanted different things
campaigners wanted vindication and some revenge
victims wanted the pain to go away, wanted others not to experience what they had justice revenge to be believe help most of which would not come for one show trial which was to Janner because he was dead but the family understandably refused to accept sins of fathers should never be vested in their children.. it is not fit
I wanted an examination of the allegations of cover up and conspiracies and whether this had been done in national interest or because it was not in the public interest or tribal protection
It was noteworthy that listening and recording the survivors was Truth project which gave the game away that the hearings were about determination of fact which not the same as truth and reconciliation and the idea of up to 25 short hearing session was always crazy once agreed to have core participants
the other problem is that it had all been done before 1997-2002 and all Cameron did was out Mat in charge of a team as Blair had put Dobson Bair out up 450 million of new money over 3 which change and did nothing which is one reason why in fairness the Government cautions about
The same forces which Got Mullin Cameron and Watson to effective stop policies and discourage civil damage s claims came to the fore again as soon as Cameron and Watson agreed to have a further sort out
Mays approach seems puritanical and in common with Corbyn hose who want the cover up and normal service in both parties.. However May seems to want to put genie back in bottle or use the state to stop the problem getting worse by force whereas Corbyn is more for facing the reality of where we are and concentrating that are we going to do about that makes difference
there will be need to examine e how we have got into this situation all thee secret groups and meeting but now we need to focus on getting the inquiry back on track and refocused bur do not underestimate the forces determined to wreck it.
bye bye three and hello professor jay who has just become chair number 4 .perhaps that will be a good development.
I hope your right, but see this:-http://barristerblogger.com/2016/08/15/professor-jay-brave-wrong-agree-chair-child-abuse-inquiry/
I have not read it yet, but will do now, be interesting to hear your take on this
Also anything further to add to your ummm response to card2’s comment?
I always felt something was wrong with that case, but I guess it’s sadly by far not the only one…
an interesting take on the situation,some of the comments are rather educational.they range from look at the last few decades of british history ( i would suggest that in order to understand context the last ten decades might be appropriate with most effort expended on the period since 1940 ) and identify the wrong uns to the whole thing should be dropped ,both of which seem to represent the two options favoured by those who want truth and change and those who want a full and final cover up and business as usual.
his assumption or implication that the police and cps (the care homes/ la social services get a brief mention but that aspect would inevitably require some attention) are the institutions who should be focussed upon in the case of janner does seem to indicate his interest in a partial truth being examined.
a slight but relevant aside, it seems a little unfair to single out janner when there are some very strong parallels between actions taken regarding him and ,for instance among a considerable list, smith.
his mention of mr emerson qc as very capable is valid but neglects to mention his capability has been put to good use in such matters as the litvinenko case and that as a founder member of matrix chambers he has shown he can see and develop the potential of a junior such as cherie booth.
his concern than mr emmerson qc might be overwhelmed by the volume of advice required may be unfounded if his team have been well chosen.
his concerns over professor jay’s methodology and lack of legal background have some merit but are indicative of her academic rather than his legal background. so long as she has good legal advice and support where necessary from the rest of the panel, who are all of a legal background, her academic approach and “final decisions” might be a considerable advantage in the search for truth.
of the herd of elephants in the room two that loom large are which of the panel members are masons? (remember waterhouse ?) and which are truly committed to the whole truth being exposed whatever it may be and which are not for whatever reason ?
thank you dpack,
I didn’t know about his previous experience on the litvinenko case, interesting.
Sorry I don’t remember waterhouse either, I was probably too young at the time or naive. Google search not much help either – do you have a link for further info?
Good last point too about the panel being member’s of the masons, or indeed of any other organisations, where there could be a real conflict of interest.
There should be full disclosure by all members of the panel, which I hope is actually the case? But I’m not sure this will happen or even it can be both checked and verified thoroughly too.
Maybe the inquiry needs to run by the UN or some other similar organisation? Where it could be truly independent? – I doubt that would actually ever happen (but can hope for though).
Anyway I guess we’ll all just have to see how this all plays out over time!
thanks again. :-)
A government funded inquiry is often more effective than and independently funded one. Most inquiries/investigations are governed by their purpose and this applies to academic studies, especially during the past decade where researchers have becomes increasingly dependent on attracting funds from corporate and other bodies who what to prove/disprove or seek research which will support or justify what they want or not now want.
Secondly so much depends on who undertakes the inquiry/investigation, their knowledge, practical experience and motivation.
Thirdly what access do those undertaking the investigation have to contemporary documentation and to people who were involved or have relevant information?
Say for those involved have a open mind, have access to all the available documentation and people and an report which accurately reflects that information… so what? Does it change anything? No.
There are so who are content with vindication… there was a cover up, someone got away with it.
Form my experience those who have been adversely affected,, physically or emotionally harmed often with lasting and sometimes debilitating wounds want justice a more meaningful sense of justice than is usually available to them
My experience is that the priority for most victim survivors is that the perpetrator is stopped from doing more harm and that the state acting on behalf of the majority of the people takes action to stop or at least reduce the incidence of the harm.
It is important to be realistic in expectations but this not mean anyone should give up on pursuing the search for truth or for justice for unless there are determined seekers for truth and those tirelessly working against injustice, evil triumphs, the body politic becomes even more corrupted than before and future generation are placed in peril.