Westminster Child abuse scandal. Incompetence or cover up?

I am totally amazed at the incompetence of the Home Secretary in being able to appoint an independent person to head up this public enquiry.

First off Theresa May appointed Baroness Butler Sloss, who just happened to be the sister of the Attorney General at the time an eight page dossier was handed to then Home Secretary Leon Brittan in 1983, which accused eight public figures in being involved in the abuse of children in the care system. A dossier Mr Brittan claims he dealt with appropriately and some details were passed to the police, but now appears no longer exists.

As a consequence of her connections and after a public outcry, she quite rightly decided to stand down, although she claimed her connections would not have had any bearing on her public duty.

So, Theresa May had to appoint another person to head up the enquiry. After the initial appointment, you would have thought that she would do some research on the background of potential candidates. If she did, it would appear she didn't do a very good job of it, in appointing Fiona Woolf.

Fiona Woolf's credentials would seem to fit the role, being a lawyer and having a good understanding of the law. She is also the current Lord Mayor of London. However on October 21st, she wrote a letter to the Home Secretary declaring the fact that she lived on the same street as Leon Brittan and had in fact invited the Brittan's to dinner on three occasions and attended a dinner party at their home on two occasions. It has also come to light that she may have been involved in some charity work with Mrs Brittan.

Fiona Woolf has claimed that the Brittan's are just a couple of people she knows amongst thousands within London, but for me her links to Leon Brittan, is reason enough for her to step down as head of the enquiry.

So where does this leave us and why has the Home Secretary made two regrettable appointments? Is it down to pure incompetence on her part, or is she purposefully trying to jeopardise the enquiry? An enquiry that could potentially bring the whole house of cards crashing down.

I think the next person appointed has to have their background thoroughly checked and ideally be a person far removed from the establishment of Westminster. Someone like Alexis Jay, who lead the report into the child abuse cover up in Rotherham. In my eyes, unless they appoint someone from outside the establishment, they are setting the enquiry up to fail, thus preserving the Status Quo and preventing justice for the victims in this despicable scandal.

first appointment is a bit of a cluster-f---- full stop but like a lot of things i guess asking some one else its a bit like asking a friend who suddenly remembers that they know someone after reading the basic brief and wants to ensure they're as far from anything so i'd guess they know the basic lay of the land and they're looking to not get involved as they know within 30 seconds of taking the job they'll be geting visits from many politicians 'friends' who want to ensure that certain rumours are lies and she don't want the hassle

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

I am hoping someone takes this on and finishes the investigation with some integrity. The abusers, whomever they happen to be, need to be identified if they exist, and punished. When you have a gaping wound like this, it's not going to stop bleeding on it's own. Plus all those children who need closure, and the others who need protection. This needs to happen sooner, rather than later.

a reply to: Maxatoria

That's why it needs to be someone removed from the establishment. With no ties to the political elite, who can act with compassion and kick down the doors that appear to be so securely locked. Someone who isn't afraid to expose Westminster for what it is, without the fear of compromising themselves.

I'm assuming this is a rhetorical question, right? I'm a conspiracy person as well but I can promise you this is definitely not a case of incompetence and more of a clear a classic cover-up. The evidence is already laid out by yourself and done in a clear and easy to read way, there is no doubt in my mind that this was a cover-up, the BBC and British Government both are in steaming piles of poop over this and are doing their best to cover it up and will do so until it is replaced with news of another terrorist attack or another war that we must go and fight...oh wait look what are we going in to do.

a reply to: Danny85

We, the people need to ensure this never conveniently goes away, despite their best efforts.

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

and you know that the moment the person gets appointed they're going to get a visitor one night with a gun and a list of thing to look at and NOT look at, come on you must know as bad as i do that the system protects itself and unless you sleep in a bulletproof room you'll have an 'accident' at home and some how while making a cup of tea you'll decide to cut your throat and then spend 10 minutes running around the house daubing walls when you'd have at best 30 seconds left to do anything......

These aren't stupid people, as much as people often reach the top through their connections, they also have to be fairly intelligent to stay there. The problem concerns the fact that they think the general public are stupid. They do as much as they can to try to get away with, or let their friends get away with it. It sometimes looks like politicians think if something is dragged on long enough people will get bored or the media interest will wane. I doubt that will happen this time there is far too much of a public outcry.

a reply to: Maxatoria

Whilst I appreciate the depth of the scandal and for sure historically events such as you convey have taken place. I feel that this particular scandal has picked up speed to such an extent that if this were to happen, the public outcry would rattle the very foundations of the establishment.

a reply to: Cobaltic1978
reply to op :
How do we know it was 8 people from the lost dossier ?

If you look up Butler-Sloss on youtube , you'd find it's not just her links with Britton which made her highly unsuitable but she helped the cofE in Chichester cover up the actual appointment of 2 known child molesters by a Bishop . All there and investigated by the bbc no less . And according to her, claims of it in Cleveland were wrong .

In Fiona Woolfes case , May could not have appointed a _more establishment figure . And its been reported that several others appointed to the task are not necessarily suitable at all .

Is the remit suitable ? Who appointed Saville to be none other than the Governor at Broadmoor ? You shouldn't need a 'lost dossier' for that one surely ?

It does no harm to question , is Peter Wanless of the NSPCC as harmless as we might hope ? But he has worked for the government . Dread to think how many calls the NSPCC has taken and 'filed' which by rights should have been straight to the police.

Liars are slow - they do things like shoot themselves in the foot , twice . So a bit of both probably in answer to your question . Meanwhile the worms have left the can : there will be no covering them up .

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

The thing I cannot fathom about this situation, is that although I know the government of my country are very smart people (they have to be, in order to adequately hood wink us all into believing we still live in a democratic, free country), they seem incapable of making the most rudimentary choices without making a balls up of it.

This is very simple stuff indeed.

They need to pick someone who has never been a politician, never been a mayor, or held any politically important position, someone who has never communed with any person who has been associated, or ever could be associated with the scandal itself or any of the key players. They need to select a person who they do not know personally, who has never voted for any of them, and has nothing to loose by proceeding with the inquiry down whatever route is laid before them by the evidence, unlike the two inappropriate candidates thus far proposed.

I would say that the best person for the job would be either a detective constable (not Scotland Yard, and not NCA either), a vocally anti-establishment former Army CID officer, or something like that, someone totally outside Westminster's sphere of influence. They ought to be given permission to pay bedside visits to those who are under the magnifying glass "Hello Sir, no don't get up *racks the slide on the shotgun* we just need to have a little chat, you and I.", and given clearance to instantly remove any red tape they come across in the course of their investigation, and by that I mean that when they show up, all non-disclosure agreements are null and void for the duration of the conversation between themselves and anyone they choose to question, on pain of a public flogging upon refusal.

THAT will get the bastards quaking in their boots, and is the only measure capable of actually achieving anything in this matter.

Probably a fair bit of both.

There's certainly a degree of cover up, but the whole thing is so complicated that mistakes are definitely being made. The historical nature of a lot of it doesn't help either factor either.

a reply to: TrueBrit

The thing is they appear that way, purely to hoodwink a large percentage of the public into thinking that they are doing something. David Cameron said that he is sure that Fiona Woolf's association with Brittan, would not get in the way of her doing her job. It obviously will, so stop with the foolish words.

It's not just that justice has to be done, it MUST be SEEN to be done and any association with a this man, no matter how small makes her appointment redundant.

As we have both said, it needs to be someone from outside of the establishment and their appointment should be made at the soonest opportunity in order to get this inquiry underway, before all the central characters croak it.