The Political Thread

[Frank]

Within months he has gone from being described as a 'national treasure' to 'sinister pervert' (as the prosecution accurately put it). It's a mindfuck; it really is, and I don't know how else I can put it

One of the girls at work told me a story about a teacher at her school who was convicted for possessing the most vile kind of child porn (baby, actually) and trying to pick up two wee girls in a supermarket car park. He was a genuinely lovely and caring person, and one of his female colleagues found it so difficult to reconcile these two apparently contradictory ideas that she ended up having a nervous breakdown in class and having to take early retirement. Look after yourself, Jayzus.

[Frank]

Michael Gove doesn't want any public investigation of the situation.  Why not?  What possible reason could he have to discourage an investigation, other than to protect his peers?  That isn't a rhetorical question - I'm genuinely interested in whether anyone can suggest another reason

It's the same problem that's helped stymie every previous investigation of these claims - that they're only really one person's word against another. Until you take an overview of the pattern of claims concerning the procurement of vulnerable children from the care system, those claims are hard to believe, and each investigation was only judging each individual claim in isolation and on its own perceived merits.

Also, many of the victims have lived lives and made decisions that make their testimony easy to dispute, which is the same reason Savile, Hall, Clifford, Harris, and their clerical soul mates were able to get away with their crimes. The only thing which has changed is that the mass of claims and the ensuing public mood has forced the government and the CPS to investigate and prosecute cases they would have dismissed as not worth bothering with previously.

[JOE SOAP]

Michael Gove doesn't want any public investigation of the situation.  Why not?  What possible reason could he have to discourage an investigation, other than to protect his peers?  That isn't a rhetorical question - I'm genuinely interested in whether anyone can suggest another reason. 

Is it not the most glaring admission that the poor and most vulnerable are not the priority for these people.

[The Legendary Shark]

Blackmail factories. I hate how much sense that idea makes to me. So easy for them to use the system to gather up anonymous victims that nobody will miss.
.
www.saff.ukhq.co.uk/childcourts.htm
.
And how far up the pyramid does this go?  www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread795798/pg1
.

[JayzusB.Christ]

Look after yourself, Jayzus.

Thanks, Sauchie, I will. I really didn't expect it to have such an effect on me - Savile and the many priest incidents didn't hit me so hard -  but I know I'll get used to it soon; unlike Harris's poor victims.  (Just even typing 'Rolf Harris's victims' really doesn't sit with me properly, though.)  I have a friend, by the way, who has a very black and white way of seeing the world, and he still refuses to believe that Savile was guilty - he must know it's true, of course, he's not stupid, but he still can't bring himself to reconcile the chummy, generous TV persona with the vicious sociopath behind it.

And yeah, your explanation for Gove is a good one, but I still find it a bit sinister that an influential MP thinks a possible crime against children shouldn't be investigated.  If he honestly doesn't believe it's true, then that's an even stronger reason to see the notion disproved once and for all.  Then again, this is the man who seems to think the butchery of 37 million young men in disease-ridden World War 1 trenches is something to celebrate, so maybe we shouldn't be too surprised at him.

[Frank]

I still find it a bit sinister that an influential MP thinks a possible crime against children shouldn't be investigated.  If he honestly doesn't believe it's true, then that's an even stronger reason to see the notion disproved once and for all

I agree. While I'm personally inclined to believe Gove capable of every evil under the sun, the comments I've seen attributed to him call for the cops to investigate individual allegations, rather than an overarching public inquiry into systemic failures. Which is fair enough, but that's exactly the approach that has allowed previous investigations peter out into inconclusive shrugs.

I'm not sure the inquiry Theresa May announced today will quite do the job everyone seems to expect of it - the remit is so broad I don't see a lot of time being devoted to the question of whether Parliamentarians were involved in the abuse or covering it up. It'll end up going over a lot of old ground concerning the NHS and the BBC, telling us things we already know, in the hope of boring everyone to death - just like the Leveson and Chilcot inquiries.

[JayzusB.Christ]

I agree. While I'm personally inclined to believe Gove capable of every evil under the sun, the comments I've seen attributed to him call for the cops to investigate individual allegations, rather than an overarching public inquiry into systemic failures. Which is fair enough, but that's exactly the approach that has allowed previous investigations peter out into inconclusive shrugs.

Ah, I get you now.  Though you're a lot better-informed about it than I am, I still think that there's a chance that people involved in the scandal may be doing the investigating, and Gove is either completely ignorant of that or simply doesn't give a fuck about anyone but himself and his peers.

[M.I.K.]

And how far up the pyramid does this go?  www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread795798/pg1

Sandringham estate takes up 20,000 acres, which is over 30 square miles of land.

(Which I've just noticed someone else has also said in the comments)

[Professor Bear]

Gove is motivated by an outdated class and social system, and on top of the Maria Miller affair and Chris "not a lawyer, never worked in law" Greyling's attitude, I'd need convincing Tories as a body aren't simply of the opinion that the people at the bottom rung of the social ladder don't get to inconvenience those at the top of it no matter what the reason - which is essentially why the church in Ireland got away with what it did for so long, too.

[JayzusB.Christ]

I'm at a loss for words. 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tory-child-abuse-whistleblower-i-3848987

[The Legendary Shark]

Not too long ago, a conversation about this subject would have been in the "Truth? You Can't Handle the Truth!" thread...
.

[TordelBack]

I'm at a loss for words. 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tory-child-abuse-whistleblower-i-3848987

I'm not sure if that article isn't more about homophobia than an expose of organised paedophilia. There's a slanted vagueness about the ages of the boys ('boys who were clearly only about 15 or 16 years old') that seems to be consciously set against a ludicrous homosexual age of consent of 21. 

I also find the Oscar namebadge thing stretches the source's credibility more than a little.

At the same time, if true, systematically procuring young prostitutes and cocaine for politicians is about as unsavoury, and hypocritical as it gets.  And I'm certainly not dismissing the abuse suffered by underage male prostitutes.  I'm just not sure if the scenario as presented is really in the same bracket as a paedo-ring.

But Shark is on the money when he notes that this is serious subject for discussion which only recently would have been consigned to the crank file.

[The Legendary Shark]

Exactly.
.
Now, about 9/11....   
.
:-D

[Frank]

Sorry, that's another thing we changed while you were away - the government are all paedophiles now. Actually, some of them are only guilty of assisting paedophiles and covering up their crimes to allay the anxieties of the general public, like James Mason's character in Salem's Lot.

[Fungus]

"admits to being in awe of the men".
How anachronistic...