The question, of course, is whether the three main UK Westminster parties are able to control their instinct to cover each other in sewage and come up with a united and proper response, handed over to the relevant authorities to investigate and prosecute without interference or influence. If they can't then, sure, the 'moderate' fringe will benefit. Then there's the question of how the press will deal with it. On party lines according to their editorial policy, with hypocritical outrage, or in some other innovative way?
The press will attack the parties without mercy, except, perhaps, The Guardian.
Take it from me, you don't get volunteers to defend a organisation affected by child abuse.
The newspapers have no skin in the game (no schools, no child employees, no child audiences or 'guests'). They have a completely free hand in this.
And why should they back off? The parties have thrown them under the bus over Leveson, so they are merely returning the compliment.
The main parties are certainly "All in it together."
Perhaps you ought to give some thought as to the most effective way of tackling the alleged cover up rather than spouting silage in the hope that some will stick somewhere. There are alleged victims to consider, although you seem content to ignore that. Perhaps PBers might like to consider that before ingesting your nonsense
I have, as requested by PB Moderator, backed up all accusations with links from newspapers.
I have also answered AveryLP's questions - he's gone all quiet now.
Also, "Won't someone think of the children?" is too pathetic for words as a deflector.
As far as ignoring victims is concerned, I doubt that any of the kids raped have received any compensation - not that you or AveryLP care.
Nino
I have gone all quiet, as I cannot think of much further to say after providing documentary evidence that a senior UKIP officer had argued in public that people should be free from legal constraint to perform acts of bestiality and necrophilia.
What more could be said in all decency?
Think of the poor animals and corpses. I doubt they will receive any compensation.
I hate to point this out to you, but this fellow broke precisely no law.
That certainly cannot be said for Cyril Smith, Peter Morrison etc.
If you care about animals so much, I trust you are a vegetarian.
No, they won't have done. They might on successful prosecution of perpetrators, which is the whole point. I'm merely pointing out that the idea this is some sort of 2014 cover up of a 1980 something cover up is tenuous at best. Unless of course a proper investigation proves it to be the case, in which case, they can all go hang (or rather spend the required amount of time in prison. Do I care? Yes. Do you? Probably, but you seem more intent on venting your spleen and comparing people yo catholic bishops (which if you knew the first thing about me is ridiculously misjudged)rather then discussing the issue in the sober manner it demands
A thoroughly disgraceful post.
The three main parties at Westminster in 2014 are the same as in the 1970's.
The fact the current leadership have not exposed the paedophiles leaves them thoroughly compromised. Worse, in not seeking out the victims and trying to provide restitution they show they don't give a damn about the people of this country, just like the BBC.
Sober manner? We're talking about child rape here, not AveryLP's yellow boxes.
At least the Catholic Bishops compensated the victims, rather than leave rotting like the BBC and the political parties.
It takes some doing to make the Catholic Church look good over child abuse. The BBC and the three major parties have managed it.
Perhaps you ought to give some thought as to the most effective way of tackling the alleged cover up rather than spouting silage in the hope that some will stick somewhere. There are alleged victims to consider, although you seem content to ignore that. Perhaps PBers might like to consider that before ingesting your nonsense
I have, as requested by PB Moderator, backed up all accusations with links from newspapers.
I have also answered AveryLP's questions - he's gone all quiet now.
Also, "Won't someone think of the children?" is too pathetic for words as a deflector.
As far as ignoring victims is concerned, I doubt that any of the kids raped have received any compensation - not that you or AveryLP care.
Nino
I have gone all quiet, as I cannot think of much further to say after providing documentary evidence that a senior UKIP officer had argued in public that people should be free from legal constraint to perform acts of bestiality and necrophilia.
What more could be said in all decency?
Think of the poor animals and corpses. I doubt they will receive any compensation.
I hate to point this out to you, but this fellow broke precisely no law.
That certainly cannot be said for Cyril Smith, Peter Morrison etc.
If you care about animals so much, I trust you are a vegetarian.
Nino
You cannot say "with certainty" that either Cyril Smith or Peter Morrison broke the law.
All you can say is that allegations have been made that they did.
No, they won't have done. They might on successful prosecution of perpetrators, which is the whole point. I'm merely pointing out that the idea this is some sort of 2014 cover up of a 1980 something cover up is tenuous at best. Unless of course a proper investigation proves it to be the case, in which case, they can all go hang (or rather spend the required amount of time in prison. Do I care? Yes. Do you? Probably, but you seem more intent on venting your spleen and comparing people yo catholic bishops (which if you knew the first thing about me is ridiculously misjudged)rather then discussing the issue in the sober manner it demands
A thoroughly disgraceful post.
The three main parties at Westminster in 2014 are the same as in the 1970's.
The fact the current leadership have not exposed the paedophiles leaves them thoroughly compromised. Worse, in not seeking out the victims and trying to provide restitution they show they don't give a damn about the people of this country, just like the BBC.
Sober manner? We're talking about child rape here, not AveryLP's yellow boxes.
At least the Catholic Bishops compensated the victims, rather than leave rotting like the BBC and the political parties.
It takes some doing to make the Catholic Church look good over child abuse. The BBC and the three major parties have managed it.
Well I never. UKIP has a private cover-up over convicted paedophile in its membership, six months ago rather than in the 1980s. Convicted as in tried and found guilty and sent to prison.
"Gale said he had supplied evidence of the registered sex offender's continued involvement with Ukip to the party. The man, whose name is known to the Observer, has campaigned on its behalf and blogs on party issues. He was placed on the sex offenders register for life in 1999, having served a 30-month sentence for offences involving children." (From the Guardian article).
Ukip are really going to pick up votes over all this.
Perhaps you ought to give some thought as to the most effective way of tackling the alleged cover up rather than spouting silage in the hope that some will stick somewhere. There are alleged victims to consider, although you seem content to ignore that. Perhaps PBers might like to consider that before ingesting your nonsense
I have, as requested by PB Moderator, backed up all accusations with links from newspapers.
I have also answered AveryLP's questions - he's gone all quiet now.
Also, "Won't someone think of the children?" is too pathetic for words as a deflector.
As far as ignoring victims is concerned, I doubt that any of the kids raped have received any compensation - not that you or AveryLP care.
Nino
I have gone all quiet, as I cannot think of much further to say after providing documentary evidence that a senior UKIP officer had argued in public that people should be free from legal constraint to perform acts of bestiality and necrophilia.
What more could be said in all decency?
Think of the poor animals and corpses. I doubt they will receive any compensation.
I hate to point this out to you, but this fellow broke precisely no law.
That certainly cannot be said for Cyril Smith, Peter Morrison etc.
If you care about animals so much, I trust you are a vegetarian.
Nino
You cannot say "with certainty" that either Cyril Smith or Peter Morrison broke the law.
All you can say is that allegations have been made that they did.
Wow, you really do know nothing about paedophilia.
These are children. How exactly are they going to give evidence?
It requires them to reach adulthood and there to be a critical mass of allegations cf. Rolf Harris, Michael Souter [bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24755052], Jonathan King etc.
The important thing is that investigations were mounted to start the process - they weren't.
What's truly incredible is that the BBC and the three main parties have learnt nothing from the travails of the RCC. Haven't they got enough publicity?
No, they won't have done. They might on successful prosecution of perpetrators, which is the whole point. I'm merely pointing out that the idea this is some sort of 2014 cover up of a 1980 something cover up is tenuous at best. Unless of course a proper investigation proves it to be the case, in which case, they can all go hang (or rather spend the required amount of time in prison. Do I care? Yes. Do you? Probably, but you seem more intent on venting your spleen and comparing people yo catholic bishops (which if you knew the first thing about me is ridiculously misjudged)rather then discussing the issue in the sober manner it demands
A thoroughly disgraceful post.
The three main parties at Westminster in 2014 are the same as in the 1970's.
The fact the current leadership have not exposed the paedophiles leaves them thoroughly compromised. Worse, in not seeking out the victims and trying to provide restitution they show they don't give a damn about the people of this country, just like the BBC.
Sober manner? We're talking about child rape here, not AveryLP's yellow boxes.
At least the Catholic Bishops compensated the victims, rather than leave rotting like the BBC and the political parties.
It takes some doing to make the Catholic Church look good over child abuse. The BBC and the three major parties have managed it.
Well I never. UKIP has a private cover-up over convicted paedophile in its membership, six months ago rather than in the 1980s. Convicted as in tried and found guilty and sent to prison.
"Gale said he had supplied evidence of the registered sex offender's continued involvement with Ukip to the party. The man, whose name is known to the Observer, has campaigned on its behalf and blogs on party issues. He was placed on the sex offenders register for life in 1999, having served a 30-month sentence for offences involving children." (From the Guardian article).
Ukip are really going to pick up votes over all this.
So, released offender does legal activity.
UKIP, which doesn't deal with children, doesn't do CRB checks.
Not exactly much of a scandal.
The guy is totally unsuitable to stand as a candidate, though.
Perhaps you ought to give some thought as to the most effective way of tackling the alleged cover up rather than spouting silage in the hope that some will stick somewhere. There are alleged victims to consider, although you seem content to ignore that. Perhaps PBers might like to consider that before ingesting your nonsense
I have, as requested by PB Moderator, backed up all accusations with links from newspapers.
I have also answered AveryLP's questions - he's gone all quiet now.
Also, "Won't someone think of the children?" is too pathetic for words as a deflector.
As far as ignoring victims is concerned, I doubt that any of the kids raped have received any compensation - not that you or AveryLP care.
Nino
I have gone all quiet, as I cannot think of much further to say after providing documentary evidence that a senior UKIP officer had argued in public that people should be free from legal constraint to perform acts of bestiality and necrophilia.
What more could be said in all decency?
Think of the poor animals and corpses. I doubt they will receive any compensation.
I hate to point this out to you, but this fellow broke precisely no law.
That certainly cannot be said for Cyril Smith, Peter Morrison etc.
If you care about animals so much, I trust you are a vegetarian.
Nino
You cannot say "with certainty" that either Cyril Smith or Peter Morrison broke the law.
All you can say is that allegations have been made that they did.
Wow, you really do know nothing about paedophilia.
These are children. How exactly are they going to give evidence?
It requires them to reach adulthood and there to be a critical mass of allegations cf. Rolf Harris, Michael Souter [bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24755052], Jonathan King etc.
The important thing is that investigations were mounted to start the process - they weren't.
What's truly incredible is that the BBC and the three main parties have learnt nothing from the travails of the RCC. Haven't they got enough publicity?
Nonsense. Children can give evidence in English criminal proceedings.
I note that you say that "Take it from me, you don't get volunteers to defend a organisation affected by abuse". We now know that Ukip has covered up the presence of a convicted paedophile in its own ranks, which thankfully closes this argument down.
Perhaps you ought to give some thought as to the most effective way of tackling the alleged cover up rather than spouting silage in the hope that some will stick somewhere. There are alleged victims to consider, although you seem content to ignore that. Perhaps PBers might like to consider that before ingesting your nonsense
I have gone all quiet, as I cannot think of much further to say after providing documentary evidence that a senior UKIP officer had argued in public that people should be free from legal constraint to perform acts of bestiality and necrophilia.
What more could be said in all decency?
Think of the poor animals and corpses. I doubt they will receive any compensation.
I hate to point this out to you, but this fellow broke precisely no law.
That certainly cannot be said for Cyril Smith, Peter Morrison etc.
If you care about animals so much, I trust you are a vegetarian.
Nino
You cannot say "with certainty" that either Cyril Smith or Peter Morrison broke the law.
All you can say is that allegations have been made that they did.
Wow, you really do know nothing about paedophilia.
These are children. How exactly are they going to give evidence?
It requires them to reach adulthood and there to be a critical mass of allegations cf. Rolf Harris, Michael Souter [bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24755052], Jonathan King etc.
The important thing is that investigations were mounted to start the process - they weren't.
What's truly incredible is that the BBC and the three main parties have learnt nothing from the travails of the RCC. Haven't they got enough publicity?
I repeat. The Metropolitan Police have a current operation investigating allegations of the sexual abuse of children. The Met will investigate all allegations regardless of when they were alleged to have taken place and without restriction on who the the alleged perpetrators are.
If you - or any other person - has any evidence relating to child sexual abuse then you should contact the police immediately.
Nonsense. Children can give evidence in English criminal proceedings.
I note that you say that "Take it from me, you don't get volunteers to defend a organisation affected by abuse". We now know that Ukip has covered up the presence of a convicted paedophile in its own ranks, which thankfully closes this argument down.
Yes, by your proving it. You have refused to defend UKIP, but attack it instead. UKIP members hardly fall under the rubric of volunteers, do they?
No, they won't have done. They might on successful prosecution of perpetrators, which is the whole point. I'm merely pointing out that the idea this is some sort of 2014 cover up of a 1980 something cover up is tenuous at best. Unless of course a proper investigation proves it to be the case, in which case, they can all go hang (or rather spend the required amount of time in prison. Do I care? Yes. Do you? Probably, but you seem more intent on venting your spleen and comparing people yo catholic bishops (which if you knew the first thing about me is ridiculously misjudged)rather then discussing the issue in the sober manner it demands
A thoroughly disgraceful post.
The three main parties at Westminster in 2014 are the same as in the 1970's.
The fact the current leadership have not exposed the paedophiles leaves them thoroughly compromised. Worse, in not seeking out the victims and trying to provide restitution they show they don't give a damn about the people of this country, just like the BBC.
Sober manner? We're talking about child rape here, not AveryLP's yellow boxes.
At least the Catholic Bishops compensated the victims, rather than leave rotting like the BBC and the political parties.
It takes some doing to make the Catholic Church look good over child abuse. The BBC and the three major parties have managed it.
Well I never. UKIP has a private cover-up over convicted paedophile in its membership, six months ago rather than in the 1980s. Convicted as in tried and found guilty and sent to prison.
"Gale said he had supplied evidence of the registered sex offender's continued involvement with Ukip to the party. The man, whose name is known to the Observer, has campaigned on its behalf and blogs on party issues. He was placed on the sex offenders register for life in 1999, having served a 30-month sentence for offences involving children." (From the Guardian article).
Ukip are really going to pick up votes over all this.
So, released offender does legal activity.
UKIP, which doesn't deal with children, doesn't do CRB checks.
Not exactly much of a scandal.
The guy is totally unsuitable to stand as a candidate, though.
Desperate stuff.
UKIP has a youth wing, Young Independence, with no minimum age as far as I can see.
It is time for you to stop digging and me to go to bed.
Perhaps you ought to give some thought as to the most effective way of tackling the alleged cover up rather than spouting silage in the hope that some will stick somewhere. There are alleged victims to consider, although you seem content to ignore that. Perhaps PBers might like to consider that before ingesting your nonsense
I have gone all quiet, as I cannot think of much further to say after providing documentary evidence that a senior UKIP officer had argued in public that people should be free from legal constraint to perform acts of bestiality and necrophilia.
What more could be said in all decency?
Think of the poor animals and corpses. I doubt they will receive any compensation.
I hate to point this out to you, but this fellow broke precisely no law.
That certainly cannot be said for Cyril Smith, Peter Morrison etc.
If you care about animals so much, I trust you are a vegetarian.
Nino
You cannot say "with certainty" that either Cyril Smith or Peter Morrison broke the law.
All you can say is that allegations have been made that they did.
Wow, you really do know nothing about paedophilia.
These are children. How exactly are they going to give evidence?
It requires them to reach adulthood and there to be a critical mass of allegations cf. Rolf Harris, Michael Souter [bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24755052], Jonathan King etc.
The important thing is that investigations were mounted to start the process - they weren't.
What's truly incredible is that the BBC and the three main parties have learnt nothing from the travails of the RCC. Haven't they got enough publicity?
I repeat. The Metropolitan Police have a current operation investigating allegations of the sexual abuse of children. The Met will investigate all allegations regardless of when they were alleged to have taken place and without restriction on who the the alleged perpetrators are.
If you - or any other person - has any evidence relating to child sexual abuse then you should contact the police immediately.
Like Conservative MPs have? Like BBC employees have?
You're onto a loser with this one, I'm afraid.
If they did, the police are crap and can't be relied upon.
If they didn't, they were facilitating the continuance of child abuse.
No, they won't have done. They might on successful prosecution of perpetrators, which is the whole point. I'm merely pointing out that the idea this is some sort of 2014 cover up of a 1980 something cover up is tenuous at best. Unless of course a proper investigation proves it to be the case, in which case, they can all go hang (or rather spend the required amount of time in prison. Do I care? Yes. Do you? Probably, but you seem more intent on venting your spleen and comparing people yo catholic bishops (which if you knew the first thing about me is ridiculously misjudged)rather then discussing the issue in the sober manner it demands
A thoroughly disgraceful post.
The three main parties at Westminster in 2014 are the same as in the 1970's.
The fact the current leadership have not exposed the paedophiles leaves them thoroughly compromised. Worse, in not seeking out the victims and trying to provide restitution they show they don't give a damn about the people of this country, just like the BBC.
Sober manner? We're talking about child rape here, not AveryLP's yellow boxes.
At least the Catholic Bishops compensated the victims, rather than leave rotting like the BBC and the political parties.
It takes some doing to make the Catholic Church look good over child abuse. The BBC and the three major parties have managed it.
Well I never. UKIP has a private cover-up over convicted paedophile in its membership, six months ago rather than in the 1980s. Convicted as in tried and found guilty and sent to prison.
"Gale said he had supplied evidence of the registered sex offender's continued involvement with Ukip to the party. The man, whose name is known to the Observer, has campaigned on its behalf and blogs on party issues. He was placed on the sex offenders register for life in 1999, having served a 30-month sentence for offences involving children." (From the Guardian article).
Ukip are really going to pick up votes over all this.
So, released offender does legal activity.
UKIP, which doesn't deal with children, doesn't do CRB checks.
Not exactly much of a scandal.
The guy is totally unsuitable to stand as a candidate, though.
Desperate stuff.
UKIP has a youth wing, Young Independence, with no minimum age as far as I can see.
It is time for you to stop digging and me to go to bed.
So, UKIP are trying to recruit people with no money and haven't got the vote.
Perhaps you ought to give some thought as to the most effective way of tackling the alleged cover up rather than spouting silage in the hope that some will stick somewhere. There are alleged victims to consider, although you seem content to ignore that. Perhaps PBers might like to consider that before ingesting your nonsense
I have gone all quiet, as I cannot think of much further to say after providing documentary evidence that a senior UKIP officer had argued in public that people should be free from legal constraint to perform acts of bestiality and necrophilia.
What more could be said in all decency?
Think of the poor animals and corpses. I doubt they will receive any compensation.
I hate to point this out to you, but this fellow broke precisely no law.
That certainly cannot be said for Cyril Smith, Peter Morrison etc.
If you care about animals so much, I trust you are a vegetarian.
Nino
You cannot say "with certainty" that either Cyril Smith or Peter Morrison broke the law.
All you can say is that allegations have been made that they did.
Wow, you really do know nothing about paedophilia.
These are children. How exactly are they going to give evidence?
It requires them to reach adulthood and there to be a critical mass of allegations cf. Rolf Harris, Michael Souter [bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24755052], Jonathan King etc.
The important thing is that investigations were mounted to start the process - they weren't.
What's truly incredible is that the BBC and the three main parties have learnt nothing from the travails of the RCC. Haven't they got enough publicity?
I repeat. The Metropolitan Police have a current operation investigating allegations of the sexual abuse of children. The Met will investigate all allegations regardless of when they were alleged to have taken place and without restriction on who the the alleged perpetrators are.
If you - or any other person - has any evidence relating to child sexual abuse then you should contact the police immediately.
"I repeat. The Metropolitan Police have a current operation investigating allegations of the sexual abuse of children. The Met will investigate all allegations regardless of when they were alleged to have taken place and without restriction on who the the alleged perpetrators are."
I do hope for all the good work he is doing exposing the failures of the past, that his vision isn't clouded along party lines, in the way that certain MP's investigations in abuses by the press was. In the later case, it seems that despite their been clear evidence by newspapers across the political spectrum, their attentions became totally infatuated upon one and only one group and certainly not giving the impression of being white knights.
It has been reported of a) some terrible behaviour by some newspaper on a par with the Milly Dowler incident and b) that there has been a much wider spread of abuses with lawyers, companies, etc being involved....but now those white knights seemingly more interested on being on the book circuit than carrying on searching on abuses of the past.
Like Conservative MPs have? Like BBC employees have?
You're onto a loser with this one, I'm afraid.
If they did, the police are crap and can't be relied upon.
If they didn't, they were facilitating the continuance of child abuse.
It is the responsibility of the police to investigate alleged crime.
If a crime is not reported to the police or they are otherwise unaware that a crime may have been committed then they cannot investigate.
An argument can be mounted that the BBC, NHS, political parties of all colours and vintage (and even the police themselves) should have been more active and willing to report allegations of abuse to the police but this is a secondary issue to police investigation.
A time may well come, after the police have completed their current investigations, when it might be appropriate to review in public the past behaviour and attitudes of 'employing' institutions with regard to how they handled reports and knowledge of subsequently proven incidences of child abuse. The time for this however is not now. Any public review now would risk compromising police investigation and subsequent criminal prosecution.
It is the responsibility of the police to investigate alleged crime.
If a crime is not reported to the police or they are otherwise unaware that a crime may have been committed then they cannot investigate.
An argument can be mounted that the BBC, NHS, political parties of all colours and vintage (and even the police themselves) should have been more active and willing to report allegations of abuse to the police but this is a secondary issue to police investigation.
A time may well come, after the police have completed their current investigations, when it might be appropriate to review in public the past behaviour and attitudes of 'employing' institutions with regard to how they handled reports and knowledge of subsequently proven incidences of child abuse. The time for this however is not now. Any public review now would risk compromising police investigation and subsequent criminal prosecution.
It is the responsibility of the police to investigate alleged crime.
If a crime is not reported to the police or they are otherwise unaware that a crime may have been committed then they cannot investigate.
An argument can be mounted that other organisations that we can drag in (and even the police themselves) should have been more active and willing to report allegations of abuse to the police but this is a secondary issue to police investigation.
A time may well come, after the police have completed their current investigations, when it might be appropriate to review in public the past behaviour and attitudes of the Roman Catholic Church with regard to how they handled reports and knowledge of subsequently proven incidences of child abuse. The time for this however is not now. Any public review now would risk compromising police investigation and subsequent criminal prosecution.
Sounds like a cover up to me. Trying to kick the ball into the long grass so the attention will be off your party.
Comments
That certainly cannot be said for Cyril Smith, Peter Morrison etc.
If you care about animals so much, I trust you are a vegetarian.
The three main parties at Westminster in 2014 are the same as in the 1970's.
The fact the current leadership have not exposed the paedophiles leaves them thoroughly compromised. Worse, in not seeking out the victims and trying to provide restitution they show they don't give a damn about the people of this country, just like the BBC.
Sober manner? We're talking about child rape here, not AveryLP's yellow boxes.
At least the Catholic Bishops compensated the victims, rather than leave rotting like the BBC and the political parties.
It takes some doing to make the Catholic Church look good over child abuse. The BBC and the three major parties have managed it.
You cannot say "with certainty" that either Cyril Smith or Peter Morrison broke the law.
All you can say is that allegations have been made that they did.
Well I never. UKIP has a private cover-up over convicted paedophile in its membership, six months ago rather than in the 1980s. Convicted as in tried and found guilty and sent to prison.
"Gale said he had supplied evidence of the registered sex offender's continued involvement with Ukip to the party. The man, whose name is known to the Observer, has campaigned on its behalf and blogs on party issues. He was placed on the sex offenders register for life in 1999, having served a 30-month sentence for offences involving children." (From the Guardian article).
Ukip are really going to pick up votes over all this.
These are children. How exactly are they going to give evidence?
It requires them to reach adulthood and there to be a critical mass of allegations cf. Rolf Harris, Michael Souter [bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24755052], Jonathan King etc.
The important thing is that investigations were mounted to start the process - they weren't.
What's truly incredible is that the BBC and the three main parties have learnt nothing from the travails of the RCC. Haven't they got enough publicity?
UKIP, which doesn't deal with children, doesn't do CRB checks.
Not exactly much of a scandal.
The guy is totally unsuitable to stand as a candidate, though.
Desperate stuff.
I note that you say that "Take it from me, you don't get volunteers to defend a organisation affected by abuse". We now know that Ukip has covered up the presence of a convicted paedophile in its own ranks, which thankfully closes this argument down.
If you - or any other person - has any evidence relating to child sexual abuse then you should contact the police immediately.
QED
It is time for you to stop digging and me to go to bed.
You're onto a loser with this one, I'm afraid.
If they did, the police are crap and can't be relied upon.
If they didn't, they were facilitating the continuance of child abuse.
Not particularly likely, is it?
"I repeat. The Metropolitan Police have a current operation investigating allegations of the sexual abuse of children. The Met will investigate all allegations regardless of when they were alleged to have taken place and without restriction on who the the alleged perpetrators are."
Finally.
"The answer is simple: it is because they all knew."
I do hope for all the good work he is doing exposing the failures of the past, that his vision isn't clouded along party lines, in the way that certain MP's investigations in abuses by the press was. In the later case, it seems that despite their been clear evidence by newspapers across the political spectrum, their attentions became totally infatuated upon one and only one group and certainly not giving the impression of being white knights.
It has been reported of a) some terrible behaviour by some newspaper on a par with the Milly Dowler incident and b) that there has been a much wider spread of abuses with lawyers, companies, etc being involved....but now those white knights seemingly more interested on being on the book circuit than carrying on searching on abuses of the past.
Like Conservative MPs have? Like BBC employees have?
You're onto a loser with this one, I'm afraid.
If they did, the police are crap and can't be relied upon.
If they didn't, they were facilitating the continuance of child abuse.
It is the responsibility of the police to investigate alleged crime.
If a crime is not reported to the police or they are otherwise unaware that a crime may have been committed then they cannot investigate.
An argument can be mounted that the BBC, NHS, political parties of all colours and vintage (and even the police themselves) should have been more active and willing to report allegations of abuse to the police but this is a secondary issue to police investigation.
A time may well come, after the police have completed their current investigations, when it might be appropriate to review in public the past behaviour and attitudes of 'employing' institutions with regard to how they handled reports and knowledge of subsequently proven incidences of child abuse. The time for this however is not now. Any public review now would risk compromising police investigation and subsequent criminal prosecution.
Just playing around. The digital age is fraught with danger. It's a(n) (in)famous (mis)quote from Oscar Wilde:
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/o/oscarwilde128390.html
And.....LAST!! (?)
Sounds like a cover up to me. Trying to kick the ball into the long grass so the attention will be off your party.