Three Police Federation officers are to be investigated by the Independent Police Complaints Commission over their role in the "Plebgate" affair.
Not before time
It's amazing how long this sh*tty little scandal has gone on for. Meanwhile, the country can't organise an enquiry into an enormous scandal of real importance like nationwide child sex abuse.
The difference is that the Prime Minister wants justice and truth from plebgate, but not with regards to Asian grooming gangs.
Isn't the problem that the tinfoil hatters have deposed the last two judges appointed to lead the enquiry, and no one else wants to handle the poisoned chalice?
Mansfield would leap at the chance, but he's too politically aligned.
It's not his political views which would be the problem for him. He's a good QC - though is finding life tough with the Legal Aid cuts. But he's close to some of the survivors so may not be seen as impartial - it is after all possible that some of the allegations are untrue - and, of course, he may also know and/or have worked with or had dinner with people who might be called to give evidence.
Interesting that according to the Sunday papers a number of people who could have been good choices have declined. Hardly surprising. It will be a tough gig at the best of times; add in all the abuse / casting doubt on your motives/impartiality and professionalism etc... Why would anyone want to take the job?
There are plenty of people qualified to do the job who would doubtless be willing to do so but the problem is exactly as you indicate with the Mansfield example.
He would enjoy the confidence of the survivors but the Government would regard him as a little too close to them. That's perfectly understandable (although the Government did seem to have difficulty in understanding why Woolf and her predecessor were regarded by the survivors as too close to the Government.)
I think they're going to have to look overseas.
Archbishop John Sentamu -obvious choice -I'll keep saying it till some eagle eyed Mail Journo spots it and starts a campaign.
Three Police Federation officers are to be investigated by the Independent Police Complaints Commission over their role in the "Plebgate" affair.
Not before time
It's amazing how long this sh*tty little scandal has gone on for. Meanwhile, the country can't organise an enquiry into an enormous scandal of real importance like nationwide child sex abuse.
The difference is that the Prime Minister wants justice and truth from plebgate, but not with regards to Asian grooming gangs.
Isn't the problem that the tinfoil hatters have deposed the last two judges appointed to lead the enquiry, and no one else wants to handle the poisoned chalice?
Why "tinfoil hatters"? It was the victims themselves who took the view that someone you've had to dinner or vv five times is a close friend of yours, and that you shouldn't be investigating allegations against them. If you are prepared to make statements about the relationship as to whose truth you are at the very least entirely reckless, that wraps it up for any reasonable and unprejudiced observer.
Tinfoil hat appears to be the blanket term for anyone who questions authority these days -even if the authority in question has been buggering your children.
Plenty of people are questioning authority; and precious few respecting it at present.
Three Police Federation officers are to be investigated by the Independent Police Complaints Commission over their role in the "Plebgate" affair.
Not before time
It's amazing how long this sh*tty little scandal has gone on for. Meanwhile, the country can't organise an enquiry into an enormous scandal of real importance like nationwide child sex abuse.
The difference is that the Prime Minister wants justice and truth from plebgate, but not with regards to Asian grooming gangs.
Isn't the problem that the tinfoil hatters have deposed the last two judges appointed to lead the enquiry, and no one else wants to handle the poisoned chalice?
Why "tinfoil hatters"? It was the victims themselves who took the view that someone you've had to dinner or vv five times is a close friend of yours, and that you shouldn't be investigating allegations against them. If you are prepared to make statements about the relationship as to whose truth you are at the very least entirely reckless, that wraps it up for any reasonable and unprejudiced observer.
Tinfoil hat appears to be the blanket term for anyone who questions authority these days -even if the authority in question has been buggering your children.
Plenty of people are questioning authority; and precious few respecting it at present.
Why not just have a lynch mob and get on with it?
Respect needs to be earned. As for lynch mobs -thankfully in what is still a representative democracy, Governments can be dismissed by the ballot box.
I wrote 'activists', not Farage. Talk to some more UKIP activists. Visit the UKIP constituency office on 30 High St, Rochester. You'd be made very welcome. You, in particular, would be surprised how normal they are.
Normal, David?
Have you lost the plot? Don't you know this is how they see things?
Normal is what I wrote, and normal is what I meant. Back when I was allowed to be a UKIP candidate (sadly, no longer) I saw for myself that the media had no interest in quoting anyone from UKIP who said anything sensible. They were only looking for the daft.
Peter, Rochester is ever so easy to get to by train from London. One of the nicest High Streets in the country. And you can visit the tory office at the other end. We'd value your impartial view.
Three Police Federation officers are to be investigated by the Independent Police Complaints Commission over their role in the "Plebgate" affair.
Not before time
It's amazing how long this sh*tty little scandal has gone on for. Meanwhile, the country can't organise an enquiry into an enormous scandal of real importance like nationwide child sex abuse.
The difference is that the Prime Minister wants justice and truth from plebgate, but not with regards to Asian grooming gangs.
Isn't the problem that the tinfoil hatters have deposed the last two judges appointed to lead the enquiry, and no one else wants to handle the poisoned chalice?
Why "tinfoil hatters"? It was the victims themselves who took the view that someone you've had to dinner or vv five times is a close friend of yours, and that you shouldn't be investigating allegations against them. If you are prepared to make statements about the relationship as to whose truth you are at the very least entirely reckless, that wraps it up for any reasonable and unprejudiced observer.
Tinfoil hat appears to be the blanket term for anyone who questions authority these days -even if the authority in question has been buggering your children.
Plenty of people are questioning authority; and precious few respecting it at present.
Why not just have a lynch mob and get on with it?
It would seem you have lost your tin-foil hat? You can buy a replacement here......
Three Police Federation officers are to be investigated by the Independent Police Complaints Commission over their role in the "Plebgate" affair.
Not before time
It's amazing how long this sh*tty little scandal has gone on for. Meanwhile, the country can't organise an enquiry into an enormous scandal of real importance like nationwide child sex abuse.
The difference is that the Prime Minister wants justice and truth from plebgate, but not with regards to Asian grooming gangs.
Isn't the problem that the tinfoil hatters have deposed the last two judges appointed to lead the enquiry, and no one else wants to handle the poisoned chalice?
Why "tinfoil hatters"? It was the victims themselves who took the view that someone you've had to dinner or vv five times is a close friend of yours, and that you shouldn't be investigating allegations against them. If you are prepared to make statements about the relationship as to whose truth you are at the very least entirely reckless, that wraps it up for any reasonable and unprejudiced observer.
Tinfoil hat appears to be the blanket term for anyone who questions authority these days -even if the authority in question has been buggering your children.
Plenty of people are questioning authority; and precious few respecting it at present.
Why not just have a lynch mob and get on with it?
Who's calling for a lynch mob? Those of us worrying about the issue on here have been demanding a national police investigation and then an independent inquiry. That is a sensible, moderate demand - and far superior to the current government's position of doing nothing. For such people to be castigated as wanting a lynch mob is a disgraceful response.
Three Police Federation officers are to be investigated by the Independent Police Complaints Commission over their role in the "Plebgate" affair.
Not before time
It's amazing how long this sh*tty little scandal has gone on for. Meanwhile, the country can't organise an enquiry into an enormous scandal of real importance like nationwide child sex abuse.
The difference is that the Prime Minister wants justice and truth from plebgate, but not with regards to Asian grooming gangs.
Isn't the problem that the tinfoil hatters have deposed the last two judges appointed to lead the enquiry, and no one else wants to handle the poisoned chalice?
Mansfield would leap at the chance, but he's too politically aligned.
It's not his political views which would be the problem for him. He's a good QC - though is finding life tough with the Legal Aid cuts. But he's close to some of the survivors so may not be seen as impartial - it is after all possible that some of the allegations are untrue - and, of course, he may also know and/or have worked with or had dinner with people who might be called to give evidence.
Interesting that according to the Sunday papers a number of people who could have been good choices have declined. Hardly surprising. It will be a tough gig at the best of times; add in all the abuse / casting doubt on your motives/impartiality and professionalism etc... Why would anyone want to take the job?
There are plenty of people qualified to do the job who would doubtless be willing to do so but the problem is exactly as you indicate with the Mansfield example.
He would enjoy the confidence of the survivors but the Government would regard him as a little too close to them. That's perfectly understandable (although the Government did seem to have difficulty in understanding why Woolf and her predecessor were regarded by the survivors as too close to the Government.)
I think they're going to have to look overseas.
Archbishop John Sentamu -obvious choice -I'll keep saying it till some eagle eyed Mail Journo spots it and starts a campaign.
The Government won't necessarily want to hamper the enquiry, but it would want to be kept informed of its progress so it could take the appropriate action if something truly awful crawled out from under the rocks.
I'm not sure it would be wholly confident that Sentamu or somebody like that would keep them sufficiently well briefed.
I wrote 'activists', not Farage. Talk to some more UKIP activists. Visit the UKIP constituency office on 30 High St, Rochester. You'd be made very welcome. You, in particular, would be surprised how normal they are.
Normal, David?
Have you lost the plot? Don't you know this is how they see things?
Normal is what I wrote, and normal is what I meant. Back when I was allowed to be a UKIP candidate (sadly, no longer) I saw for myself that the media had no interest in quoting anyone from UKIP who said anything sensible. They were only looking for the daft.
Peter, Rochester is ever so easy to get to by train from London. One of the nicest High Streets in the country. And you can visit the tory office at the other end. We'd value your impartial view.
I shall almost certainly make a visit nearer polling day - in the interests of betting research, of course.
Since you ask, I think chemtrails are at the "X-Files" end of the conspiricy theory spectrum, i.e. 100% bullshit.
I've never understood why, when governments are tripped up by the most simple and trivial attempts at a cover-up or deception, some people still believe it's possible for the US authorities to murder several thousand people in (mostly) New York and Washington without any credible evidence or whistle-blowing coming to light. Bonkers.
I see. I thought it was to make your pouncing on my post calling me a nutter when we've never exchanged words seem slightly more conversational and slightly less rude and frankly odd.
I bow to your superior knowledge on chemtrails -I have only the vaguest idea of what they're supposed to be.
As for your second paragraph -your argument is entirely circular. It cannot be true because if it were we would know it were true. The fact is there is mountainous physical, forensic, and circumstantial evidence, but there will never be a 'smoking gun' moment, because the world is about perception, and unless something is carried in the media, it doesn't 'come out'. A critical mass of people (currently) accept the official version and shun further enquiry -that's fine, but it's hardly evidence.
I'm sorry if my calling you - a self-identifying conspiricy theorist - a 'nutter' made you feel sad. However, if you're going to venture onto a public forum with views like that then you need to develop thicker skin.
The "odd" comment showed a wonderful lack of self-awareness, and cheered me up immensely. You can view that comment as thick-skin training. Sleep tight.
Please don't worry -for it to have made me feel anything, I would have to have some scintilla of respect for your opinion.
I responded to your 'argument' in good faith with an argument of my own. Unable to continue in that vein, you've clearly chosen the fall back option of name calling. I think anyone viewing the exchange will be able to make up their own mind.
I see. I thought it was to make your pouncing on my post calling me a nutter when we've never exchanged words seem slightly more conversational and slightly less rude and frankly odd.
Whereas you had no problem pouncing on my post to call me an ignoramus?
And your accusation that I was attempting to "one up" another poster makes me rather suspect that's a tactic you would use, which is why you see it in another's comment that had no such intention.
Maybe you should stick to writing about politics or betting, ahead of commenting on the intelligence or motivations of others.
The Government won't necessarily want to hamper the enquiry, but it would want to be kept informed of its progress so it could take the appropriate action if something truly awful crawled out from under the rocks.
I'm not sure it would be wholly confident that Sentamu or somebody like that would keep them sufficiently well briefed.
That's a very nice way of putting it, and I totally agree. However, I don't see the Government not liking it as a particularly good reason for not campaigning for it. The Government would clearly 'like' the issue never to have come into the public domain at all.
Three Police Federation officers are to be investigated by the Independent Police Complaints Commission over their role in the "Plebgate" affair.
Not before time
It's amazing how long this sh*tty little scandal has gone on for. Meanwhile, the country can't organise an enquiry into an enormous scandal of real importance like nationwide child sex abuse.
The difference is that the Prime Minister wants justice and truth from plebgate, but not with regards to Asian grooming gangs.
Isn't the problem that the tinfoil hatters have deposed the last two judges appointed to lead the enquiry, and no one else wants to handle the poisoned chalice?
Why "tinfoil hatters"? It was the victims themselves who took the view that someone you've had to dinner or vv five times is a close friend of yours, and that you shouldn't be investigating allegations against them. If you are prepared to make statements about the relationship as to whose truth you are at the very least entirely reckless, that wraps it up for any reasonable and unprejudiced observer.
Tinfoil hat appears to be the blanket term for anyone who questions authority these days -even if the authority in question has been buggering your children.
Plenty of people are questioning authority; and precious few respecting it at present.
Why not just have a lynch mob and get on with it?
You seem very much in thrall to the upper classes, for an LD as I think you are. I imagine you have no difficulty in seeing that if property developer A has been to dinner 5 times with councillor B, B should not adjudicate on A's planning application. What's different, except that everyone involved is terribly posh?
I see. I thought it was to make your pouncing on my post calling me a nutter when we've never exchanged words seem slightly more conversational and slightly less rude and frankly odd.
Whereas you had no problem pouncing on my post to call me an ignoramus?
And your accusation that I was attempting to "one up" another poster makes me rather suspect that's a tactic you would use, which is why you see it in another's comment that had no such intention.
Maybe you should stick to writing about politics or betting, ahead of commenting on the intelligence or motivations of others.
Your post effectively dismissed everything *I* would ever write about anything, due to a view that I hold, on an unrelated issue, in good faith, dispassionately, and as a result of my own research. I don't know or care enough about you to know what you like, dislike, believe or disbelieve, but I think if I jumped on an article someone posted with -'Are you aware, the person you're quoting is called Jimmy?' and tried to undermine all credibility as a result, you'd have something to say about it.
I see. I thought it was to make your pouncing on my post calling me a nutter when we've never exchanged words seem slightly more conversational and slightly less rude and frankly odd.
Whereas you had no problem pouncing on my post to call me an ignoramus?
And your accusation that I was attempting to "one up" another poster makes me rather suspect that's a tactic you would use, which is why you see it in another's comment that had no such intention.
Maybe you should stick to writing about politics or betting, ahead of commenting on the intelligence or motivations of others.
Your post effectively dismissed everything *I* would ever write about anything, due to a view that I hold, on an unrelated issue, in good faith, dispassionately, and as a result of my own research. I don't know or care enough about you to know what you like, dislike, believe or disbelieve, but I think if I jumped on an article someone posted with -'Are you aware, the person you're quoting is called Jimmy?' and tried to undermine all credibility as a result, you'd have something to say about it.
My post only dismissed everything you would ever write if you're disturbingly paranoid. I explained why I brought what I did to MikeK's attention, and you accused me of trying to "one up" him due to his background.
Three Police Federation officers are to be investigated by the Independent Police Complaints Commission over their role in the "Plebgate" affair.
Not before time
It's amazing how long this sh*tty little scandal has gone on for. Meanwhile, the country can't organise an enquiry into an enormous scandal of real importance like nationwide child sex abuse.
The difference is that the Prime Minister wants justice and truth from plebgate, but not with regards to Asian grooming gangs.
Isn't the problem that the tinfoil hatters have deposed the last two judges appointed to lead the enquiry, and no one else wants to handle the poisoned chalice?
Mansfield would leap at the chance, but he's too politically aligned.
It's not his political views which would be the problem for him. He's a good QC - though is finding life tough with the Legal Aid cuts. But he's close to some of the survivors so may not be seen as impartial - it is after all possible that some of the allegations are untrue - and, of course, he may also know and/or have worked with or had dinner with people who might be called to give evidence.
Interesting that according to the Sunday papers a number of people who could have been good choices have declined. Hardly surprising. It will be a tough gig at the best of times; add in all the abuse / casting doubt on your motives/impartiality and professionalism etc... Why would anyone want to take the job?
There are plenty of people qualified to do the job who would doubtless be willing to do so but the problem is exactly as you indicate with the Mansfield example.
He would enjoy the confidence of the survivors but the Government would regard him as a little too close to them. That's perfectly understandable (although the Government did seem to have difficulty in understanding why Woolf and her predecessor were regarded by the survivors as too close to the Government.)
I think they're going to have to look overseas.
Archbishop John Sentamu -obvious choice -I'll keep saying it till some eagle eyed Mail Journo spots it and starts a campaign.
You're wasting your time. The Church has it's own problems with child abuse, and he may well have come into contact with people involved, both within his own organisation and others.
I see. I thought it was to make your pouncing on my post calling me a nutter when we've never exchanged words seem slightly more conversational and slightly less rude and frankly odd.
Whereas you had no problem pouncing on my post to call me an ignoramus?
And your accusation that I was attempting to "one up" another poster makes me rather suspect that's a tactic you would use, which is why you see it in another's comment that had no such intention.
Maybe you should stick to writing about politics or betting, ahead of commenting on the intelligence or motivations of others.
Your post effectively dismissed everything *I* would ever write about anything, due to a view that I hold, on an unrelated issue, in good faith, dispassionately, and as a result of my own research. I don't know or care enough about you to know what you like, dislike, believe or disbelieve, but I think if I jumped on an article someone posted with -'Are you aware, the person you're quoting is called Jimmy?' and tried to undermine all credibility as a result, you'd have something to say about it.
My post only dismissed everything you would ever write if you're disturbingly paranoid. I explained why I brought what I did to MikeK's attention, and you accused me of trying to "one up" him due to his background.
I'll do my best to ignore you in future.
Well I'm a 9-11 truther, so hopefully all right thinking people would ignore everything I post as a matter of course.
For the record I intend to continue to interact with you or anyone else as I would have done before -one spat makes no odds to me. If you prefer to ignore me by all means do so.
You're wasting your time. The Church has it's own problems with child abuse, and he may well have come into contact with people involved, both within his own organisation and others.
It would appear that any sector that has involved care of children (health, education, religion etc.) has very sadly attracted a few individuals interested in the abuse of children. I'm not up on the latest allegations against the C of E, but my impression currently is that it is not of a scale that would preclude any member participating in such an enquiry, provided it was clear they had no personal involvement/connection. I may be wrong. The alternative would be to draw someone from an institution such as the army that had no dealings with minors -however I am not sure this would make the person a more credible candidate.
Comments
Why not just have a lynch mob and get on with it?
I wrote 'activists', not Farage. Talk to some more UKIP activists. Visit the UKIP constituency office on 30 High St, Rochester. You'd be made very welcome. You, in particular, would be surprised how normal they are.
Normal, David?
Have you lost the plot? Don't you know this is how they see things?
http://www.dover-express.co.uk/Ukip-s-Little-Bono-Bongo-map-storm/story-23953024-detail/story.html
Normal is what I wrote, and normal is what I meant. Back when I was allowed to be a UKIP candidate (sadly, no longer) I saw for myself that the media had no interest in quoting anyone from UKIP who said anything sensible. They were only looking for the daft.
Peter, Rochester is ever so easy to get to by train from London. One of the nicest High Streets in the country. And you can visit the tory office at the other end. We'd value your impartial view.
http://tinyurl.com/oy79r9d
I'm not sure it would be wholly confident that Sentamu or somebody like that would keep them sufficiently well briefed.
Have you lost the plot? Don't you know this is how they see things?
http://www.dover-express.co.uk/Ukip-s-Little-Bono-Bongo-map-storm/story-23953024-detail/story.html
Normal is what I wrote, and normal is what I meant. Back when I was allowed to be a UKIP candidate (sadly, no longer) I saw for myself that the media had no interest in quoting anyone from UKIP who said anything sensible. They were only looking for the daft.
Peter, Rochester is ever so easy to get to by train from London. One of the nicest High Streets in the country. And you can visit the tory office at the other end. We'd value your impartial view.
I shall almost certainly make a visit nearer polling day - in the interests of betting research, of course.
I responded to your 'argument' in good faith with an argument of my own. Unable to continue in that vein, you've clearly chosen the fall back option of name calling. I think anyone viewing the exchange will be able to make up their own mind.
And your accusation that I was attempting to "one up" another poster makes me rather suspect that's a tactic you would use, which is why you see it in another's comment that had no such intention.
Maybe you should stick to writing about politics or betting, ahead of commenting on the intelligence or motivations of others.
I'll do my best to ignore you in future.
For the record I intend to continue to interact with you or anyone else as I would have done before -one spat makes no odds to me. If you prefer to ignore me by all means do so.