Alleged "cover up"

It's thoroughly depressing isn't it. These are the people that we trust without welfare?

They seem to carry on as though they are still at Eton and it's all just a big game of one-upmanship to get further up the ladder.

I know not all MPs knew but as far as I'm concerned, if people say knew or even suspected but said nothing then it is a tacit agreement to keep it all quiet.

I'm not surprised NH smirked - it doesn't seem to matter what he's discussing, he smirks.

Yes, NH and integrity don't sit easily together do they.

I'm relieved the enquiry has been set up, and Elizabeth BS (no pun intended) seems a safe and reliable person to lead it. The disgusting rumours and allegations have been persistent over so many years and let's hope the truth can be confirmed, or otherwise, in many cases.

My experience of being involved in the investigation of paedophile rings, is that these people will find each other. If that can happen in a 2 mile radius in one small town, or in children's homes (as has been proved), why wouldn't it include people who live most of their lives in public view?

Whilst watching NH on Newsnight, I found myself longing for Jeremy Paxman to wipe that smirk off his face. High time we had a proper enquiry.

I couldn't help wondering why on earth NH was invited on to Newsnight. There are few more discredited ex-MPs!

NH isnt the only one, I even saw the ghastly David Mellor being interviewed, he is an adulterer and a liar and I fail to see why his opinion should be sought on anything. Many years ago, a friend of ours said he had heard of a group of very prominent Tory cabinet members ( at that time) who were involved in nasty goings on, but it was being covered up, I am ashamed to say we thought it was just a malicious story, now I have my doubts. There must be a few people getting anxious as the net closes in.......and serves them right, give them a little taste of the fear that their victims felt.

Baroness Butler-Sloss, has been chosen by the home secretary to head the inquiry into allegations of historical abuse. Labour's Simon Danczuk said her position was tainted because her late brother, Sir Michael Havers, was Attorney General in the 1980s; a Tory MP, Geoffrey Dickens, said, at that time, that he had a list of names of prominent political people involved. Sir Michael Havers asked him not to name one particular person - that person wasn't named. Mr Dickens revealed he had also sent a copy to the then Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Sir Thomas Hetherington.

Can the allegations of Mr Dickens be trusted? If they can, is the appointment of Baroness Butler-Sloss appropriate?

I don't think she should be criticised for having a brother who might have acted suspiciously, but I would have preferred that Establishment doesn't investigate itself. However, Elizabeth Butler-Sloss does have a very good reputation and appears not to have blotted her copy book.

Rumours have always flown around about people in high places and misdemeanours and in the past as many have been found untrue as true. I think too many people are getting onto high moral horses and judging things with the benefit of hindsight.

This does not mean I am condoning criminal and appalling behaviour like that revealed of Cyril Smith. People like that should be prosecuted and publicly shamed but we need to remember that for most of us when we were young jokes about vicars and choir boys and other relationships that explicitly covered inappropriate relationships were common through out society.

It did not mean that any of us would have condoned such behaviour if we came across it in real life but I do believe that until the mid 1980s the majority of us, and I include myself in this generalisation, did not fully understand the extent of paedophilia, particularly within families, or the networks that have now been revealed. Paedophilia was associated with children abducted by individuals they did not know and this was rare

In the late 1970s a small boy was abducted from my local town, his body has never been found. About 20 years later his case came to court associated with a particularly vicious gang of paedophiles and he was only one of their victims. In the early 1980s I was discussing this abduction with a police man I know. He said then that the abduction was seen as a random act by one person. I do not think even the police thought in terms of organised networks of paedophiles then and then said to me 'Guard your son until he is 11 and your daughter after that age'.

We know differently now, but we should not judge people's actions in the past by the knowledge we have that they did not.

You are right FlicketyB there is so much more knowledge now than then.
It's sickening isn't it, and truly horrible. We never realised [growing up] that most paedophiles were known to families and were not random strangers.They were often uncles or family friends.Hopefully the truth of whatever went on [or didn't] will come out with an inquiry.It will affect all political parties I suspect.

whenim64

I don't think she should be criticised for having a brother who might have acted suspiciously, but I would have preferred that Establishment doesn't investigate itself. However, Elizabeth Butler-Sloss does have a very good reputation and appears not to have blotted her copy book.

I am not being critical of her, I'm sure she's very capable but she would ultimately be investigating her own brother. In any other profession, that would be seen as a conflict of interest. It is asking a lot of her to be impartial about her own brother's request to keep something quiet (according to BBC News).

I agree with you Holly. She has excellent credentials, but anyone from the Establishment, related or not, is going to face a conflict of interest when investigating itself. That's not a criticism of her - she has a record of integrity. As I keep saying, I would prefer an international investigation because the alleged cover up goes across borders.

To be honest with you whenim64, I doubt the whole truth will come out - can you imagine the repurcussions of that. It's also difficult to understand how all copies of the docments have been destroyed or misplaced.

Re the conflict of interest - it's a bit different when it involves one's own sibling though isn't it?

I was ok with the appointment of EBS, but the focus on a possible conflict of interest, combined with what seems to have been at least as much cover up as incompetence, is a bit of a worry.

She does seem to have impeccable credentials, but if her report falls short in any way, will we all with she'd step down.

I also share When's view that any enquiry should be international. I have worked with young adults who were trafficked to Amsterdam by their parents, to 'work' in pornograhpic/abusive films. GMP were well aware of this case and worked closely with colleagues in other parts of Europe.

Has anyone asked Dame EBS how she would deal with such a conflict of interest if her team brings something up about her brother? I imagine she would step down at that point. She has such a depth of specialist knowledge about all aspects of sexual abuse, and like the majority of sexual abuse specialists would conform to the code of conduct about declaring an interest, and the values that are held about neither condoning nor colluding with friends or family who abuse. A transparent investigation and enquiry is needed and collaborating teams and individuals will be required to evidence to one another the steps they have taken and what information they have.

The public will have everyone involved under the microscope, as with phone hacking. Any whiff of suspicion and there are so many people ready to jump. Twitter has been invaluable in pursuing errant MPs and the like. I expect the same will happen here.

But......I would still prefer it was an international project.

EBS will not be carrying out the review alone. She will be supported by a panel of experts who will see and evaluate all the evidence, and I think be involved in the evidence collection.

I agree her family connection does cause problems, but from what I have heard on the radio and read in the papers there is simply nobody else even half as qualified and competent as her to carry out this critical enquiry and at least her family connection is known so the report that comes out will be forensically examined for any signs of bias.