We can add the Lord Chief Justice to the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions ( as in the cases of Sir Peter Hayman,Cyril Smith etc ) to the list of our most senior judicial figures who are party to Establishment cover-ups at worst and the making of appalling decisions totally out of sync with public opinion at best.
Members of the judiciary who make comments such as possessing and distributing indecent images of children is like collecting cigarette cards, raping a 7 year old is something that could happen to anyone of us, to stop someone teaching because he has sexually abused children would be a serious loss to the teaching profession should not only be immediately removed from the Bar but should have their own backgrounds looked in to. The path for a victim to get justice is so difficult even before they come face to face with judges holding theses views
It never ceases to amaze me how far the Establishment will go to protect itself, even brazenly right in the glare of the public spotlight
Where are the investigations and Inquiries in to the role of politicians etc in the cover ups over child sexual abuse?
Immediately after the Newsnight debacle John Whittingdale was so fast out of the traps to demand the head of the BBC’s Director General that he was in danger of tripping over all the mikes that were in front of him when he decided to be interviewed by every media oulet he could possibly get hold of. David Cameron immediately followed this up when the Savile story broke by stating that “every institution” must look at themselves and fully investigate why no-one reported/exposed such staggering levels of abuse. EVERY institution includes Parliament, Government, Attorney General, DPP.
John Whittingdale and David Cameron are remarkably silent on this now.
I would like to suggest where they could start and there are numerous historic situations which are not subject to current Police investigations and therefore there is no conflict of interests
The BBC and the NHS will no doubt be severely censured over Savile further down the line.
At least these institutions did not have a formal policy to protect paedophiles
I would suggest that Parliament and indeed Government did
How else are we to interpret Chief Whip, Tim Fortescue’s statement on national TV ( ref. Michael Cockerell’s BBC Documentary ) that rather than refer to the Police when an MP is caught sexually abusing a child it is just kept as a matter of record in the Dirt Book to be used as a vehicle of control in the voting lobby at a later date !!!!!!!!!!!!!
How else do we interpret Edwina Currie’s statement, in her attempt to sell as many copies of a book as she could, that everyone at the top of the Thatcher Government knew Peter Morrison was a “PEDERAST” – his reward promotion to be Deputy Chairman of the Tory Party, a Minister, Thatcher’s PPS and in charge of her 1990 election campaign
How else do we interpret Gyles Brandeth’s statements that everone in his constituency knew that Peter Morrison was a ” filthy pervert”
How else do we interpret the cover ups at the highest level manifested in statements from puppet Attorney Generals and DPP’s re. Peter Hayman, Cyril Smith, MP’s allegedly caught up in various Police/US Customs sting operations etc etc
How else do we interpret the treatment of Geoffrey Dickens at the hands of Parliament at the time and the convenient loss of his ” Dossier” since.
When and in what form will David Cameron be true to his word and order an investigation in to the role of Government, Parliament, the main political parties, the security services in at best a failure to expose child abuse from within their ranks and at worst a highly sophisticated cover up over the generations.
wordpress.com/2013/05/22/ message-from-the-source-of- tom-watsons-pmq-does-the- british-government-have-a- formal-policy-to-protect- paedophiles/
The Tap Blog is a collective of like-minded researchers and writers who’ve joined forces to distribute information and voice opinions avoided by the world’s media.