rigorousintuition.ca

As for Savile’s relationship with the Queen, he suggested it was somewhat lighthearted. “She thinks I’m odd because odd things always seem to happen when I’m at BP,” he said last year, referring to Buckingham Palace. “One time I was at a party there and the Queen said: ‘I do not recognise this person, I bear no responsibility if anything should happen’ – the Queen likes a joke. The next minute I bump into a lady who turns out to be Barbara Bush.

“When she sees me she says: ‘Jimmmyyyy!’ and flings her arms out and knocks champagne all over the woman next to her who says ‘S***!’ in a very loud voice and steps back in her high heel on to the foot of the woman behind. The Queen shook her head, took me by the arm, stood me against the wall and said: ‘Stay there and don’t move!’ So I did. After all she is the Queen.”

Col. Quisp » Sat Jul 05, 2014 6:19 am wrote:I am pretty sure it's already been posted. I think I posted it, in fact! Can't remember.

Britain to hold major new probe into child sex abuse
David Barrett
Published 08/07/2014|02:30

British home secretary Theresa May has announced a sweeping inquiry into child sexual abuse, following widespread concern sex assaults by celebrities including as Rolf Harris and Jimmy Savile. Photo: Oli Scarff/Getty Images

A major new inquiry into child sexual abuse across all areas of society is to be held in Britain.

Announcing the sweeping inquiry, British Home Secretary Theresa May warned that the work is unlikely to be complete before the next general election.

The expert panel will examine the handling of child abuse by public bodies, and Mrs May also disclosed it could be upgraded to a full public inquiry if the panel decides such a step is needed.


She confirmed the review would be able to call witnesses from the private sector as well as the civil service, and that its wide scope would also take in organisations such as the BBC and religious organisations, following widespread concern about abuse within the church and by celebrities such as Jimmy Savile and Rolf Harris.

It will also be able to look at the activities of political parties, she said.

"The government will be establishing an independent panel with expertise in the law on child protection to consider whether public bodies and other non-state institutions have taken seriously their responsibilities to protect children from sex abuse," she told the House of Commons.

"Given the scope of its work it is not likely to report before the general election but I will make sure it provides an update before May next year."

Mrs May added that she intended to take steps to ensure that witnesses could speak openly to the inquiry, even if they were serving or former public servants who were subject to Britain's Official Secrets Act or other types of legal restrictions.

"It is my intention that people should be able to speak openly in relation to the evidence that they give if they are called as witnesses and if they wish to give written evidence," she said.

Asked by Tom Watson MP, who has played a leading role in exposing child sex abuse allegations, whether the inquiry would be able to examine files from MI5, the security service, and Special Branch, Mrs May said there would be the "fullest possible access" to all government paperwork.

The head of the panel has not yet been appointed by Mrs May but she said she intended to secure the involvement of a "senior figure".

In a separate step, Mrs May announced that Peter Wanless, the chief executive of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC), will lead a review into the Home Office handling of historic allegations of child abuse.

Mr Wanless's review, which will take eight to 10 weeks, will look at the Home Office's investigation but also how the police and prosecutors handled information handed to them after it emerged that an internal review staged last year had been unable to trace 114 files on child abuse in the Home Office archives.

It came after Lord Brittan, the former home secretary, denied being guilty of rape after being questioned by the police over an alleged sexual offence. It was revealed at the weekend that he was questioned under caution over an allegation of rape dating back to 1967.

In a statement issued through his solicitors, the Conservative peer said: "It is true that I have been questioned by the police about a serious allegation made against me. This allegation is wholly without foundation." (© Daily Telegraph, London)

Irish Independent

seemslikeadream » Tue Jul 08, 2014 5:23 am wrote:Home Secretary Theresa May warned that the work is unlikely to be complete before the next general election.

Panic Weather » 07 Jul 2014 06:21 wrote:Is RI really this subdued over the Westminster paedophile ring, after the past explosive week? Or am I on the wrong thread?

American Dream wrote:http://www.leninology.co.uk/2014/07/two-points-about-child-rape-scandal.html

Second, inevitably, it will occur to someone to say that this is all a moral panic. And they will gloat as if they thought of the idea all by themselves. Of course there is an element of moral panic in this. There couldn't possibly not be. This subject is catnip for conspiracists and kooks. Every Nazi and Ickean lizard-fancier in the land is wetting their lips. The homophobes are just getting started, because there is a trail of lurid gay-bashing innuendo to be traversed here. Of course it's a moral panic. And yet it moves. The facts stubbornly suggest serious and widespread abuse of children with high-level collusion and protection. The element of moral panic lies not in the studious attention to these facts and what they portend, but rather in the attempt to externalise the problem, to treat the abuse of children as the possessive characteristic of society’s outsiders, be they predatory elites or raincoat wearing ‘pervs’. It is a moral panic insofar as, rather than pointing to a structural-relational problem - viz. capitalist patriarchy - the issue is collapsed into a conspiracy of malign Others, the ultimate extreme of which is Nazi antisemitism or the Ickean lizard-people nonsense. That seems to me to be constitutive of moral panic.

coffin_dodger » Tue Jul 08, 2014 8:11 am wrote:

American Dream wrote:http://www.leninology.co.uk/2014/07/two-points-about-child-rape-scandal.html

Second, inevitably, it will occur to someone to say that this is all a moral panic. And they will gloat as if they thought of the idea all by themselves. Of course there is an element of moral panic in this. There couldn't possibly not be. This subject is catnip for conspiracists and kooks. Every Nazi and Ickean lizard-fancier in the land is wetting their lips. The homophobes are just getting started, because there is a trail of lurid gay-bashing innuendo to be traversed here. Of course it's a moral panic. And yet it moves. The facts stubbornly suggest serious and widespread abuse of children with high-level collusion and protection. The element of moral panic lies not in the studious attention to these facts and what they portend, but rather in the attempt to externalise the problem, to treat the abuse of children as the possessive characteristic of society’s outsiders, be they predatory elites or raincoat wearing ‘pervs’. It is a moral panic insofar as, rather than pointing to a structural-relational problem - viz. capitalist patriarchy - the issue is collapsed into a conspiracy of malign Others, the ultimate extreme of which is Nazi antisemitism or the Ickean lizard-people nonsense. That seems to me to be constitutive of moral panic.

Nice deflection piece, well done.

So, as a UK citizen, to be concerned about the paedophile ring operating at the highest levels of our society is 'moral panic,' right? To be concerned that the most vulnerable people in our society are being forcefully sexually exploited by people in positions of power, that do it with others blessing and can get away with it, even when evidence is presented and 'lost' - is 'moral panic', eh? And to be outspoken against these actions is...gay-bashing? And guess what...if you get too outraged about it, you're a NAZI?

Shame on this man. He suggests it will be branded a moral panic whilst insiduously branding it with the term himself. That he refers to the facts as 'stubborn' says it all. He's scared.

gnosticheresy_2 » Tue Jul 08, 2014 3:53 am wrote: it actually really is "a conspiracy of malign Others". Just because the extreme right are obsessed with Jewish conspiracies and David Icke thinks it's all lizards doesn't invalidate that fact. And analysing this in purely structural terms is one of the sorts of reasoning that lets this happen over and over again, because it's not power structures that rape kids, it's people.

American Dream » Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:31 am wrote:

gnosticheresy_2 » Tue Jul 08, 2014 3:53 am wrote: it actually really is "a conspiracy of malign Others". Just because the extreme right are obsessed with Jewish conspiracies and David Icke thinks it's all lizards doesn't invalidate that fact. And analysing this in purely structural terms is one of the sorts of reasoning that lets this happen over and over again, because it's not power structures that rape kids, it's people.

What does this actually mean to you, in practical terms?

gnosticheresy_2 » Tue Jul 08, 2014 4:47 am wrote:

American Dream » Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:31 am wrote:

gnosticheresy_2 » Tue Jul 08, 2014 3:53 am wrote: it actually really is "a conspiracy of malign Others". Just because the extreme right are obsessed with Jewish conspiracies and David Icke thinks it's all lizards doesn't invalidate that fact. And analysing this in purely structural terms is one of the sorts of reasoning that lets this happen over and over again, because it's not power structures that rape kids, it's people.

What does this actually mean to you, in practical terms?

what do you mean "practical terms" like in a "how does this practically effect my life" sort of way or "what am I going to do about it" or....?