The Power of the Paedos - another high profile case hits the 'never happened' wall?

[Magda Hassan]

I've seen some interesting comments re the CSA:

If Jimmy Saville were still alive Theresa May would make him chairman.

We will not leave any stone unturned...unless it is covering one of ours.

[David Guyatt]

And some pertinent questions asked about Leon Brittan alleged involvement in "improper conduct with children" - again from The Needle blog:

Leon Brittan and Improper Conduct With Children.'

Link to Hansard transcript HERE
The full video of the Parliament session can be viewed HERE.
In my view Jim Hood MP should be commended for using parliamentary privilege to expose the child abuse allegations regarding the former Home Secretary Leon Brittan.
Since the appointment of Fiona Woolf as chairperson of the CSA Inquiry objections have been raised regarding her closeness to Leon Brittan and because no one in the media have been able to reference these child abuse allegations the general public have been left a little confused as to why so many object to Fiona Woolf as chairperson. Afterall. Lord Brittan had only mislaid a dossier, right ?
The fact is that Fiona Woolf has attended 5 dinner parties with a person alleged to have abused children himself.
Of course, it shouldn't have been too hard for anyone to work out. Why else would a police operation run by the Metropolitan Police Paedophile Unit have investigated him over the rape of an adult ? Unless…
Parliamentary privilege only allows the media to report what is said in parliament. Unfortunately, it doesn't allow them to elaborate on what has been said.
But Jim Hood is correct. There are very serious allegations of child abuse against Leon Brittan.
And it should now be plain to everyone exactly why Fiona Woolf must step down as chair of the CSA Inquiry.

During a Commons debate on coalfield communities last night, Mr Hood said: "By the way, the current exposé of Sir Leon Brittan [sic], the then home secretary, with accusations of improper conduct with children will not come as a surprise to striking miners of 1984."
MPs immediately challenged Mr Hood over his comments.
Conor Burns, the Conservative MP for Bournemouth West, said: "He has just made very profound, serious accusations against a noble lord. Is that in order?"
Lindsay Hoyle, the Deputy Speaker, said that he had not heard Mr Hood's comments but added: "It's up to each member to decide what they said and they must make that decision."
However, Mr Hood continued: "The rumours that Sir Leon Brittan was involved with misconduct with children does not come as news to miners who were striking in 1984. When miners were going up into the dock in magistrates' courts we were aware and miners were declaring… the point is miners were saying in the dock in magistrates' courts throughout the strike that they objected to instructions coming from the home secretary when there was reports about child abuse being linked with that same home secretary."
Mr Hoyle interrupted the Labour MP and said: "I think it is up to each MP, we have to be very careful on what we said, and we must consider what we are saying and what the implications are."
Mr Hood continued: "I accept, obviously, what you say but I'm just repeating what I'm reading in the papers."

The Telegraph

20 Comments

[Magda Hassan]

That is the perfect use of parliamentary privilege. Lot's of crimes are covered up with the threat of libel suits.

[Magda Hassan]

[B][B][B]Version one[/B][/B][/B]
[B][B]I was introduced to Lady Brittan by a mutual acquaintance in (insert date). I first met with Lord Brittan in a personal capacity when I was invited by Lady Brittan to a dinner hosted at their residence in 2008. From recollection there were approximately eight people… [there].[/B][/B]
[B][B][B]
Version seven[/B][/B][/B]
[B][B]I was first introduced to Lady Brittan through a third party. I subsequently met Lord Brittan in a personal capacity when I invited Lord and Lady Brittan to a dinner party at my residence on 9 January 2008. From recollection there were at least four other people present. I hosted two further dinner parties at my residence, where Lord and Lady Brittan were invited and attended along with other guests. These took place on 27 October 2008 and 9 February 2009… City matters were a significant focus of the occasions.[/B][/B]

If she can't work out in which house she went for dinner with them and who organised it then she is quite unsuitable to run a chook raffle on that basis alone. She is either clueless to the point of being well played by others or can't remember her lies.

It's worse than even that. There was another version too, as recounted by The Needle blog, which was edited out of the final version:

Private Dinners With Lord And Lady Brittan Were Hidden.

"The Brittan's hosted two dinner parties at their residence, which I was invited to and attended on 10 November 2009 and 15 February 2012. From my recollection there were no other guests who attended" Fiona Woolf (Page 14, Draft)
.
No mention of this in the final Home Office Approved Letter.
.
Why ?

I would like to know the names of the other people who were at these dinners. Cameron? May? Who are they?

[David Guyatt]

[B][B][B]Version one[/B][/B][/B]
[B][B]I was introduced to Lady Brittan by a mutual acquaintance in (insert date). I first met with Lord Brittan in a personal capacity when I was invited by Lady Brittan to a dinner hosted at their residence in 2008. From recollection there were approximately eight people… [there].[/B][/B]
[B][B][B]
Version seven[/B][/B][/B]
[B][B]I was first introduced to Lady Brittan through a third party. I subsequently met Lord Brittan in a personal capacity when I invited Lord and Lady Brittan to a dinner party at my residence on 9 January 2008. From recollection there were at least four other people present. I hosted two further dinner parties at my residence, where Lord and Lady Brittan were invited and attended along with other guests. These took place on 27 October 2008 and 9 February 2009… City matters were a significant focus of the occasions.[/B][/B]

If she can't work out in which house she went for dinner with them and who organised it then she is quite unsuitable to run a chook raffle on that basis alone. She is either clueless to the point of being well played by others or can't remember her lies.

It's worse than even that. There was another version too, as recounted by The Needle blog, which was edited out of the final version:

Private Dinners With Lord And Lady Brittan Were Hidden.

"The Brittan's hosted two dinner parties at their residence, which I was invited to and attended on 10 November 2009 and 15 February 2012. From my recollection there were no other guests who attended" Fiona Woolf (Page 14, Draft)
.
No mention of this in the final Home Office Approved Letter.
.
Why ?

I would like to know the names of the other people who were at these dinners. Cameron? May? Who are they?

I suppose that depends on whether anyone else was present at them? In one draft there was no other guests and in another there were four others. You pays your money and takes your choice, I guess.

[Magda Hassan]

Wolf has resigned. Took long enough. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/hom...31816.html

[David Guyatt]

Inevitable once the story of the seven drafts of her letter came out. What I find interesting is who told Keith Vaz that there were seven drafts, as it would not normally be a question he would ask a witness to do to furnish his committee with drafts of letters -- so I smell an insider leaking in all this.

Mrs Woolf's links to Lord Brittan appear to have escaped the Home Office vetting team despite the links being clearly in the public domain.

Meanwhile, the Indy's storyline above just shows how much of a chickenshit outfit they are. To say that her links "escaped" the notice of the Home Office is preposterous. The other far more likely explanation is that they attempted to cover up her relationship to Lord Brittan and that she was chosen for the job because of this, not in spite of it.

Let's see who May asks next, as that will be the litmus test of Cameron's motives in this matter - that and the terms of reference governing the inquiry.

[Magda Hassan]

Mansfield is putting his hand up now. I think he was not able to do so before due to commitments but he is definitely interested and he has the support of many of the survivors. However, I remember Jan speculating about him on one of the threads to do with an organized crime figures in the UK and some deep goings on. I'll have to dig it out if I can. It was just speculative but interesting none the less.

[Michael Barwell]

The delays in this investigation are all to the good for the establishment, a happy exercise in time-wasting complimenting the possibility of gross corruptions and the well-oiled par for course cover-up; no inquiry has ever got to the heart of any misdeeds in the UK. State orchestrated protections for the 'great and the good' and the influential, and bread an' games for the masses. In terms of law and justice, Britain's a bit of a cess pit. Oh, and look east 'cos the Russkis are on the march....

[David Guyatt]

Interesting about Mansfield. I saw that he was up for it, but had no idea there might be a blot on his copybook.

And yep, government injuries are well oiled machines with a long history of arriving at the decision the government of the day want. This one is going the way of the Diana inquiry - even including Butler-Sloss who was appointed to that one and then had to resign due to revelations that she would "sit alone" without a jury -- and back then Mike Mansfield was Al Fayed's silk. And the fix was definitely in on that inquiry arriving at a satisfactory decision - and not the one everyone knows to be the actualite.

It's like a re-enactment isn't it.