`It isn’t really a laughing matter’….

But I do feel that we should ask for an Inquiry into the Inquiry. The Inquiry’s single question, which should be answered especially by our Brand new Prime Minister is, simply; ‘How come we have just used up no less than three ‘Heads of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse’!

 

First we had Lady Butler-Sloss, a High Court Judge who stood down because her brother used to be Attorney-General during the times covered by the Inquiry. I mean, ‘shouldn’t  the clowns who set this thing up have realised that the woman had family members who were, at least, in the Bloody Establishment which is being investigated?’

 

Then, after a hurried search, Dame Fiona Woolf was chosen, only to have her resign before actually commencing, mainly because she was ‘very friendly’ with Lord Brittan, formerly Leon Brittan, another of those accused of these crimes, and because the Home Office helped draft her letter applying for the job.

 

Then we had the New Zealand judge Dame Lowell Goddard, who obviously lives twelve thousand miles away from London. She was said to be paid £500.000.00 annual salary, plus 30 days holiday; but has stepped down from the role before even hearing any evidence. No-one knows the real reason she stepped down; could it be that she was too embarrassed to pitch up for a job which will never, ever finish, or ever expose anyone; possibly because they are all dead: or she just doesn’t like the London life?

There are obviously questions for the actual Inquiry to pursue, but as a sceptical fellow blogger might have asked, are they the right questions?

7 comments for “`It isn’t really a laughing matter’….

  1. Henry Kaye
    August 5, 2016 at 11:26 am

    What else do you expect from these people?

  2. Lord T
    August 5, 2016 at 2:36 pm

    For that salary I’ll do it. I don’t have any connections to any of the accused.

  3. ivan
    August 5, 2016 at 7:03 pm

    The possible answer to the last one might be found here: http://annaraccoon.com/2016/08/04/waiting-for-goddard-part-263/

    The answer to the main question is that they should drop the whole thing because there is no answer to what they think they need to ask.

    • August 5, 2016 at 7:10 pm

      Which is just as they wish it to be.

  4. Penseivag
    August 5, 2016 at 9:09 pm

    I wonder how much each of these great and good were paid on premature termination of their contract?

  5. August 6, 2016 at 7:13 am

    Three women Judges bowed out. So did they seek a man? Good Lord No! All men are paedophiles, after all. So….

    “”“Low marks across the board. Much criticism of Goddard J’s obsession with self-image, which this judge understands can only be maintained by kowtowing to powerful special interests. Said to be as committed to law as she is at marriage (several times), Goddard J is regarded by some as a human rights hypocrite, her judgments disconnected with her diligent efforts to be portrayed as a human rights advocate. “puppet” came up more than once to describe this judge who is as white as any Irishman yet routinely presents herself as a disadvantaged Maori.””

    What could possibly go wrong this time.?

  6. Mudplugger
    August 6, 2016 at 10:00 pm

    Inquiries are a bit like referendums – if you can’t handle the answer, it’s usually best not to ask the question (see D. Cameron for experiential details).

    The Sloss/Woolf/Goddard ‘musical-chairs’ fiasco indicates an unwillingness to have the question fully asked, because the answer may be somewhat unpalatable, so better to create some very long-grass towards which it may be progressively guided, during which time other issues may have arisen as convenient cloaks and many key players may no longer be available to provide completeness of the process. (See ‘Yes, Minister’ for procedural guidance).

Comments are closed.