Customer Discussions > politics discussion forum

Lord Steel...and the beast Smith.....


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-16 of 16 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 29 Apr 2014 21:57:18 BDT
[Deleted by Amazon on 30 Apr 2014 05:47:44 BDT]

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Apr 2014 02:05:02 BDT
 says:
That is a remarkably short CV, Deleted by Amazon.

Posted on 30 Apr 2014 11:19:55 BDT
Last edited by the author on 30 Apr 2014 11:20:26 BDT
Spin says:
Steele is correct. Political parties are not the Police or judiciary. To let a political party investigate itself is to allow cover-ups and injustices. You guys complain when the Vatican investigates itself over child abuse cases, do you not? What is it? One law for them, another for you?

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Apr 2014 12:21:57 BDT
Dan Fante says:
I think it's fine for political parties and the Catholic church to investigate themselves. Where it becomes wrong is if they then try and hide any evidence of wrong doing that they discover. Obviously it doesn't mean they should carry out investigations instead of the relevant authorities but what you're basically advocating is turning a blind eye.

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Apr 2014 12:24:36 BDT
Spin says:
Dan: Indeed. I have no objection to organisations "investigating" themselves. How else are they to change their organisation and processes? What I object to is the assumption that such investigation constitutes Law, Justice and policing.

Posted on 30 Apr 2014 12:24:43 BDT
Last edited by the author on 30 Apr 2014 12:25:54 BDT
TomC says:
Odd how interest in Smith has revived. It was common gossip in Rochdale in the 1970's, and much of the information was published in an independent paper, Rochdale Alternative Press, and subsequently republished by Private Eye. Smith could have sued. He chose not to.

David Steel is inconsistent, to say the least. When allegations of Smith's abuse were put to him in 1979, he confronted Smith, who denied them. On that basis, he took no further action; indeed, Smith was subsequently recommended for a knighthood. Yet when Steele was questioned later on those same allegations, he dismissed them with the comment "All he seems to have done is smacked a few bare bottoms".

So at that time Steele did not declare that the Liberals were not capable of investigating the alleged offences against vulnerable youths - he simply claimed that they didn't matter. Now he seems to be reverting to his original line.

Not that the police did much better. Those officers who did attempt to mount a prosecution were told to lay off by Special Branch, and had their material confiscated. This was essentially a criminal act: perverting the course of justice. So much for the independence of the justice system. They surely weren't doing that on their own initiative, so who gave them their instructions?


http://www.channel4.com/info/press/news/dispatches-reveals-how-cyril-smith-abuse-went-unpunished

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Apr 2014 12:27:42 BDT
Dan Fante says:
No one is making that assumption though.

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Apr 2014 12:28:28 BDT
Dan Fante says:
Makes you wonder who else was involved at the time.

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Apr 2014 12:34:23 BDT
Spin says:
Dan: I disagree. Every time a crime or fault is discovered within a political or public body, an "enquiry" is ordered; some of which continue for years with no obvious outcome. These "Enquiries" ie; "investigations" are no more than white-wash presented to the public as serious judicial investigations..

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Apr 2014 12:40:54 BDT
Dan Fante says:
You were talking about internal inquiries though, Spin. In general, people are deeply suspicious of them rather than, as you claim making "the assumption that such investigation constitutes Law, Justice and policing".

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Apr 2014 12:44:29 BDT
Spin says:
Fan; Of course. Is it not obvious that I personally am "deeply suspicious" of them? =) Suspicion is based on some foundation, is it not? I am simply outlining the basis of my suspicions of government and public bodies. Prove me wrong; restore my faith in those that govern us...=)

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Apr 2014 12:50:52 BDT
Dan Fante says:
You've contradicted yourself several times already, Spin, and we're only the first page. With that in mind, I'm a little confused as to the position you're taking here, let alone how one should set about 'proving you wrong'.

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Apr 2014 12:54:50 BDT
Spin says:
Fan: Enlighten me; how have I "contradicted" myself? And why do you make such a claim without outlining it?

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Apr 2014 12:57:50 BDT
Dan Fante says:
This reminded me of this blog from the BBC I read recently.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/posts/SUSPICIOUS-MINDS
It's a little bit all over the shop and you'd need a while to look through all the clips but I found it fascinating all the same and it looks into 'Establishment' cover-ups from that sort of period.

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Apr 2014 13:17:03 BDT
Last edited by the author on 30 Apr 2014 13:17:34 BDT
Spin says:
Dan: you suddenly realised who it was you were agreeing with and were disgusted at your lack of attention...So you blame me...Go ahead. I take on the sins of the world....=)

Posted on 30 Apr 2014 23:47:57 BDT
Well there's a surprise.....I've been deleted!
‹ Previous 1 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  politics discussion forum
Participants:  5
Total posts:  16
Initial post:  29 Apr 2014
Latest post:  30 Apr 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions