In the wake of Leon Brittan’s death, Theresa May needs to act and act quickly
Last week, we lamented how the alleged victims of the alleged paedophile John Stingemore have been left without the chance to see him proven either innocent or guilty after he died before brought to court. Now, with yesterday’s announcement of the death of the former home secretary Leon Brittan, it is time that Theresa May actually heeds the advice we previously offered and speeds up the inquiry into alleged historic abuse by high profile individuals ranging from politicians to personalities.
Lord Brittan, who was named under parliamentary privilege by Labour MP Jim Hood three months ago as being linked to alleged child abuse, may have been an entirely innocent man. He was never arrested, charged or tried and though questioned under caution with regard to an alleged rape in 1967 last year, the peer was also suggested to be the “former Tory cabinet minister” linked to allegations relating to “a depraved orgy organised by a paedophile” as well as home secretary at the time that a dossier alleging the existence of a paedophile ring at Westminster disappeared in 1984.
‘Dark rumours’ are often nothing but ‘rumours without substance’ but with Brittan’s passing, we will now likely never know whether he was innocent or guilty. What has become clearer though is that Theresa May has to put right the calamitous mess that she has presided over and show she is serious about justice for the alleged victims.
It is especially ironic that The Times – prior to the announcement of Lord Brittan’s death – yesterday printed the following:
“Abuse inquiry halted – The government’s inquiry into historical child sexual abuse has been suspended. A statement on the website of the inquiry, from which two chairwomen have resigned amid suggestions that they were too close to figures likely to be involved in its investigation, said it would not meet again until Theresa May, the home secretary, either appoints a new head or says if the panel will continue”.
The Steeple Times was amongst the first to report the allegations that ultimately lead to the conviction of high profile abusers including Max Clifford and Rolf Harris – and given that others such as Jimmy Savile and Sir Cyril Smith (whom some still bizarrely advocate as innocent) were never brought to book, it is a disgrace that this important inquiry has slipped and slipped again. Now, it is essential that Theresa May puts a stop to the excuses: The investigation into alleged abuse by high profile individuals must be carried out with urgency.
Subscribe to our free once daily email newsletter here:
Lord Brittan was a gentleman and scholar, no need for further investigations. David Cameron paid tribute to this great man for his dedicated service to his country. We heard it from horses mouth, lets leave it, and move on………..
You are being sarcastic I hope?!
Theresa May is an inefficient, ineffectual comical c*nt and should be replaced as soon as possible……As for Lord Brittan…….The fact that this creature is dead does NOT make him an angel……..Far from it.
Lord Leon Brittan was in a league of extraordinary gentleman, he read law at Trinity College (Cambridge University). He became a barrister, a position of trust and authority. Lord Brittan was not common riff raff, he has excellent character references from David Cameron, Kenneth Clarke and all the peers in the House of Lords. There is no need for further investigations, we must trust our politicians and their Lords.
Also another bit of sarcasm I hope?!
“We must trust our politicians”…??? What utter twaddle. There is a very serious need to investigate them, Leon Brittan included……………..
Edwina Currie handing the keys of a high security hospital over to a disc jockey? The government needs to do some explaining, as I don’t comprehend the logic, but maybe I am stupid…..
It only makes a difference if the enablers knew they were enabling.
Disc Jockey Jim to my knowledge was not a registered nurse or medical practitioner, nor was he accredited with a accountancy qualification. What was the rational? He was not enabled?
I can’t imagine a conversation ever happened that began with “can you let me in please, I fancy shagging a minor?”. Jimmy Savile had a huge profile as a charity man and because of that, he duped everyone except his victims. He was a con artist. Where people get the idea that people like Edwina Currie and Margaret Thatcher ever got the idea from that they wittingly enabled this monster to do what he did is frankly beyond me. Please would someone explain how these people he conned should have known what he was up to and was happy to let him continue? Con men exist, they always have done and always will do. Look at religion, that’s the biggest con that the world has ever seen and nothing will ever reach those proportions ever again – and still billions of people believe in an invisible deity because someone told them to rather than making up their own mind. I’m hazarding a guess that there would have been hundreds of thousands of people who would have come out in defense of Savile if someone had suggested what he was up to.
Chaim, people said nice things about Savile and Harris too. Maybe he was a gentleman but that doesn’t mean he was perfect. Guilty or not, it’s too late for him to answer for himself now and that is an awful shame.
Yes, truly “An awful shame” that retribution MAY not be served where it is due……………
Quite. If he has been up to no good, he will go unpunished and his victims will have no justice.
Mel, you are missing the point, Firstly, explain the definition of qualifications and high security. The disc jockey had no formal qualifications in either the medical field or management accountancy. It was poor and reckless decision making and a indifference to the staff and patients of that particular secure hospital.
Chaim, I really don’t think I’ve missed the point at all. We all know he wasn’t qualified and that it was poor and reckless to allow him the key of the door. It’s always easier to be wise after the event though. Savile was a phenomenon and put in a lot of work for charity and needed access to promote his work and rightly or wrongly, people trusted him. You can’t blame the people he duped for being naive, especially when he was at his most prevalent in the 1970’s. Everyone was naive back then and respected his charity work. If you want a more modern day example of someone to watch in this respect, the Missing People charity employ Kate McCann at great expense (a crazy proportion of donations goes into salaries). My point being, her child has been missing almost 8 years and she’s not yet been ruled out of having any involvement in the matter. There’s a huge amount of people who find this odd but there are still people who would trust her with their own children. She gets access all over the place, despite her status. Savile wasn’t under suspicion of anything.
Oooh Mel ! You can expect a gentle (!) comment from Potty Trotty any time soon……..!!!
Completely agree with you regarding the inappropriate amount spent on salaries in many charities, Red Cross is another prime example……….Disgraceful.
Potty Trotty lol! The cerebrally challenged Pamela Gurney can ‘trott’ on! I’m sure she will spin it every which way as usual but it still won’t alter the truth. There’s corruption/possible corruption everywhere we look and Savile was just another one. We need to start taking people seriously who speak up against people like him rather than brushing it off and leaving them to suffer in isolation.
Mel, we agree that it was a poor and reckless decision making to allow the disc jockey the keys to a secure establishment, then we also agree that Edwina Currie must accept responsibilty for her decision making. Nurses are struck off the register for poor judgement and decision making, so are medical practitioners, sometimes for trivial matters. What is the definition for high security?
Savile needed access to hospital premises, patient files and patients themselves, not to mention access to the hospital mortuary to promote his charity work, we accept he was a phenomenon in the 1970’s and 1980’s, how ridiculous and bizarre….. I was around in the 1970’s and was certainly not that naive to believe this to be pukka, I would have had my suspicions, there were many rumours at the time in show business circles. Mel, you are clearly talking shit………..
Chaim, I was all set to reply after reading your two recent posts because I’ve actually enjoyed our discussion so far. Unfortunately you lost me at “you are clearly talking shit”. It’s a pity we couldn’t have gone into this further but I’m tired of abusive people who are unable to keep things civil.
Mel, I do not have a abusive bone in my body, but you are cleary playing it down, even making comparison to the McCann’s. Edwina Currie was interested in a effective bulldog that had the influence to fight and keep the trade unions at pay, spy and conduct time and motion studies on qualified staff, in the process Currie compromised patient safety and institutional security. Accusing me of abusive behaviour don’t wash.The NHS is funded by tax payers and not charity.
Mel comparing Kate McCann to Jimmy Savile and suggesting that Kate could pose a threat to other children is absurd, Kate is not managing a secure institution in between her charity work, and has no access to children in institutional care. Mel involving the McCann’s got my blood boiling, and on these grounds I accuse her of playing it down and talking wet.
I wasn’t comparing anyone to anyone. I was saying that pretty much most things are not what they seem. I mentioned the McCann’s because that’s what a good proportion of the conversations on this website are about and I couldn’t think of another example at the time.
I’m perfectly entitled to my own opinion without you getting personal, making spurious accusations and swearing at me, that is classed in my view as abusive and thoroughly unnecessary.
Mel, how was I personal? What obscene abusive language did I use? Reasonable readers can judge and read for themselves…………….I write the truth……….
No, you write YOUR version of the truth, as do we all. The difference is that when I disagree with you, I have respect for your point of view, whereas you accuse me of ‘talking shit’. The first rule of debating is to not get personal because it completely demeans your whole stand.
Mel, I have seen interviews on investigative television programmes conducted with former staff members of these particular institutions, I have also read from several sources on the subject matter. I read it all, and weigh it up, and come to a conclusion. It is not my personal version of truth, I have taken the views of many random commentators into consideration. I am familiar with the principles of research, no bias…………..
Chaim, Chaim………..steady on! Have you forgotten to take your medication, again ???!
I am a Walter Mitty character just like the weapons inspector Dr David Kelly, maybe I will take my pills…….