1 of 1- PatReilly
- Tekel Towers LEGEND
Offline 
- Registered: 25/3/2015
- Posts: 5,580
FAO Wylie 1 (and anyone else)
Thought it better to put my points here rather than on the United section, as the following has no connection to the club and only a fleeting link to football itself.
The discussion on Jamie Robson took a bit of a twist when Wylie 1 led us into the murky depths of child exploitation, with the following, to which a few posters responded prior to TEK correctly closing the topic:
“I don't see you complainers getting all hot and bothered about the 1000s of our young females who countrywide are being groomed and sexually exploited. Something which merits genuine outrage rather than the phoney "holier than thou" bullshit directed at a young man having a bit of fun.”
Now, I don’t really don’t know, about the ‘1000s’ mentioned, but I will agree that widespread illegal exploitation of children has taken place without proper police intervention. I don’t know that this is a ‘countrywide’ issue, but again accept that it has happened and is happening in various parts of the United Kingdom. And this does anger me.
What I don’t accept is that there hasn’t been ‘genuine outrage’ at the planned rape of children. For many years, groups have been angered and frustrated by the lack of action from the authorities, on this, and other disgraceful events which I’ll briefly outline below.
Covering child exploitation initially, the most widely publicised case was in Rotherham, offences taking place in the 1990s and 2000 over a 16-year periods. It was only a couple of years ago that the gang involved there were brought to justice, although South Yorkshire Police had been aware of the criminality for over twenty years. Some of the victims are now well into their ‘forties.
I don’t blame rank and file officers for this shameful abrogation of their duties. Their orders come from much higher up the tree, perhaps and probably from outside of the police force itself.
And this is only one police force, which has been involved in many other high-profile fuck ups/cover ups over time. This one police force, South Yorkshire, covered up their disgraceful behaviour at the so called ‘Battle of Orgreave’ during the Miners’ Strike in ’84, and Hillsborough in ’89 as examples, aided and abetted by the civil service and political leaders over a long number of years.
Attempting to hide their scandalous misjudgements costs the country in human terms regarding victims, and years later financially by way of compensation. And, as I say this is only one police force, paying millions out in attempting to apologise for misdeeds and deliberate errors made, sometimes on behalf of political masters. Even ‘poor’ Cliff Richard got £400,000 of our money from the police because the (South Yorkshire) force got the BBC (who paid Cliff £850,000 of our money for their part) to film their raid on his house. £1.25 million!
Of course, that’s South Yorkshire, stuff like that can’t be happening anywhere else, can it? ……… meanwhile, Police Scotland may be paying out around £20 million to those involved in the administration of old Rangers after fucking up their 2014 investigation (partly instigated by their love of Dave King) which looked like it was designed to take revenge for the club going into liquidation. That’s more millions of pounds of our money.
The point: it’s the folk at the top of the tree who decide if action is taken against criminality, be it child exploitation, failure of duty of care, police brutality or any of the misdeeds which decent people find quite abhorrent and cannot understand why there is apparent inaction by the forces of law.
- PatReilly
- Tekel Towers LEGEND
Offline
- Registered: 25/3/2015
- Posts: 5,580
Re: FAO Wylie 1 (and anyone else)
Wylie, I'm not disagreeing that these offences were largely ignored by the police forces.
While it might be the case that there was a fear of charges of 'racism' in these cases.....
(Quote from article "Sarah Champion, Labour MP for Rotherham, claimed Asian grooming gangs had been allowed to thrive because people were "more afraid to be called a racist than they are afraid to be wrong about calling out child abuse".")
.....that doesn't explain police forces covering up other injustices throughout their areas, as listed. The police weren't being 'racist' in Orgreave, Hillsborough and presently regarding the liquidation of Rangers FC.
I'll reiterate my point: the police get blamed for failing to investigate widespread criminality, while they are controlled and restricted for political reasons.
A Labour MP is quoted above, from your article. Both Labour and Conservative politicians have been involved in decisions not to prosecute, or even properly investigate, where obvious crimes have been committed. And it's not an exaggeration to say the media, including such as the Express quoted by you, are party to many of the cover ups over a number of years, including where child exploitation has taken place.
Last edited by PatReilly (16/12/2018 10:02 am)
- •
Thread Starter- Finn Seemann
- Tekel Towers LEGEND
Offline
- Registered: 24/5/2018
- Posts: 1,697
Re: FAO Wylie 1 (and anyone else)
No politician determines who is prosecuted and who is not.
These matters need to be explained, no doubt, but there is a lot of hyperbole around them. Crimes of all types are pan-race and that is the issue here. For every Asian crime ring there will be an eastern European one, and African one and several 'British' etc. etc..
To attempt to point the finger at a particular race is determined by 'politicians' or at least people with a political bias.
That said, I thought that it was wrong for the original article to go down a route that it shouldn't. The last thing we need is for our club to be tarred (pardon the pun) with the racist brush.
- PatReilly
- Tekel Towers LEGEND
Offline
- Registered: 25/3/2015
- Posts: 5,580
Re: FAO Wylie 1 (and anyone else)
Finn Seemann wrote:
No politician determines who is prosecuted and who is not.
These matters need to be explained, no doubt, but there is a lot of hyperbole around them. Crimes of all types are pan-race and that is the issue here. For every Asian crime ring there will be an eastern European one, and African one and several 'British' etc. etc..
To attempt to point the finger at a particular race is determined by 'politicians' or at least people with a political bias.
That said, I thought that it was wrong for the original article to go down a route that it shouldn't. The last thing we need is for our club to be tarred (pardon the pun) with the racist brush.
I agree with everything you've written................. except the first sentence. On the surface, politicians won't wish to be seen to influence prosecutions or otherwise. In all four cases mentioned (Orgreave, Hillsborough, Rotherham, Liquidation at Ibrox) political interference has been evident.
Orgreave, 55 miners prosecuted, no police, Thatcher instead hosting the Chief Constables involved to a drinks party at the Home Office.
Hillsborough: the criminal misrepresentation of events in the aftermath by the police reinforced by the likes of Mgt Thatcher's Press Secretary Bernard Ingham. Ingham was still protecting police from prosecution in his responses to families in 1996.
Rotherham: no charges were made against senior council officials. No one was held responsible. Evidence was destroyed, a score of laptops containing the personal data and intimate information about the victims were 'stolen', council officials and elected councillors (the politicians) were obstructive when an inquiry was eventually commissioned.
Liquidation: Salmond writing to HMRC to divert prosecution away from David Murray, who unsurprisingly has emerged unscathed from his major role in fraud.
But this is maybe going down another avenue, so I'll leave it there for the time being.
- •
Thread Starter- Finn Seemann
- Tekel Towers LEGEND
Offline
- Registered: 24/5/2018
- Posts: 1,697
Re: FAO Wylie 1 (and anyone else)
The first sentence is technically correct, but I appreciate that the system does allow some level of control. Basically politicians can control the police, but not the prosecutors. I guess if the report is never made to the PF or in England the CPS then that is control, but the prosecutor is still not controlled by politicians.
- TheShed
- Tekel Towers LEGEND
Offline
- Registered: 16/5/2015
- Posts: 3,239
Re: FAO Wylie 1 (and anyone else)
No politician determines who is prosecuted and who is not.
Unless they happen to ‘lose’ all the evidence on their political pals.
- PatReilly
- Tekel Towers LEGEND
Offline
- Registered: 25/3/2015
- Posts: 5,580
Re: FAO Wylie 1 (and anyone else)
Basically politicians can control the police, but not the prosecutors.
In England, the Attorney General is responsible for the working of the CPS. Presently that is Geoffrey Cox, Tory MP for somewhere in the West Country. The Prime Minister appoints the Attorney General.
We will probably disagree on the level of influence he has over prosecutions.
- •
Thread Starter- Finn Seemann
- Tekel Towers LEGEND
Offline
- Registered: 24/5/2018
- Posts: 1,697
Re: FAO Wylie 1 (and anyone else)
Basically politicians can control the police, but not the prosecutors.
In England, the Attorney General is responsible for the working of the CPS. Presently that is Geoffrey Cox, Tory MP for somewhere in the West Country. The Prime Minister appoints the Attorney General.
We will probably disagree on the level of influence he has over prosecutions.
I'm a lawyer, I believe in the separation of powers. I'm not naïve though and appreciate that humans are influenceable and are influenced. Hillsborough was clearly an unbelievably unacceptable state of affairs, but I don't believe that politicians were are the root of the issue (that was the police trying to cover up an error of judgement that ended up snowballing) in fact I would say politicians were key in resolving that one. The miners strike was different. Thatcher was clearly the root of the issues there. Times have moved on from then however and I don't think political control of the police is as strong. We also have to accept that constitutionally the press also play a part in our balance of powers. I think they are about to blow open the Sheku Bayoh case which is another where the police have tried to cover up what appears to be at best an error on their part. So the PF will eventually get the correct story and someone will end up being prosecuted. If Hillsborough is anything to go by the police involved would be better coming clean sooner rather than later. Again however that appears to be a human failure rather than a political one.
- PatReilly
- Tekel Towers LEGEND
Offline
- Registered: 25/3/2015
- Posts: 5,580
Re: FAO Wylie 1 (and anyone else)
Finn, I'm a cynic, not a lawyer.
I agree with much of what you write, and hypothetically there should of course be independence, or separation of powers. But there isn't. If an individual aspires to climb the ladder through the legal profession, he or she must surely take political and politicians' influence on board. Right at the top, in Scotland, the Lord Advocate is 'recommended' presently by the First Minister. As an aside, that may change with Westminster presently reclaiming various powers from Holyrood.
The Sheku Bayoh case is a fuck up by the police. I wonder who will be hung out to dry there? I'll agree there was no apparent political angle there, just fatal stupidity.
Returning to Wylie 1's child exploitation point (and exploitation is a lax euphemism for what went on), as that was the motivation for the original post, the following emphasises the extent of political bearing and malevolent hindrance:
“The council leader, Chris Read, castigated his predecessor Roger Stone, along with other Labour party colleagues, for refusing to talk to investigators about their role in the scandal. “Our survivors deserve better than your miserable silence,” said Read. Stone led the council from 2003 until 2014.
Other key figures who declined to be interviewed included Paul Lakin, the former council cabinet member for children and young people’s services who was in the role between 2010 and 2014, and his predecessor Shaun Wright, who held the position from 2005 until 2010. Wright went on to become South Yorkshire’s police and crime commissioner but was forced to stand down after publication of the Jay report in 2014.
There were 27 “key” people whom the report authors could not interview because they did not respond or declined the invitation.”
Folk might wonder why a political party would be concerned in a cover up: I’d say it’s down to the fear of losing votes.
- •
Thread Starter- redford_must_score
- Tekel Towers 1st Team
Offline
- Registered: 24/11/2018
- Posts: 546
Re: FAO Wylie 1 (and anyone else)
Let's also recall the "lost" police files on the high profile politicians (Leon Brittan etc?) Files that likely (possibly?) would have resulted in some of the most famous British politicians at the time sitting in the Crown Court accused of paedophilia.
Much earlier, in Scotland, a theft of incriminating files from Fettes police HQ no less, files that would have allegedly incriminated the Lord Advocate in possible skewed judgements resulting from blackmail due to his homosexuality.
And does anyone consider it likely that a famous pop star is being protected from prosecution by the "establishment" or is that a step too far?
Last edited by redford_must_score (18/12/2018 10:36 pm)
- Finn Seemann
- Tekel Towers LEGEND
Offline
- Registered: 24/5/2018
- Posts: 1,697
Re: FAO Wylie 1 (and anyone else)
Finn, I'm a cynic, not a lawyer.
I agree with much of what you write, and hypothetically there should of course be independence, or separation of powers. But there isn't. If an individual aspires to climb the ladder through the legal profession, he or she must surely take political and politicians' influence on board. Right at the top, in Scotland, the Lord Advocate is 'recommended' presently by the First Minister. As an aside, that may change with Westminster presently reclaiming various powers from Holyrood.
The Sheku Bayoh case is a fuck up by the police. I wonder who will be hung out to dry there? I'll agree there was no apparent political angle there, just fatal stupidity.
Returning to Wylie 1's child exploitation point (and exploitation is a lax euphemism for what went on), as that was the motivation for the original post, the following emphasises the extent of political bearing and malevolent hindrance:
“The council leader, Chris Read, castigated his predecessor Roger Stone, along with other Labour party colleagues, for refusing to talk to investigators about their role in the scandal. “Our survivors deserve better than your miserable silence,” said Read. Stone led the council from 2003 until 2014.
Other key figures who declined to be interviewed included Paul Lakin, the former council cabinet member for children and young people’s services who was in the role between 2010 and 2014, and his predecessor Shaun Wright, who held the position from 2005 until 2010. Wright went on to become South Yorkshire’s police and crime commissioner but was forced to stand down after publication of the Jay report in 2014.
There were 27 “key” people whom the report authors could not interview because they did not respond or declined the invitation.”
Folk might wonder why a political party would be concerned in a cover up: I’d say it’s down to the fear of losing votes.
I'm guessing that the Rotherham Council position was the compounding of poor decision making rather than any attempt to cover up the original crime. I still see that as human failings rather than political dogma gone wrong or vote protection, but I could be wrong. My reference to being a lawyer was more to do with my belief in separation of powers principle rather than any specific insight (I don't do criminal law). I'm also a cynic and the word is full of bad people in all walks of life. Generally separation of powers does work. What we are talking about here are the few cases which may be the exception to the rule. We are not in the same boat as Trumpland.
I'll go back to my original point though to throw this stuff into the pot surrounding a silly laddie doing a silly thing and blaming it all on political correctness is in my view wrong. Generally the justice system works away fine. It's not perfect, far from it, but we could easily be in a far worse state. For as much as I despise Tommy Robinson he gets a fair hearing in this country whereas in others he'd have been on the wrong side of the grass some time ago. Some of us should be careful what we wish for...