Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

Hays why do you chose to try and bully people on B/Boards? You know your an ignorant fart.

I couldnt give a jot as i always duff you up anyway , but some over the road found you to be far from a sincere person posting with multiple handles.

Want to see the comments?????????????????????????????????????????

Why would I?

THE PAEDOFILE: It’s an Enquiry landslide….nothing like a landslide for covering things up.

By John Ward July 9, 2014



PROOF POSITIVE THAT NOBODY IN GOVERNMENT CAN UNDERSTAND 4-SYLLABLE WORDS

The British Establishment is still struggling with the meaning of the word ‘Independent’. It likes to think of us as an independent Sovereign State, but wriggles like a ticklish teen out of every opportunity it gets handed on a plate – from Juncker yomping to Rompuy revenge – to leave the EU. Now further evidence is emerging that there seems to be some confusion in the Westminster/Whitehall Blackmailer Belt about whether a large number of obviously pre-programmed Enquiries = an independent outcome.



More: http://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2014/07/09/the-paedofile-its-an-enquiry-landslide-nothing-like-a-landslide-for-covering-things-up/

Haystack - 09 Jul 2014 19:47 - 43429 of 43430

Why would I?....................................................................................ENDS

Well perhaphs your son's and wife would like to see how you behave on the WEB.

You can tell a lot about a person from their actions on the web.

You up for it Hays...........just say the word.

Fishfinger,

Do you actually have a brain of your own, or are you just road-testing one for an idiot?

GF,

I think post 43426 is a fair summary of the stench emanating from No 10.

But haze is out of touch with public opinion.

I hope that the record of this government is put on hoardings and placards at the time of the next election.

The con party to have any future validity has to rid itself of the far right wing and likes of little englanders.

By the way, how did Cameron explain recent production figures.

GF,

I think post 43426 is a fair summary of the stench emanating from No 10.

But haze is out of touch with public opinion.

I hope that the record of this government is put on hoardings and placards at the time of the next election.

The con party to have any future validity has to rid itself of the far right wing and likes of little englanders.

By the way, how did Cameron explain recent production figures.

Indeed Fred indeed.

Just wondering if Hays is out with Hilary on the pull.

Poor lad. Poor lad.

Indeed Fred indeed ( you sad bastard gf) Fred always smells a stench due to the fact that his nose is to near to his arse AGAIN!!

I find it very strange Chris (you intoxicated bast-ard)that everytime I and Hays have a debate his moll Hilary turns up to his aid.

Very strange indeed.

Is something going on here.

"moll" lol :-)

You may think that gf, I couldn't possibly comment :O)

I suggest he reads the following:

https://spotlightonabuse.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/sir-michael-havers-brother-of-baroness-butler-sloss/


Sir Michael Havers, brother of Baroness Butler-Sloss

Sir Michael Havers was appointed as Attorney General by Margaret Thatcher in 1979, and was made Baron Havers in 1987. He intervened three times between 1981 and 1983 to stop the investigation and exposure of Establishment paedophiles, and to prevent the publication of stories which showed that Establishment figures were members of the Paedophile Information Exchange.

Although none of this implicates Havers’ sister, Baroness Butler-Sloss,in any way, it seems at the very least deeply inappropriate to have someone heading a ‘historic’ child abuse inquiry whose own brother played such a major role in the protection of Establishment paedophiles throughout the 1980s.

Sir Michael Havers

1981: Sir Peter Hayman

In 1981, Sir Michael Havers warned Geoffrey Dickens not to name senior diplomat Sir Peter Hayman as a paedophile in the House of Commons. Dickens ignored his advice, and was publicly condemned by Havers, who said “All Mr Dickens has done is make certain that Sir Peter’s shame and embarassment is known to the world. There cannot be any justification whatsoever for what has happened. How can the public have gained by this? How can it be in the public interest to name this man?“.

Sir Michael Havers defended the decision not to prosecute Hayman despite possessing a huge collection of images of child abuse including – as Barry Dickens revealed earlier this week – babies being abused in their prams. Dickens accued Sir Michael of taking part in a “whitewash and “the cover-up of the century”.




-----------


I don't know who is more out of touch;

Cameron,

Haze,

Or

or the Baroness.


Cameron appears to be deluded!

YAAAWWWNNNN!!!!!

In the grip of a moral panic, Britain is turning into a banana republic


By Iain Martin Politics Last updated: July 9th, 2014

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/iainmartin1/100279227/in-the-grip-of-a-moral-panic-britain-is-turning-into-a-banana-republic/



Chris Morris on Brass Eye



Two decades ago, Chris Morris launched Brass Eye, a spoof show for Channel 4 satirising TV news. The most difficult and disturbing episode was that on paedophile panic, which satirised the tabloid TV tendency to fuel the anger and violence of the mob. Assorted celebrities were also tricked into doing pieces to camera backing a fake campaign ("I'm talking Nonce-Sense"). Predictably, there were calls to "Ban This Filth!" from people who had missed the point, either deliberately or out of stupidity.

Now it seems that the government and some charities have been using that episode of Brass Eye as a training video. The NSPCC is calling for the failure to report suspicions of child abuse to be made a crime. We have reached the point in the current panic where it is permissible to mention George Orwell and his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Peter Wanless, the chief executive of the NSPCC, said earlier: "If someone consciously knows that there is a crime committed against a child, and does nothing about it because they put the reputation of the organisation above the safety of that child, that should be a criminal offence."

"Consciously knows." There's an interesting phrase. It seems that the NSPCC sees this sanction applying only to people in positions of responsibility. But how can that be defined fairly in law? Will the new law only apply to the chief executive of a health trust, but not to the finance director or to the head of communications? It would be impossible to define such a law so narrowly. In time it would have to apply to anyone working in any organisation. And, surely it must also apply to anyone who comes into contact with said organisation and who might have heard that a crime has been committed? People often think they "consciously know" something when they have actually only heard it third-hand. If the idea is established that failure to pass on a wild rumour to the police is somehow illegal, it is not difficult to imagine what could go wrong.

Wanless is by all accounts a decent man running an organisation that does much great work. But his latest proposal is dangerous and deeply flawed. Follow it to its logical conclusion and you end up in deeply sinister territory in which the relationship between the state and the individual has been altered fundamentally, with individual judgment abandoned in favour of mandatory reporting of suspicion.

If it is to become a crime to fail to report suspicions that child abuse is taking place, why should the new law not to be extended in time to all other areas of criminal activity? It could become illegal to fail to report to the police if you suspected that a fellow citizen had committed a crime, or might be about to. As someone wise on Twitter put it earlier: the historical precedents of states making it compulsory for citizens to report on their fellow citizens are not encouraging.

How big would a nation's police force have to be to cope? Imagine.

Astonishingly, Wanless is making these proposals just as he launches into heading up a Home Office "independent" inquiry of the allegations of a cover-up in the 1980s. Increasingly, this is how Britain works now. Moral panic followed by meltdown in Number 10 and the announcement of an "overarching" inquiry. Now it seems the results and recommendations of said inquiries will precede the gathering of evidence.

None of it – the endless inquiries, the moral panic and the erosion of legal norms that were developed after centuries of experiment and evolution – will help get the justice needed for those who have suffered terrible abuse. It may even distract the police from the real work at hand of investigating and gathering evidence of despicable crimes. It is not inconceivable that if it carries on like this some people will be wrongly named and future trials jeopardised.

Another silly strike today. At least my son's school is open for ledons.

People should know that only 27% of NUT members voted in the strike ballot. Even more surprising is that the strike vote for today's strike was taken in 2012.

Well thats a bigger percentage than David Cameron recieved of the population vote and hes the PM. (Only by default.) Not only that but Union leaders are complying to TU laws.

Camoron should keep out of Union affairs especially when hes rubbing shoulders with cash for questions/policy corupt donors.