Thank Goodness for transcripts eh, think Pollard and the Savile Police interview 2009 that gave us the proof that the phony investigations and subsequent ‘reports’ are just that – phony !
http://rabbitaway.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/there-is-clearly-insufficient-evidence_23.html

Reply

The NSPCC have a unique role from the era of ‘Inspectors’ of being empowered to carry out statutory child protection investigations – but in this they are equivalent only to social services departments. In point of fact these investigation are rarely carried out by the NSPCC. Going back 20 or more years the NSPCC held a significant number of child abuse (safeguarding or whatevers they are now called) registers which determined the future of children held to be at ‘risk’. Many of the cases of alleged ‘satanic abuse’ in the 80s were co-incidentally in areas where the NSPCC called the shots. It was not long after this as I recall, when the cases were seen to be a social worker-led manufacture, that the NSPCC ended their role in respect of the registers. Local authorities hated the NSPCC – not least their ability to duck beneath the parapet whenever there was some child abuse scandal.

I can’t see that that the NSPCC could reasonably take on a investigation/prosecution role in criminal proceedings – not least because that don’t do any ‘investigation’ to speak of. They have been involved in working with the police in joint historic enquiries – but so do social services – in Pallial they appear to have a referral role – which is not much different from the hotlines etc as per the Met Savile Inquiry as per Napac. They may also co-ordinate obtaining records etc, or even witness interviewing. this happens already with social services – a complainant’s evidence on video need not be obtained by a police officer in interview.

But by far the most disturbing point is the possibility of criminal cases being transferred to an ‘inquisitorial system’. having read the news report it seems that the LCJ was talking primarily about civil family court cases. But the suggestion that criminal cases might be transferred to another forum – and the mention of crown courts being ‘ overburdened with sexual offence cases’ suggests that radical reforms – perhaps specifically aimed at this class of cases are being actively mooted.

We then switch to the Keir Starmer ‘victim’s law’ proposals and the rhetorical campaign to this effect. http://supportforsurvivors.wordpress.com/2014/02/24/non-current-childhood-abuse-victims-current-human-rights-victims/

For as long s the child abuse hysteria has been around. there have been calls for an ‘inquisitorial’ system to replace the ‘adversarial’. In truth in relation to child abuse this amounts to little more than a call for judicial rubber-stamping of allegations opening up the way for compensation. presumably the criminal standard of proof would need to apply if finding of guilt were such to impose custodial penalties – but why not have a quasi civil set up simply imposing financial ones – this would deal with the cases that did not quit cut the mustard but where ‘victims’ needed to be ‘acknowledge/compensated/ reconciled’ whatever the term is for opening up the kitty without sufficient evidence for a criminal conviction.

The ‘prosecutor’ in such a system would probably be regarded as a neutral ‘inquisitor’ – if you want to see how such a system might pan out look no further than the Waterhouse Inquiry. Richard Webster provides a full critique, but see the piercing criticism of AnnaPauffley QC in her address at the conclusion of evidence in the Tribunal:

“Sir, then I come on to my fourth submission: has the approach of the
Treasury team been impartial and balanced? We say that it should have
been if it was genuine in its desire to conduct an inquisitorial, as against
an adversarial process.

It has been evident from the first day of the proceedings,
we say, that the Treasury team had a case that they were to
pursue.The opening made by Mr Elias set the scene.

In] the section
of the opening entitled,‘Highlights and Summary’, he said this:‘Without
intending to pre-judge the evidence which is to be heard by the
Tribunal, or to influence its view of it in any way, the content, volume
and consistency of statements made by complainants appear cogent
and very impressive.

If as a whole, or in substantial part, they are
accepted by the Tribunal then it may be that they’, and then this next
part appeared in bold type [in press copies of the opening statement]
‘will compel the conclusion that children in care in Clwyd and
Gwynedd, during the period under review were abused physically
and/or sexually on a scale which borders on wholesale exploitation.’

It was a memorable phrase, which unsurprisingly was widely
reported not just locally but across England and Wales. It was surprising
that such a sensational phrase was used in the light of what Lord
Justice Salmon had had to say about counsel’s openings in his report,
and I then quote from paragraph 109 to 111. Paragraphs which we say
contain sound advice:‘In its discretion the Tribunal will direct whether
or not counsel instructed on its behalf should make an opening statement
indicating the progress which had been made in the investigation
before the evidence is heard.The statement should be an impartial
summary of the investigation and avoid any comments which are
likely to make sensational headlines. It should be emphasised that until
the evidence is heard it would be wrong to draw any conclusions.’

How much better it would have been,we say, if that advice had been
followed. Instead, at the beginning of every significant phase, there has
been an opening which would seem to have been drafted with sensa-
tional headline opportunities uppermost.

Accordingly, we submit that from
the first day of the Tribunal’s sitting the die has been cast, witnesses were taken
through their evidence-in-chief and complaints were made about abuse they
maintained they had suffered.

It mattered not that there may have been
material that showed probable inconsistency, the complaint was sympathetically
led. It mattered not if that witness also had good things to
say about care staff, even if he or she was a Salmon letter recipient.That
evidence was not led in-chief very largely.

There has been an almost morbid
preoccupation with anything that might have been wrong with the system
and criticisms of individuals. Seemingly the Treasury team was not interested in
eliciting the positives, the good examples of child care, they were intent on finding
out about the bad practice, the mistakes that were made.There has been no
balance .’ (see Rcihard Webster The Secret of Bryn Estyn pp445-6)

That the NSPCC might wish to position themselves opportunely in such a system would be no surprise, but the greater threat would be that such a system might realistically be instituted at all in the name of the ‘victims’.

Reply

Full text of LCJ address http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Speeches/lcj-speech-reshaping-justice.pdf

Reply

@FatSteve Yes – I’m a devotee of the categorical imperative myself though if may be more honoured by the breach in day to day matters. Liberating – objective decisions with or without personal interest. Never taken on in England – the call to ‘duty’ being authoritarian rather than philosophical logic. Heinrich von Kleist wanted to invade England with Napoleon to spread the Kantish gospel – you can see his point. Couple of bad faith egs latter day ‘whistleblowers ‘gagged’by bumper bonus compromise agreements. When has the real question been asked? Rape ‘victims’ who chose when and how to report, maybe decades later crowing about ‘being believed’ ‘traumatised by cross-examination’ and a ‘not guilty verdict’ (Not your problem honey, it’s a duty to report a sexual predator that might place others at risk . Of that you can be proud and your conscience enlightened. It’s not ‘about’ you)

Anyway will ask the go-between for contact. – think most of us who prefer the discursive blogoria are in the upper echelons of life.

Reply