Jump to content
yorkie1999

Also in the news

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, oxford blue said:

Although a friend has voted leave for a spurious reason, is that a reason for a second referendum? I suggest most people considered the issue carefully before voting. Of course, there were some spurious claims from both sides, but that happens in any election. The UK would have left by now if it wasn't for bickering MP's (the majority of whom belong to parties who pledged to honour the referendum). Even then, the future relationship with the EU would still have to be settled, given the transitional period. A majority in favour of leaving by over 1.25 million votes deserves honouring. 

 

With regard to the term 'people's vote', wasn't the first referendum just that? I would be very surprised if another referendum had such a high turnout - higher than in any election since 1992.

 

I'm sure many did. I haven't spoken to any leave voters able to express that outside of here though and I'm hardly the easily offended, echo chamber type.

Edited by Carl the Llama

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Jacob Reece mogg daughter is same as him. A total c u n t. Runs in the family. How to profit out of disasters and misery. 

 

Now running for the brexit party. 

 

Wonder what their objective will be? Disaster and misery for the UK and it's citizens. The worse it gets the more money they can make. 

 

This isn't paranoid conspiracy stuff this is what leading brexiteers want. And they have managed to get half the nation to vote for them.

 

They even stand up in parliament and say this out but it doesn't get coverage and they use code like 'we need to get government out of running the nhs' which is another way of saying privatise the nhs.

 

 

Edited by Grebfromgrebland
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

We all need to be aware of the fascists play book so we can challenge and so this movement. It's a lot more sophisticated than many realise and without actively calling it out we could sleepwalk into fascist rule rather quickly. 

 

There are already sympathisers in the government that's in power and all major news outlets are giving a mouthpiece to the lines of Bannon via farage.

 

In case you don't know about Steve Bannon look him up. He basically wants a massive war, wipe out most non whites and enslave the rest. He has the ear of trump, farage, banks and Reece mogg. It's scary stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do people think that folks like Bannon are uneducated and/or uninteresting? He, in particular, is clearly neither, even if some of those who support him are both. Just because his beliefs for the future are reprehensible and bloody stupid, that doesn't make his ability to apply them less.

 

He's gotten this far by taking advantage of people writing him off and telling certain folks what they want to hear about the future, and that's got him the man he wants in in the US, Hungary and Brazil, among other places. He should not be underestimated.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Buce said:

 

It's completely legitimate, though.

 

5 hours ago, Innovindil said:

Exactly this. I personally don't ever want to see this terrorist supporter step foot on british soil again, but I have no problem with her getting legal aid to challenge the decision of the home office. The home office not being able to be challenged is far more dangerous than a single terrorist.

Indeed, though it’s bound to raise significant questions about other people being denied Legal Aid...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Grebfromgrebland said:

 

Jacob Reece mogg daughter is same as him. A total c u n t. Runs in the family. How to profit out of disasters and misery. 

 

Now running for the brexit party. 

 

Wonder what their objective will be? Disaster and misery for the UK and it's citizens. The worse it gets the more money they can make. 

 

This isn't paranoid conspiracy stuff this is what leading brexiteers want. And they have managed to get half the nation to vote for them.

 

They even stand up in parliament and say this out but it doesn't get coverage and they use code like 'we need to get government out of running the nhs' which is another way of saying privatise the nhs.

It's his sister, not his daughter. You have also spelt his name wrong.

 

If you want people to believe your paranoid conspiracy theory getting basic facts right about who you are talking about is essential.

 

Can you give me a single example of him saying anything like getting government out the NHS? 

Edited by MattP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another one from the front caught out lying about what they have said about Zionism, this time it's Richard Burgon.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47947205

 

Unemployment still falling. Wages still rising. And there's still plenty of job vacancies. 

 

Pretty much the holy trinity of employment figures. 

With the reported rise in poverty figures there must be plenty that aren't getting the minimum wage or the minimum wage is not enough, Either that or the poverty figures are 'wrong' and some are getting their priorities wrong.

In reality probably a measure of each of those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Grebfromgrebland said:

 

Jacob Reece mogg daughter is same as him. A total c u n t. Runs in the family. How to profit out of disasters and misery. 

 

Now running for the brexit party. 

 

Wonder what their objective will be? Disaster and misery for the UK and it's citizens. The worse it gets the more money they can make. 

 

This isn't paranoid conspiracy stuff this is what leading brexiteers want. And they have managed to get half the nation to vote for them.

 

They even stand up in parliament and say this out but it doesn't get coverage and they use code like 'we need to get government out of running the nhs' which is another way of saying privatise the nhs.

 

 

Isn’t his daughter ten years old, or something?? Pretty high achieving family, if she’s running for the Brexit party, tbh. 

 

And as for people profiting from disaster and misery, you probably don’t have to look much further than the Remainer in Chief,  and saviour of the second referendum...

 

 

 

 

F6C85929-6BDE-4888-8131-A3BA3C1B4891.jpeg

  • Like 3
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, MattP said:

For once I agree with Guy.

 

We should be outraged to be quite honest that in the midst of all this they just all voted to go on holiday.

 

I understand the instinct to think that, but I don't agree. Sometimes, if you've been trying and failing to sort out a difficult problem for ages, it's a good idea to take a break, recharge batteries, rethink, consult others etc.

As I understand it, the front-bench negotiations are still ongoing anyway, even though parliament is taking a break - and parliament cannot do much more until the outcome of that is known, unless the parliamentary numbers change.

 

Mind you, I cannot see these front-bench talks yielding a cross-party agreement. Corbyn would surely face outright rebellion in his own ranks if he signed up to a deal that didn't offer either (a) major changes like a customs union, guaranteed protection of employment/environmental rights, all "Boris-proofed" so that they couldn't be reversed by a new leader; or (b) a referendum.......and May would surely face outright rebellion in her own ranks if she signed up to either of those!

 

I can't help seeing these front-bench talks as just PR and tactics for both May and Corbyn. They can both give the public & the EU the impression that they're being reasonable in the national and international interest. Corbyn gets to appear "statesmanlike" on TV. May gets to threaten the ERG with the prospect of a Soft Brexit deal, trying to bring more of them onside with her original deal. They both have a hope that the process will sow division in the opposing party etc. Meanwhile, the No Deal cliff edge has been removed for another 6 months....

 

If there were to be a decisive break in the impasse now, it will surely come either through a shift in parliamentary numbers (wouldn't take all that many to shift) or a change of Tory leader. Assuming the impasse lasts for at least a few more weeks (a reasonable assumption, I think), the European elections could provide the stimulus for that. If those prove as disastrous for the Tories as the polls suggest, there must be a chance that Hard Brexit cabinet ministers will force May to go - a Hard Brexit leader might then be able to get a harder deal through, or their presence might push Tory moderates in the opposite direction - into a Soft Brexit deal led by parliament. I can't see the ERG capitulating to May so as to avoid European elections - they'll let her own any electoral disaster and don't want to be in the EU anyway. Labour might also do badly in the Euro elections, but polls suggest not as badly as the Tories and any hit for them is worth taking if it means Labour stays fairly united while the Tories suffer a major split, maybe crumble so that a general election is triggered or if Labour gets to exert influence the Brexit outcome (probably via parliament or a general election if the govt collapses, not via cross-party talks).

 

The 6-month extension takes the immediate pressure off everyone apart from May, and she doesn't have an obvious way out of the impasse: she can't get her deal passed; her party won't let her capitulate to Corbyn; she can't make Corbyn capitulate to her; she can't call a general election due to the polls. Of course, none of this does much good to the economy, our international reputation or the public mood. But party politics seems to trump that - and it's not just trivial party politics. If May or Corbyn makes a serious false step in this Brexit endgame and alienates their membership and/or potential voters, they don't just risk losing the prospect of power short-term, it could massively damage their parties for years or even destroy them for good. 

 

Meanwhile, in contrast to Verhofstadt, Tusk is stressing that the EU must be respectful of UK rights over coming months and shouldn't expect us to take a disruptive attitude as we haven't so far (still hoping for a Remain reversal, I expect

https://news.sky.com/story/tusk-uk-cannot-be-treated-as-second-category-member-if-it-takes-part-in-eu-elections-11695220

Edited by Alf Bentley
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

May, and she doesn't have an obvious way out of the impasse: she can't get her deal passed; her party won't let her capitulate to Corbyn; she can't make Corbyn capitulate to her; she can't call a general election due to the polls.

This is what I don't understand about having different PM surely the numbers in Parliament will be the same. She's no longer the problem the problem is Parliament doesn't have a majority for any solution.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, davieG said:

This is what I don't understand about having different PM surely the numbers in Parliament will be the same. She's no longer the problem the problem is Parliament doesn't have a majority for any solution.

 

The current impasse might just continue under a new leader. If so, it might have to end by Halloween, one way or another, as there must be a strong chance of the EU refusing any further extension if we've made no progress in the coming 6 months.

So, a few more months of impasse under a new leader, then a stark choice between No Deal and a parliament-led Soft Brexit, general election or referendum could be the outcome in October.

 

But the combination of European elections, an October cliff-edge and a new leader (probably a more Hard Brexit leader) could cause numbers in Parliament to shift.

- A new leader could take a strong Euro election performance by Farage and/or UKIP as carte blanche to demand renegotiation of Withdrawal Agreement (unlikely to succeed) - or to accept No Deal...or to call a general election if polls turn up for the new PM

- The Govt adopting a more Hard Brexit stance could shift some Tory moderates into supporting a referendum or a Soft Brexit, Customs Union or whatever, led by parliament, giving it the numbers to succeed

- As an outside option, a new leader with a fresh mandate could propose a Hard Brexit (Canada-type free trade deal only) but accept extra checks on trade crossing the Irish Sea so as to avoid the need for a backstop or hard border (i.e. stitch up the DUP in favour of achieving Hard Brexit but avoiding No Deal). That would involve re-opening the Withdrawal Agreement, but only to do something the EU previously said that it would be willing to accept.

 

I don't know, Davie..... I try to get my head around it, but fail like everyone else!

Something will have to give, though...maybe not immediately, but probably in the next 6 months? :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I understand the instinct to think that, but I don't agree. Sometimes, if you've been trying and failing to sort out a difficult problem for ages, it's a good idea to take a break, recharge batteries, rethink, consult others etc.

As I understand it, the front-bench negotiations are still ongoing anyway, even though parliament is taking a break - and parliament cannot do much more until the outcome of that is known, unless the parliamentary numbers change.

 

Mind you, I cannot see these front-bench talks yielding a cross-party agreement. Corbyn would surely face outright rebellion in his own ranks if he signed up to a deal that didn't offer either (a) major changes like a customs union, guaranteed protection of employment/environmental rights, all "Boris-proofed" so that they couldn't be reversed by a new leader; or (b) a referendum.......and May would surely face outright rebellion in her own ranks if she signed up to either of those!

 

I can't help seeing these front-bench talks as just PR and tactics for both May and Corbyn. They can both give the public & the EU the impression that they're being reasonable in the national and international interest. Corbyn gets to appear "statesmanlike" on TV. May gets to threaten the ERG with the prospect of a Soft Brexit deal, trying to bring more of them onside with her original deal. They both have a hope that the process will sow division in the opposing party etc. Meanwhile, the No Deal cliff edge has been removed for another 6 months....

 

If there were to be a decisive break in the impasse now, it will surely come either through a shift in parliamentary numbers (wouldn't take all that many to shift) or a change of Tory leader. Assuming the impasse lasts for at least a few more weeks (a reasonable assumption, I think), the European elections could provide the stimulus for that. If those prove as disastrous for the Tories as the polls suggest, there must be a chance that Hard Brexit cabinet ministers will force May to go - a Hard Brexit leader might then be able to get a harder deal through, or their presence might push Tory moderates in the opposite direction - into a Soft Brexit deal led by parliament. I can't see the ERG capitulating to May so as to avoid European elections - they'll let her own any electoral disaster and don't want to be in the EU anyway. Labour might also do badly in the Euro elections, but polls suggest not as badly as the Tories and any hit for them is worth taking if it means Labour stays fairly united while the Tories suffer a major split, maybe crumble so that a general election is triggered or if Labour gets to exert influence the Brexit outcome (probably via parliament or a general election if the govt collapses, not via cross-party talks).

 

The 6-month extension takes the immediate pressure off everyone apart from May, and she doesn't have an obvious way out of the impasse: she can't get her deal passed; her party won't let her capitulate to Corbyn; she can't make Corbyn capitulate to her; she can't call a general election due to the polls. Of course, none of this does much good to the economy, our international reputation or the public mood. But party politics seems to trump that - and it's not just trivial party politics. If May or Corbyn makes a serious false step in this Brexit endgame and alienates their membership and/or potential voters, they don't just risk losing the prospect of power short-term, it could massively damage their parties for years or even destroy them for good. 

 

Meanwhile, in contrast to Verhofstadt, Tusk is stressing that the EU must be respectful of UK rights over coming months and shouldn't expect us to take a disruptive attitude as we haven't so far (still hoping for a Remain reversal, I expect

https://news.sky.com/story/tusk-uk-cannot-be-treated-as-second-category-member-if-it-takes-part-in-eu-elections-11695220

 

All the ‘expert’ opinion suggests Labour will haemorrhage support if they don’t back a second referendum. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

I understand the instinct to think that, but I don't agree. Sometimes, if you've been trying and failing to sort out a difficult problem for ages, it's a good idea to take a break, recharge batteries, rethink, consult others etc.

As I understand it, the front-bench negotiations are still ongoing anyway, even though parliament is taking a break - and parliament cannot do much more until the outcome of that is known, unless the parliamentary numbers change.

 

Mind you, I cannot see these front-bench talks yielding a cross-party agreement. Corbyn would surely face outright rebellion in his own ranks if he signed up to a deal that didn't offer either (a) major changes like a customs union, guaranteed protection of employment/environmental rights, all "Boris-proofed" so that they couldn't be reversed by a new leader; or (b) a referendum.......and May would surely face outright rebellion in her own ranks if she signed up to either of those!

 

I can't help seeing these front-bench talks as just PR and tactics for both May and Corbyn. They can both give the public & the EU the impression that they're being reasonable in the national and international interest. Corbyn gets to appear "statesmanlike" on TV. May gets to threaten the ERG with the prospect of a Soft Brexit deal, trying to bring more of them onside with her original deal. They both have a hope that the process will sow division in the opposing party etc. Meanwhile, the No Deal cliff edge has been removed for another 6 months....

 

If there were to be a decisive break in the impasse now, it will surely come either through a shift in parliamentary numbers (wouldn't take all that many to shift) or a change of Tory leader. Assuming the impasse lasts for at least a few more weeks (a reasonable assumption, I think), the European elections could provide the stimulus for that. If those prove as disastrous for the Tories as the polls suggest, there must be a chance that Hard Brexit cabinet ministers will force May to go - a Hard Brexit leader might then be able to get a harder deal through, or their presence might push Tory moderates in the opposite direction - into a Soft Brexit deal led by parliament. I can't see the ERG capitulating to May so as to avoid European elections - they'll let her own any electoral disaster and don't want to be in the EU anyway. Labour might also do badly in the Euro elections, but polls suggest not as badly as the Tories and any hit for them is worth taking if it means Labour stays fairly united while the Tories suffer a major split, maybe crumble so that a general election is triggered or if Labour gets to exert influence the Brexit outcome (probably via parliament or a general election if the govt collapses, not via cross-party talks).

 

The 6-month extension takes the immediate pressure off everyone apart from May, and she doesn't have an obvious way out of the impasse: she can't get her deal passed; her party won't let her capitulate to Corbyn; she can't make Corbyn capitulate to her; she can't call a general election due to the polls. Of course, none of this does much good to the economy, our international reputation or the public mood. But party politics seems to trump that - and it's not just trivial party politics. If May or Corbyn makes a serious false step in this Brexit endgame and alienates their membership and/or potential voters, they don't just risk losing the prospect of power short-term, it could massively damage their parties for years or even destroy them for good. 

 

Meanwhile, in contrast to Verhofstadt, Tusk is stressing that the EU must be respectful of UK rights over coming months and shouldn't expect us to take a disruptive attitude as we haven't so far (still hoping for a Remain reversal, I expect

https://news.sky.com/story/tusk-uk-cannot-be-treated-as-second-category-member-if-it-takes-part-in-eu-elections-11695220

Good analysis, don't disagree with anything aside from the opening..

Given this is regularly talked up as our biggest crisis since WW2 I don't think it's unreasonable to be expecting parliament to be sitting for the duration of it until they find a way out of it, if they don't want a high pressure job that involves things like this then they probably shouldn't be running for parliament in the first place.

I don't see the cross-party talks coming to anything either, seems like a pretty obvious ploy now by May to get Corbyn's fingerprints all over this as well as her own, whether that will work or not I don't know but I'm extremely doubtful/.

I've noticed contrasting things coming from different representatives in the EU start to be a bit more common now, I think Tusk wants us to stay along with many others but the ones who want the full European superstate like Verhofstadt seem to realise the job of doing that is going to be far easier with us gone.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Buce said:

All the ‘expert’ opinion suggests Labour will haemorrhage support if they don’t back a second referendum. 

Not really, we had one very dubious research project funded by the Peoples Vote campaign. A lot of expert opinion says that just losing a core part of Labour leave vote could cost them upto 30-50 seats in the North and Midlands.

No point racking up 5,000 more votes in Ealing and Islington if you lose a 2,000 in Stoke, Derby and Mansfield. Personally think Corbyn has made the correct calculation here so far.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

All the ‘expert’ opinion suggests Labour will haemorrhage support if they don’t back a second referendum. 

 

7 minutes ago, MattP said:

Not really, we had one very dubious research project funded by the Peoples Vote campaign. A lot of expert opinion says that just losing a core part of Labour leave vote could cost them upto 30-50 seats in the North and Midlands.

No point racking up 5,000 more votes in Ealing and Islington if you lose a 2,000 in Stoke, Derby and Mansfield. Personally think Corbyn has made the correct calculation here so far.

 

The expert opinion I've seen suggests that Labour would indeed lose a lot of votes by not backing a second referendum - but would also lose a fair few if it is perceived to have "betrayed Brexit".

Hence why they've tried to avoid ending up clearly in one camp or the other.

 

Matt's right, too, that it matters where the votes are - and a lot of Labour Brexiteers live in marginals in the North/Midlands, whereas a lot of Labour Remainers live in big cities, university towns etc, often in constituencies with big Lab majorities.

 

On the face of it, that makes being decisive about Brexit a Lose-Lose scenario for Labour......but that can change:

- If the current chaos continues for much longer, people could continue to turn mainly against the Tories as they are the ones in Govt....making life easier for Lab.

- The impact of the new/smaller parties (Brexit Party, UKIP, Lib Dems, ChangeUK, Greens) could shift that equation, particularly if their impact is uneven: e.g. if Farage takes a lot more votes from Con than from Lab & the Remainer parties don't pick up so many, that could hand power to Corbyn....again, which areas they pick up votes matters, though

- A general election held before Brexit was resolved would be very different to one held after at least the first phase had been resolved (WA passed)....likewise who's Tory leader and what the public think of them will matter....still pretty fluid, though the Euro elections might give us a few clues, if they take place.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mastercard ruling: almost every UK adult could receive payout

Lawsuit could benefit 46 million people even if they have never owned the credit card

 

Almost every adult in the UK could receive a payout of up to £300 from Mastercard after a court ruling paved the way for a £14bn class action lawsuit.

The legal action taken by former financial ombudsman Walter Merricks claims that 46 million UK consumers paid higher prices in shops over a 16-year period because of allegedly excessive transaction fees charged by Mastercard.

Two years ago, the Competition Appeal Tribunal threw out Merricks’ claim, ruling it would not grant an order for the case to continue to trial. In a dramatic turnaround, the court of appeal has ordered the tribunal to reconsider what has become the biggest class action in British legal history.

 

Merricks said he was confident the tribunal will certify the action, enabling it to go to court and result in a multibillion-pound payout, if successful.

“I am very pleased with today’s decision,” said Merricks. “It is nearly 12 years since Mastercard was clearly told that they had broken the law by imposing excessive card transaction charges, damaging consumers over a prolonged period.

“When challenged, all they have done is to raise technical legal arguments that turn out to have no merit – as the court of appeal has shown today. It’s now time for Mastercard to admit the damage they did, to apologise to the British public, and to agree to pay the compensation they owe.”

Mastercard said it will fight the case all the way to the supreme court, if necessary. It said in a statement: “This decision is not a final ruling and the proposed claim is not approved to move forward, rather the court has simply said a re-hearing on certain issues should happen.

“Mastercard continues to disagree fundamentally with the basis of the claim and we believe UK consumers receive real value from the security, convenience and consumer protection of our payment services.”

The tribunal originally rejected Merricks’ claim partly because it could not find clear evidence about how the Mastercard fees had been passed on to consumer – or absorbed by the retailer – and how individual losses could be calculated. But the court of appeal found that was not a basis for rejecting certification for a court action.

Merricks said the maximum payout will be about £300 for anyone who can prove they were in the UK in the 16 years between 1992 and 2008.

In total, Merricks said 46 million adults could qualify and they need never have held a Mastercard. His case rests on the fact that higher prices would have been paid by all consumers during the period.

The case is the first major test of a regime introduced under the Consumer Rights Act for people to recover losses from competition law infringements.

Under the regime, UK-based members of a defined group are automatically bound into legal action unless they opt out, with the Competition Appeal Tribunal nominated to oversee such class action lawsuits.

Lawyers acting for Merricks hailed the ruling as a landmark judgment. Boris Bronfentrinker of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan said: “The court of appeal’s judgment marks a significant day for the collective action regime in this country, after a number of false starts before the Competition Appeal Tribunal.”

The case also represents a potential bonanza for new-style litigation funds that pay for class actions to be mounted.

Merricks’ action was initially financed by Chicago-based litigation funder Gerchen Keller Capital, which the Law Society Gazette said would make whatever was the greater of £135m or 30% of the proceeds of the case up to £1bn, plus 20% of the proceeds over £1bn.

A new funder, Innsworth Litigation Funding, has taken on the case. It is understood it will receive a share of whatever is left if not every person in the class action lawsuit makes a claim.

Merricks said he does not personally stand to make a cut from any court award. “ am paid an hourly rate of £150 for the time I have spent on this,” he added. ”

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, MattP said:

Another one from the front caught out lying about what they have said about Zionism, this time it's Richard Burgon.

 

 

Richard Burgon apologises, says he forgot. 

 

This guy is Lord Chancellor if Labour get into office lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MattP said:

Richard Burgon apologises, says he forgot. 

 

This guy is Lord Chancellor if Labour get into office lol

Sounds like he had a 'Dr The Singh' moment, always knew I could get into politics spoutting shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lord Janner inquiry: Senior police 'influenced decisions'

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-47948890

 

 

Senior police officers may have influenced decisions about inquiries going ahead into child abuse allegations against a politician, a watchdog has said.

Leicestershire Police inquiries into Lord Janner are being reviewed by the Independent Office for Police Conduct.

The IOPC also said documents may have been "inappropriately modified" and allegations not even recorded. 

The late Lord Janner and his family have always maintained his innocence.

Leicestershire Police said it could not comment at this time.

Latest news and stories from the East Midlands

The IOPC is examining inquiries from 1991, 2001 and 2006 and said it was considering the conduct and actions of 13 individuals, though none are serving officers. 

It has sent an update to the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA).

IICSA has received complaints from more than 30 people alleging the former Labour MP abused victims between the 1950s and 1980s.

Image copyrightPA

Image captionProf Alexis Jay is leading the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA)

While emphasising its investigation was ongoing, the IOPC outlined "matters of concern" including:

In the early 1990s, before a formal investigation into Lord Janner commenced, police records indicate "a number of references to a relationship, including a sexual relationship, between Lord Janner and a child", but there is no evidence the claims were looked into

Once an investigation did begin, lines of inquiry "appear from the evidence not to have been carried out" and "there is an indication that senior officers may have influenced decisions regarding the inquiries being carried out"

In 2001-2002 "allegations made by former children's home residents appear from the evidence available not to have been investigated or recorded" and "documented results of investigative actions regarding Lord Janner appear to contain information that could be interpreted as misleading and/or inaccurate"

The update said a new referral was made to the IOPC in February, which "based on the evidence reviewed" indicated "police documents may have been inappropriately modified".

The IOPC said all those under investigation had been issued with notices regarding potential criminal offences and potential gross misconduct.

It said hoped to produce a final report by the end of June.

IICSA said it had paused its work regarding Lord Janner to avoid any duplication.

Lord Janner, who was born in Cardiff, was an MP in Leicester for nearly 30 years. 

He died shortly after a judge had ruled he was not fit to stand trial for alleged child sex offences.

His son Daniel Janner QC said: "This private document should never have been published.

"It is yet another astonishing example of this discredited inquiry's mishandling of information."

He described the IICSA inquiry into his father as a "macabre proxy prosecution of a dead innocent man who cannot answer back from the grave".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

If those prove as disastrous for the Tories as the polls suggest, there must be a chance that Hard Brexit cabinet ministers will force May to go - a Hard Brexit leader might then be able to get a harder deal through, 

Can’t really see how a harder Brexit could be forced through. The EU won’t reopen the backstop and the only alternative appears to be no deal and that is extremely unpopular in Parliament.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...