|Yes, I'm Cross
||[Nov. 10th, 2012|03:42 pm]
If justice isn't done- and seen to be done- rumour will flourish. The alternative is cowed acquiescence. The cover-up at Bryn Estyn (and I don't know what else to call it) left the public uncertain as to who was under suspicion and who was in the clear. Of course we're going to want to talk about it. Firstly because we're nosy and secondly because this sort of thing makes us angry. If you want to shut us up you're going to have to flood the community with secret police. |
I'm sorry if an innocent man got fingered but that can happen in any investigation- even when the authorities are in charge. Think of it as collateral damage. The pursuit of justice can be a pretty rough business.
Philip Schofield was right to ambush the P.M. The "proper" journalists didn't have the balls to do it (which is probably why they're now all so miffed at him). If there's something rotten in the State the top man should be informed- and seen to be informed. Yes, a couple of names were flashed in front of the camera but- please- it's the 21st century and things that are on the Internet really aren't secret any more. Those names were as much in the public domain as they would have been if they'd graced a headline in the Telegraph. How can it be wrong to reveal a thing that everybody knows? When are we going to stop pretending the Internet is this occult thing when it isn't? Twitter rules OK!
Without the pressure from the blogs and the social media would this scandal ever have been raised again? The establishment and its commentariat want us to pipe down and let them deal with things calmly and maturely because daddy knows best but what have they ever done that we should trust them in a matter like this?
Welcome to my world, a year earlier! (sigh)
I would say "don't let it consume you", but I suspect you are more enabled than I am in that regard, in my chemical imbalances and tendency to swift clinical depression. I forget that I am not altogether functionally sane and others are.
If you are of that mentality, don't let it consume you. If you are functionally sane, you should be all right.
No, I won't let it consume me. This business makes me angry but if I get too het up I'll go and sit in an empty room and listen to the silence.
It's really hard for me to consider a friend and confidante of Thatcher an "innocent man". He's still a psychopath, just like his dominatrix, whether he fucks children or doesn't. Lets not lose sight of the simple truth amongst all this breast beating and rending of garments.
And I still say this is more about class than kiddie-diddling. Without the former, the latter could not be institutionalized and the guilty shielded from scrutiny.
I'm inclined to agree with you.
It's looking as though the actual abuser was Lord McAlpine's deceased cousin Jimmy. Apparently his activities were well known, but hushed up. If Lord M was in the know but did nothing doesn't that make him an enabler?
I think that certainly makes Lord M an enabler, if indeed he knew, or even suspected, and took no action.
Over here, it's often repeated that it isn't the crime that gets you, at least in politics, it's the cover-up. That's what took down Nixon. Of course, if the media close ranks with the governing administration, as they did in this country during the Iran-Contra affair, then there is traditionally nothing to be done.