,
32 tweets,
13 min read
Read on Twitter
1. Day 10 of Westminster hearings at #CSAinquiry – my round-up in two parts. Part 2 in 30 tweets. Part 1 yday:
More on whipping MPs.
And a clash at #CSAinquiry that illustrates how inquiry has been whipped to stay in line, limiting what it can reveal...
More on whipping MPs.
And a clash at #CSAinquiry that illustrates how inquiry has been whipped to stay in line, limiting what it can reveal...
2. Revelations from Lord Jopling’s whipping notes (see part 1 of summary for Day 10 ) puts an earlier comment to #CSAinquiry by Ken Clarke about the ‘dirt books’ in a new light.
Mystery makes for mischief, as Gyles Brandreth put it. And so does secrecy...
Mystery makes for mischief, as Gyles Brandreth put it. And so does secrecy...
3. Ken Clarke told #CSAinquiry what happens to Tory whips’ ‘dirt books’: “We didn’t want this to go into the archives, they were the property of the chief whip, and the chief whip would take them off.”
By archives, Clarke means the National Archives, the UK’s historical record.
By archives, Clarke means the National Archives, the UK’s historical record.
4. The #CSAinquiry clearly should recommend a regularisation of the government and opposition whips’ offices.
This includes forcing them to pass documents, including “whips notes”, to the National Archives as other official bodies have to do, and in relation to data protection.
This includes forcing them to pass documents, including “whips notes”, to the National Archives as other official bodies have to do, and in relation to data protection.
5. Ken Clarke continued to #CSAinquiry: “I seem to remember stories of some chief whip long before my time solemnly burning them in his garden when he got home, and that was not because they were full of lurid scandals of orgies and crime.” They had “political gossip”, he said.
6. Lord Jopling, Margaret Thatcher’s chief whip for her first four years as prime minister, also had something to tell #CSAinquiry about “Sir” Cyril Smith.
It may shed some light on what led the DPP to decide against prosecuting him in 1970…
It may shed some light on what led the DPP to decide against prosecuting him in 1970…
7. Lord Jopling to #CSAinquiry: John Cobb, the late barrister/judge [prosecuted Judith Ward], “said to me that he had been invited… to look at the papers with regard to Cyril Smith and that he had advised that he did not think there was evidence sufficient to get a conviction.”
8. Nick Brown, Labour’s chief whip, who had two spells as government chief whip, including after Tony Blair became PM in 1997, told #CSAinquiry that he did not inherit a ‘dirt book’, and issued instructions that only “objective records” be created...
9. “We didn’t keep records about people’s private lives, and indeed we don’t,” Nick Brown told #CSAinquiry, “and I got a great cheer from the parliamentary Labour Party when I said it [in 1997].”
“It was gallows humour, I think.”
“It was gallows humour, I think.”
10. Nick Brown told #CSAinquiry: “We don’t run an intelligence service. The way you find out is that people come and tell you that they have a particular problem.”
[Er, a form of “humint”. And could intelligence agencies have avoided temptation of spying in/on whips’ offices?]
[Er, a form of “humint”. And could intelligence agencies have avoided temptation of spying in/on whips’ offices?]
11. James, now Lord, Arbuthnot, Conservative whip in gvt (1992-4) and in opposition (1997-2001), told #CSAinquiry: “The role of a whip is very similar to that of a sheepdog, so just making sure that everybody is going in roughly the same direction at roughly the same time.” ...
11b. So, if whips are like sheepdogs, as Lord Arbuthnot told #CSAinquiry, then what does that make their “flocks” of MPs?
*Baa-aa!* …
*Baa-aa!* …
12. “The whips act as sponges for information,” Lord Arbuthnot told #CSAinquiry.
“They are not an intelligence service, except from the point of view of listening and taking in information such as comes to them...”
“They are not an intelligence service, except from the point of view of listening and taking in information such as comes to them...”
13. Lord Arbuthnot told #CSAinquiry: “There were a couple of incidents of financial trouble.”
“That’s the only trouble that I can actually remember at this distance.”
But later he did remember something more…
“That’s the only trouble that I can actually remember at this distance.”
But later he did remember something more…
14. “Well, I was aware of a few affairs,” Lord Arbuthnot told #CSAinquiry.
“I’m sure I was aware of, for example, sexual alliances that might have been uncomfortable if they had hit the public eye. I can’t actually, thinking back on it, remember many of them.”
“I’m sure I was aware of, for example, sexual alliances that might have been uncomfortable if they had hit the public eye. I can’t actually, thinking back on it, remember many of them.”
15. In 1990, #CSAinquiry heard, Andrew Roth was planning to say in ‘Parliamentary Profiles’ of Peter Morrison: “Stories of a sex scandal circulated in his patch and in Fleet Street but were never corroborated – October/November 1986.”
16. A note from the Cabinet Office and produced at #CSAinquiry reveals that Murdo Maclean, private secretary to the government chief whip, offered to relay a warning of legal action on behalf of Peter Morrison to Andrew Roth about planned profile entry in tweet 15...
17. Murdo Maclean, challenged that it was wrong for a civil servant to be helping to protect Peter Morrison’s reputation, told #CSAinquiry: “No… He was a minister of state in a government department, a senior minister. That is not a party matter, he is a government minister.”
18. Sam Stein, representing Tim Hulbert, at the end of #CSAinquiry hearing, raised an objection to the choice by counsel to inquiry of witness to answer questions about Home Office’s review of whether department provided funding to pro-paedophile group PIE.
It became tetchy...
It became tetchy...
19. First, Alexis Jay stopped Sam Stein from continuing to outline his objections over choice of counsel to #CSAinquiry of witness from Home Office’s review of PIE-funding issue, and asked to hear from said counsel first, Brian Altman...
20. Counsel to #CSAinquiry complained that Sam Stein had not given him “personally” notice of the issue, suggested that he was “going to make a fuss” and should “allow us to get on with the job.”
Sam Stein: “No fuss is being made. This is a proper matter to raise at this stage.”
Sam Stein: “No fuss is being made. This is a proper matter to raise at this stage.”
21. Sam Stein told #CSAinquiry that the witness called to deal with issue if PIE funding only had an administrative function for Home office review. He wanted Peter Wanless and Richard Whittam called to give evidence. But then...
Counsel: “Chair, I am going to intervene…”
Counsel: “Chair, I am going to intervene…”
22. Counsel to #CSAinquiry, Brian Altman, continued: “This isn’t fair, it is not fair on you and the panel, for Mr Stein to adopt oral submissions on a Friday afternoon on finely detailed matters which you can’t possibly absorb...”
23. “I would invite you not to make any ruling on this because it is purely administrative, and it is not a matter for the chair and panel to rule on matters like this or make any determination,” Brian Altman, counsel to #CSAinquiry, continued...
24. Counsel to #CSAinquiry: “What I am going to invite Mr Stein to do, given he feels so strongly about this, is to put into writing… short submissions.”
“The reality of what he’s asking is a matter of decision for us going forwards as to the material that we put before you.”
“The reality of what he’s asking is a matter of decision for us going forwards as to the material that we put before you.”
25. Sam Stein to #CSAinquiry: “Chair, the decisions to be made by this inquiry are the chair’s, not Mr Altman QC’s. His decision-making concerns the way that counsel to the inquiry will proceed. That is not for the chair to be bound by his decision making.”
26. Sam Stein’s objection, still to be resolved, goes to the heart of where #CSAinquiry has gone very wrong.
Eg, it has heard testimony from Met/IOPC witnesses to dismiss claims from police whistleblowers re cover-ups for #VIPaedophiles while calling hardly any whistleblowers...
Eg, it has heard testimony from Met/IOPC witnesses to dismiss claims from police whistleblowers re cover-ups for #VIPaedophiles while calling hardly any whistleblowers...
27. Even for the very few police whistleblowers called to #CSAinquiry to testify about cover-ups for #VIPaedophiles, their written statements were not adduced while those of Met/IOPC witnesses who dismissed their claims were.
All this will skew inquiry findings.
All this will skew inquiry findings.
28. Moreover, we have heard only from “corporate” witnesses at #CSAinquiry for Met and IOPC who generally relayed what others have told them (ie hearsay) rather than hearing anyone from those bodies to provide direct evidence...
29. MI5 put up anonymous lawyer, understood to be its legal director, to testify about its relevant corporate knowledge to #CSAinquiry.
But inquiry should have insisted on calling Andrew Parker, its director general. Harder for its head to be excused any errors in testimony.
But inquiry should have insisted on calling Andrew Parker, its director general. Harder for its head to be excused any errors in testimony.
30. Met & IOPC are core participants in Westminster inv for #CSAinquiry, but there are no police whistleblowers. And one abuse survivor.
At least one police whisteblower says that he was frozen out from CP status – as were several survivors.
This will skew inquiry findings.
At least one police whisteblower says that he was frozen out from CP status – as were several survivors.
This will skew inquiry findings.
Further to tweet 30, seven survivors of Cyril Smith are also core participants in Westminster investigation of #CSAinquiry, but then the establishment has given up trying to protect the late paedophile Liberal MP.
Smith is an adandoned pawn, albeit a very big adandoned pawn.
Smith is an adandoned pawn, albeit a very big adandoned pawn.
