[Closed] "1,400 children were subjected to "appalling" sexual exploitation in Rotherham"

Janners dementia hasn't stopped him from renewing his membership of the House of Lords.

Stoner if you are a victim of repeated sex abuse as a child and by an establishment figure who is seemingly still being protected even now- what would you do? Would you risk your savings, your house, everything on the fear of losing on some created technicality?

Victims are victims. It seems they will continue to have this reinforced on them.

I wonder if Jenner really is suffering from Dementia. Hes probably suffering from age related issues however the character, a Doctor erring on the side of caution. Who knows?

Well, despite apparently suffering from Dementia to the degree that he couldn't understand the charges brought against him, Janner has signed a letter indicating that he'd like to remain in the House of Lords, the highest law court in the land...

...make of that what you will.

I'm convinced that we'll only nail miscreant MPs posthumously, there will never be one brought to trial for kiddy-fiddling alive.

I'm convinced that we'll only nail miscreant MPs posthumously, there will never be one brought to trial for kiddy-fiddling alive.

With their family standing by their inheritance. TBH though for a child, I can understand it'd be pretty hard to stomach/take in/comprehend that your Father or Mother could have been a Paedophile so I can understand if his family stand by him. Partly out of denial.

Stoner - Member

Why don't the victims just publish all the evidence and claims they wish and leave it to janner to sue and defend in court. If the threshold of proof is only balance of probabilities and cps have conceded there's enough evidence to warrant a charge, then they're probably on safe ground, although I know the evidence tests are not the same.

the highest law court in the land..

Not any more, the judicial function of the HoL has been replaced by the Supreme Court.

Claims of high profile paedophile rings involving politicians, judges, senior police and military figures have sufficient credibility for BBC World at One to do a detailed report over several days...

here is the 1st part:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02qmvpm

Like Jimmy Savile and Peter Ball, Charles Hornby was a friend of Prince Charles, Lord Mountbatten is also alleged to have been involved:

https://spotlightonabuse.wordpress.com/2014/05/10/the-playland-cover-up/

Here's part 2:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02qpw96

Part 3 will be on BBC Radio 4 from 1pm today...

[img] :large[/img]

Here is part 3 of David's story of abuse parties involving high ranking members of the military, politicians and other VIPs:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02qsds5

As an example of just how high in the hierarchy such figures are, here is a picture of Lord Bramall at Princess Diana's Wedding (next to Leon Brittan)

[img] [/img]

Another pic of Lord Bramall:

[img] http://live-imagecollect.s3.amazonaws.com/preview/560/bd65894c2888bd8 [/img]

It appears the new Secretary of State for Justice/Lord Chancellor Michael Gove is quite well acquainted with Lord Janner:

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

We'll have to see whether this has any impact on justice...

Nicked off a friend on FB:

'Interesting.

Not only has Cameron appointed Gove, who has previously declared that there is no need for a public enquiry into the Whitehall paedophilia scandal, as Justice Minister, but the person he has appointed as Culture Minister became Leon Brittan's special advisor just after Brittan moved from the Home Office. This was a couple of months after Brittan received the dossier of evidence from Dickens about the paedophile ring allegations, the one that got "lost". Brittan has since been subject of some direct allegations. OH, nearly forgot, the same Culture Minister (John Whittingdale) has a half-brother who was an organiser of the Paedophile Information Exchange, and was jailed for 13 years for sexual assaults on "a quarter" of the boys at the school where he worked as a teacher.

Of course, guilt by association and nasty insinuations. But they're not a nice bunch, are they?'

The existing inquiry is more than adequate. It does not require a public inquiry.

The thread seems to have gotten derailed from the specific documented abuse of 1400 children in Rotherham with the government taking over control of the discredited council to became an innuendo photo thread.

The existing inquiry is more than adequate.

Many of the victims and their families don't seem to think so.

The existing inquiry is more than adequate.

Seriously fella.... what planet do you live on? Have you actually been observing its activities?

Its been (being generous and non-conspiratorial) a Laurel and Hardy-esque model of utter incompetence, and cold indifference from day one. And the victims groups have already stated that they have no confidence left in it to resolve any of the issues, and a lot have withdrawn their co-operation completely

Thats 'adequate' in your eyes is it?

We're talking about the destruction of peoples lives on an industrial scale, and the response of the state once its finally dragged into doing anything at all, is this shambles? And thats 'adequate, is it?

How would you feel if it was one of your family looking for justice, and observing this absolute farce?

And anyway... as a civilised society, shouldn't we aspire to do a little more than whats 'adequate' on issues such as this? 🙄

Yup - one of the more offensive and ridiculous things that jambalaya has come out with out of a list of many. The Tories (and Israel) truly can do no wrong in his eyes.

@binners, the destruction of lives on an industrial scale is Rotherham you are referring to yes ? The discussion here is mixed between Rotherham (very much a Labour party issue in regard to the political angle) and the alleged "Westminster" pedophile ring which has a variety of names/political party members dragged into the allegations. Perhaps I haven't been following things as closely as you (feel free to post some links since the appointment and I'll read them) but May has appointed a judge from New Zealand with experience in such investigations to lead the inquiry, frankly I don't see what more she could have done. Any UK judge (and it has to be a judge IMO) would have the "establishment" tag thrown at them.

I hope the inquiry is followed by appropriate legal action against all those involved in Rotherham, the perpetrators and the police and local politicians who covered it up and ignored it. If it's found the issue extends outside Rotherham (and similarly for Oxfordshire) then similar prosecutions should take place if there is evidence. Likewise for the "Westminster" allegations.

Tony Blair understood the true value of announcing an inquiry was the fact it meant enough time passed for the public to eventually care less and less about the original crime/misdeeds.
We also have a minefield of a legal system which makes the prosecution of those who covered up the abuse in Oxfordshire and Rotherham extremely unlikely.

Let us not forget that New Zealand is a commonwealth realm and as such is a monarchy, with the Queen as head of state... in itself this is cause for concern, however, Judge Goddard's ties to the British Establishment run far deeper than that.

For one, [url= http://www.ipca.govt.nz/Site/about/people/People-Justice-Goddard.aspx ]she worked closely with the Privy Council for several years[/url]:

for example

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Committee_of_the_Privy_Council#New_Zealand ]even though[/url]...

it was not until October 2003 that New Zealand law was changed to abolish appeals to the Privy Council in respect of all cases heard by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand after the end of 2003, in favour of a Supreme Court of New Zealand. In 2008, Prime Minister John Key ruled out any abolition of the Supreme Court and return to the Privy Council.[37]

Despite the change to the law, the Privy Council has been involved in the New Zealand judicial system far more recently:

Judgment was delivered on 3 March 2015 in the last appeal from New Zealand to be heard by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Quite aside from that, we also have the small matter of Lowell Goddard's first husband, with whom she had a daughter and with whom she remains on good terms, Sir Johnny Scott, who is well acquainted with none other than Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall.

Now, aside from the obvious:

[img] [/img]

We should also bear in mind that Camilla (as well as Prince Charles, Prince Andrew, David Cameron etc etc) is a good friend of Derek Laud, who along with [url= http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/archive/murder-arms-dealing-treason-and-sexual-abuse-the-apartheid-regime-and-the-tory-right ]dodgy deals in South Africa[/url] is also allegedly deeply linked to abuse at Dolphin Square and the procurement and trafficking of kids from carehomes across the country.

Still not convinced?

Remember there was talk of the [url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/when-do-we-get-to-elect-the-head-of-state ]Keeper of the Palace of Holyroodhouse having an Auntie with a funny plughole recently[/url]?

[img] [/img]

The Southern Hemisphere does funny things to the vortex...

The existing inquiry is more than adequate.

Crumbs almost everyine involved in failing to organise it has apologised for it being such a mess and then you say this. As binners note a Bonkers interpretation of the shit storm it has been.

but May has appointed a judge from New Zealand with experience in such investigations to lead the inquiry, frankly I don't see what more she could have done

Lets not try and turn it into a party political issue as that is as cheap as it is unsavoury given what we are discussing.

Lets not try and turn it into a party political issue as that is as cheap as it is unsavoury given what we are discussing.

Do you feel similarly about the allegations around Greville Janner, Cyril Smith and his friend Jimmy Savile?

Strange that like [url= http://www.****/news/article-3064947/Lord-Janner-director-firm-THREE-WEEKS-ago-emerges-damning-dossier-alleges-police-chief-allowed-peer-molest-young-boys.html ]Greville Janner[/url]:

Now it can also be revealed the alleged paedophile used his holiday home on the south coast to entertain teenage boys, according to former neighbours.

The Labour grandee was a regular visitor to the flat in a discreet gated block with stunning sea views until it was sold last year.

The peer bought his two-bedroom holiday apartment in the upmarket East Cliff area of Bournemouth in 1987.

One former neighbour, who did not want to be named, said: ‘He was sometimes seen at the flat with much younger boys in their teens or early 20s.

and [url= http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/11355899.Former_Bournemouth_MP___s_family_express_shock_over____secret_life___/ ]David Atkinson[/url] (Bournemouth's MP for the best part of 30 years and mentioned in the piece on Derek Laud, David Cameron etc's dodgy deals in South Africa):

He said his father had been “predatory and prolific”, adding: “It was clear from the paperwork we found and the lifestyle he led that yes, those words applied to him.”

Mrs Pilsworth told the Daily Mail at the weekend that she had no inkling of her husband’s homosexuality until 1990, when the footballer Justin Fashanu came out as gay.

[url= http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/11558757.Jimmy_Savile_investigation_completed_after_claims_he_abused_child_at_Bournemouth_children___s_home/?ref=rss ]Jimmy Savile also liked to frequent Bournemouth[/url]

Jane Portman, executive director for adults and children at Bournemouth Borough Council, said the investigation into the claim has now been completed, but the findings would not be made public until reviewed by the Department for Education.

She said: “A thorough and detailed investigation has been carried out into an alleged historical incident in a children’s home in the Bournemouth area which was referred to us as part of the Metropolitan Police’s national Operation Yewtree.

The former BBC Radio 1 DJ bought a flat on the East Cliff and moved in during April 1972.

He kept the flat and visited occasionally where he was often seen running along the promenade.

"THE family of former Bournemouth East MP David Atkinson have claimed he led a secret life which included a string of affairs with men."
Why JHJ do you link homosexuals to paedophiles ?

Why don't you read the article properly?

The former MP’s son also said he had contacted Labour MP Tom Watson, who has raised concerns about a paedophile ring around Westminster.

Being gay and liking younger men does not automatically make you part of a peadophile ring. Thought we'd moved on from that sort of nonsense

"Why don't you read the article properly?"
I did and others, why didn't you? Not one suggestion of paedophilia not one accusation of paedophilia no evidence of paedophilia. The wording of the article is clear the son spoke to Tom Watson no more than that . Again why do you seek to link Homosexuality and paedophilia?

David Atkinson's [b]son[/b], who undoubtedly knows far more than has been published, saw fit to pursue further investigation as regards paedophilia.

Reading between the lines:

He said his father had been “predatory and prolific”

...even if it did come as a shock that your father had concealed a homosexual double life, it doesn't seem that likely that you'd increase the dishonour on your family by encouraging further investigation into paedophilia without ample justification.

That's before you factor in his links to Derek Laud and the like...

Still howling at the moon, I see jhj.

As I said a few pages back, your conjecture and attempts to use it as proof/evidence isn't doing the credibility of your case much good.

Not to mention your seemingly homophobic stance above which I hope is just a case of you getting carried away rather than deliberate. Gay men being attracted to younger men is not illegal and the suggestion that being attracted to younger men means that they are automatically attracted to (and acting on the attraction) to boys under the age of consent is as wrong as suggesting that men who have young women as gfs/wives are also attracted to girls.

EDIT since you've posted in the mean time.

Reading between the lines:

He said his father had been “predatory and prolific”

I know (straight and gay) blokes who I would describe as predatory and prolific. They're still not into kids.

I suggest you read [url= http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/11355899.Former_Bournemouth_MP___s_family_express_shock_over____secret_life___/ ]the article[/url] and the thread thoroughly nemesis...

The former MP’s son also said he had contacted Labour MP Tom Watson, who has raised concerns about a paedophile ring around Westminster.

Not conjured up from hysteria or prejudice, just good old fashioned reasoning, my dear Watson...

Reasoning is not proof. It's conjecture.

I suspect that lots of Tom Watsons constituents contacted him, but that doesn't mean that the person they contacted him about was a paedophile.

You either have other info you are not sharing, or you are making assumptions and allegations on flimsy "evidence".

The cause you are trying to further is noble, the way you try to do it does the victims no favours.

There is nothing to suggest David Atkinson's son is a constituent of Tom Watson, being as Tom's constituency is West Bromich East...

I imagine that you're right about the subject of DA's son contacting TW but it's still conjecture and it could as much be DA's son trying to understand the facts (ie whether his Dad actually did do dodgy things or just looked like he might have done because of his 'predatory and prolific' behaviour with, as far as we know right now, people of legal age) as believing that his Dad actually did something dodgy.

The point being, you're still stating things as fact when they're not.

I haven't stated anything as fact, though I stand by my reasoning...

Great. So we're now agreed that you're just guessing and all of your linking a to b to c to d is just conjecture on what that actually means.

The former MP’s son also said he had contacted Labour MP Tom Watson, who has raised concerns about a paedophile ring around Westminster.

You really need to show what he contacted him about and then that it was true before we can even say anything all we have is someone spoke to someone about something. Its some way short of either proof or reasoning.

Nope, no mention of why he contacted him...

The former MP’s son also said he had contacted Labour MP Tom Watson, [b]who has raised concerns about a paedophile ring around Westminster[/b].

Junkyard contacted Brant Richards, who has designed bikes for a number of years

I assume that also tells you what we talked about....face palm

This is really basic comprehension stuff.

Why was it even mentioned in the article then?

[quote=Junkyard ]Junkyard contacted Brant Richards, who has designed bikes for a number of yearsWhat are you getting?

Steady on scotroutes, that could be construed as unreasonable conjecture!!

EDIT: WHoosh JHJ

@ Scotsroutes :After he carefully listened and understood my needs he is making me a chicken curry 😉

[quote=jivehoneyjive opined]Why was it even mentioned in the article then?

I have no idea it as it gives no information. Shall I guess and then praise my awesome reasoning abilities and just repeat the sentence that does not tell us why he spoke to him ?

WE DONT KNOW AS IT DOES NOT SAY SO ANYTHING WE SAY IS CONJECTURE.

This post contains no information, nothing to see here, as you were.

The former MP’s son also said he had contacted Labour MP Tom Watson, [b]who has raised concerns about a paedophile ring around Westminster[/b].

But don't forget about plugholes in the Southern Hemisphere...

JHJ,as you're clearly struggling with this, no one is saying that he didn't talk about the subject in hand. We're all saying that even if that is possible or likely even, it's still conjecture. As jy pointed out, taking to brant doesn't prove that you discussed bikes. It's conjecture. Guessing.

I did not say it contained no information I said it contained insufficient information for us to be able to know what they spoke about. We knoe who spoke but not what about.

Its not even debatable.

You are free to carry on repeating it as if it says something about what they spoke about But it wont convince anyone about you powers of reasoning.

It has to be conjecture as it doe snot explicitly say what they spoke about

its as equally plausible/possible [ this is a guess obviously] that the conversation went like this

Tom was my dad mentioned in the evidence you passed to the Home secretary?

Tom : no

Thanks I never thought he was a paedo.

I have the same amount of incomplete evidence as you do for my conclusion.

Feel free to ignore this and just keep jumping to conclusions...its what you do.

PS only you will think i am saying this is what happened so dont be that daft.

There's a lot to be said for doing your own research...

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/jimmy-savile/10978492/My-father-was-a-sexual-predator-like-Jimmy-Savile-says-son-of-former-Tory-MP.html ]My father was a sexual predator like Jimmy Savile says son of former Tory MP[/url]

On one occasion Anthony Atkinson was told by the relative of a teacher his father was a “paedophile” who had had an affair with a school pupil.

“At the very least he is guilty of prolific predatory sexual behaviour. My father was predatory and prolific and we [my mother, my sister and I] all thought that the behaviour attributed to Jimmy Savile of being predatory and prolific also applied to him.”

When Tom Watson, the Labour MP, claimed in the House of Commons in October 2012 that 'a paedophile network’ may have existed in the past at a high level, protected by connections to Parliament, Anthony Atkinson and his mother Susan got in touch with the MP, suggesting their father might have been at the very least on the fringes of the group.

Anthony Atkinson was told by a school friend that a teacher had claimed that the MP was a “paedophile”.

Mr Atkinson also discovered on the internet a claim made by a former American intern of improper conduct by the MP.

Being predatory and prolific do not make a paedophile. Saville assaulted adults too iirc. Again, it's not fact but conjecture. You'll note of course that nothing in that quote is evidence. And even less evidence of what you're claiming as your one big, exciting conspiracy theory.

Oh, right, I thought for the time being we were just talking about this:

[b]When Tom Watson, the Labour MP, claimed in the House of Commons in October 2012 that 'a paedophile network’ may have existed in the past at a high level, protected by connections to Parliament, Anthony Atkinson and his mother Susan got in touch with the MP[/b]

Though the [url= http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/archive/murder-arms-dealing-treason-and-sexual-abuse-the-apartheid-regime-and-the-tory-right ]South Africa links are certainly worthy of further scrutiny[/url], as they also link to Northern Ireland:

Link = conjecture = guess

Link = interaction = maybe you should try reading

Interaction proves nothing. It's still conjecture.

I'll bet you know someone who met Jimmy Saville. Maybe someone who worked in one of the hospitals he abused people in. They interacted. What does that PROVE?

I met Gawd love Er Princess Diana a couple of weeks before she was killed. Guess that probably explains everything.

So I take it you're not taking the time to read or research anything...

(^That's conjecture by the way)

😉

I'll admit that I gave up reading your links some time back as they were so clearly conspiracy BS with no facts or just didn't actually say what you claimed they did. Also you tend to post quotes which are easy to pick apart. Not to mention that I don't have time to watch the videos.

But others clearly do and not one of the resulting comments suggests I've missed a golden nugget that would prove your exciting global conspiracy theory.

Anthony Atkinson was told by a school friend that a teacher had claimed that the MP was a “paedophile”.
So best evidence is 3rd hand hearsay uncorroborated by anything. Given the homophobic prejudice of the time that often suggested links between homosexuality and paedopilia not exactly strong .
Didn't you make a similar gay therefore a paedo assertion about another MP linked to Fashanu a while ago jhj?

Daresay you're referring to what's mentioned [url= http://rt.com/op-edge/180616-british-home-secretary-child-abuse/ ]here[/url]

Homosexuality is not the issue, mysterious deaths are.

Nonetheless, the apparent hostility directed at me for linking to information provided by Atkinson's own son shows just how brave he and even moreso the survivors of abuse are.

What hostility?

Daresay it's open to interpretation, but crankboy's repeated claims I've been seeking to link homosexuality to paedophilia/paedosadism seem a touch hostile...

I appreciate these are very dark and disturbing issues that can sometimes be hard to comprehend.

It's understandable passions are high, but exposure is key to bringing about resolution... something the public inquiry has thus far failed to achieve due to repeated conflicts of interest.

No doubt you can appreciate these are matters I care about passionately as they have absolutely massive implications.

exposure is key to bringing about resolution.

No. Facts, and justice are key. Your version of "exposure" is just mindless conjecture, photos of people with other people who must have known people and more conjecture.

For example, your point that Mountbatten had "young boys" on the boat with him was about as direct a "nudge, nudge, eh? e's one of THEM" moment as possible. You were quite obviously trying to state he was a kiddyfiddler, but had zero fact to back it up with so resorted to innuendo.

It's not hostile. As others have put it -

The cause you are trying to further is noble, the way you try to do it does the victims no favours.

Repeated pointing out that you do link homosexuality to peadofila and did previously not in a link but in your own words.
Jhj you make a life accusing people of horrendous crimes based on innuendo and nudge nudge you have posted a link to a fabricated website .You then claim to be the victim of hostility when people challenge you.

I stand by my assertions of Lord Mountbatten's involvement... you should check the last page and the post about Charles Hornby for an introduction.

It is tricky, as along with many others, I have done a vast amount of research~ I appreciate others on here are unlikely to have the same depth of knowledge on the issue, so I try to present it in the simplest form possible.

Sometimes it takes hours and days to piece together one part of the story and due to the complexity and wealth of information it can't be revealed it all at once.

due to the complexity and wealth of information it can't be revealed it all at once.

I try to present it in the simplest form possible.

You mean "Oooh look, here's someone in a photograph with someone else! You must know what that means, eh? Nudge nudge".

You've been posting your shit for ages. Get on with it.

Was Mountbatten a paedophile? Yes, or no. Backed up with facts, not conjecture, if you don't mind.

Legally, I am obliged to say allegedly...

Cop out, and your usual bullshit.

As before, your cause is laudable, but your approach is laughable.

"The individuals who have watched online film clips, read online articles and believed in the allegations would do well to reflect that ‘things may not be what they seem’ and that it is all too easy to be duped on the basis of partial information. There are many campaigning people, sadly, who derive satisfaction from spreading their own poisonous version of history irrespective of whether it is true or not"
Do your own research read the case that quote comes from clue it's been covered by your mates in before its news and involves organised child abuse by teachers and police officers .

Do you mean like the Whistleblower who gave Tom Watson cause to raise the issue in parliament?

https://spotlightonabuse.wordpress.com/2013/02/14/peter-righton-charles-napier-david-cameron-john-whittingdale/

Though he does make a minor error in the link above, his credibility is strong...

http://www.itv.com/news/2014-12-23/charles-napiers-prolific-child-abusing-raises-questions-about-society-and-the-british-state/

If you want more on Mountbatten Flash, refer to the link I've already mentioned, or better still, do your own research

do your own research

No.

You claim to have all the knowledge, all the facts. You tell us the truth. Go on.

Legally, if it's true, you're not in trouble. So, tell us.

As before, your cause is laudable, but your approach is laughable

Damn you Flash for phrasing it so much better than I did!

MCTD, benefits of a classical edewkayshun, innit?

Of course, that's because I was at "an elite boarding school" and am almost certainly a part of the lizard overlord structure. Or some shit like that.

😉

Legally, I am obliged to say allegedly...

Legally how? You can't libel the dead, that's why people can say what they like about Jimmy Savile without fear of the courts.

And, if Ernest and I agree on something, you can be sure it's right.

You're just going to have to be patient...

daresay you've not taken the time to read the links provided today anyhow, which means much like nemesis, you're relying on idle conjecture.

Bit of politeness wouldn't go amiss either.

Bit of politeness wouldn't go amiss either.

Legally how please?

Speaking theoretically...

If there was a living survivor of abuse by Mountbatten, would they be a victim, or an alleged victim?

At what point did survivors of Jimmy Savile's abuse stop being alleged victims and start being victims?

At and if the point is reached where the allegation is demonstrated to be true ?

[quote=crankboy ]At and if the point is reached where the allegation is demonstrated to be true ?See, that normally happens in a courtroom where the accused has a chance to defend themselves. I think JHJs point is that we skipped that bit with Saville (on account of him being dead and all)

Well JHJ seems to want to skip that bit with Mountbatten too. Only he won't for unspecified 'legal reasons'.

For contrast to what has now been established, due to extensive investigation, have a read of this from 2012, just before the Savile exposure was 1st aired...

http://www.itv.com/news/2012-09-30/bbc-jimmy-savile-accused-of-sexually-abusing-girls-in-itv-exposure-documentary/

Scotroutes that is why we have yewtree and the vexed independent inquiry into sexual abuse.

The existing inquiry is more than adequate.

No. No it isn't, especially when the personal details (names, addresses and telephone numbers) of some of the alleged victims have been accidentally leaked.

At best we're talking criminal negligence.

I've no doubt that there has been something rotten at the heart of politics for a very long time and that children written off by society have been used as toys by privileged people. These people only ever seem to be uncovered years after they die, yet the news is full of quotes along the lines of "the signs were obvious".

That said, in all the research I've read there have been a few things that trouble me. Certain websites are hyping the most tenuous of associations as statements of guilt, language like "Savile was associated with..." cheapen the whole thing. I don't like the continued whispered insinuation that it's all a massive Jewish conspiracy either.

Frankly, I wouldn't trust Michael Gove to head an inquiry into why my bus was ten minutes late, there needs to be an independent commission outside the influence and remit of any political party.

Jewish conspiracy? Have to say I hadn't heard that angle. Then again, I have Jewish family and I met Diana so I'm probably linked to it and therefore a mole and guilty.