Speculation is rife about the protection of powerful paedophiles. Why don’t the media/government axis scotch it with a full and open investigation?
The major UN child rights protection body UNCRC having asked the Vatican to disclose details of thousands of paedophilia cases involving Catholic clergy, a plethora of statements from other Christian groups has swiftly followed. After taking office in March, Pope Francis himself said cracking down on sex abuse was the only way for the Church to save itself, by “acting decisively as far as cases of sexual abuse are concerned, and promoting, above all, measures to protect minors, help for those who have suffered such violence in the past and all necessary procedures against those who are guilty”.
I’d have preferred ‘available’ to ‘necessary’ there: and we still don’t really know for certain, of course, why his predecessor felt forced to resign; one shouldn’t hold the breath waiting for much honesty in that area. But I like Francis – he seems like a genuinely good egg. And either way, the apologies from other Churches continue to flood in – the latest being the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, who jointly urged the General Synod to issue an apology to victims. I’m unsure as to what choice the Synodians had to be honest: what were they going to say – “Well f**k you, we like bumming kids”?
If I’m sounding a tad cynical here, its because, at times, apologies are far too easy when all around us there is evidence of a dilatory and uncaring attitude from a Church out, as ever, to cover its own backside. From Australia this morning comes the news that Catholic bishop Michael Malone from the Maitland-Newcastle diocese of the Australian Church says he “never” looked at confidential files about his priests – despite the paedophilia controversy that raged during his 16 years in charge. Sixteen years.
Malone even agreed with the Judge that his evidence “defied belief”. So we’re left with the conclusion that the bishop (a) cynically covered the whole thing up for the entire time, (b) felt this stuff wasn’t worth his time, or (c) just perjured himself in Court. Whichever turns out to be true, I pity the Priest given the marathon task of hearing Michael Malone’s next confession.
The answer (I suspect) is horribly simple: he wanted to protect the Church. We are back, yet again, at the Brechtian ‘good lie’ – for which there is never, ever any excuse, if your head is screwed on correctly. The Establishment wants to protect MPs, Peers, Royal princes…you know, all those examples we’re supposed to look up to.
The whole thing is, if you like, a protection racket. But in this instance we’re looking at the aftermath cover-up. Further to this morning’s earlier post about asking awkward questions, I’d still like to know why nobody in the MSM is facing up to the issue of why these deranged perpetrators blight the lives of children, and whether there is a psychographic profile that ties most paedophiles together.
Asking the awkward questions requires an enquiring detective’s nose, and bottle about the necessity sometimes to be contrarian. I’d say that throughout The Blogging Years, nobody has practised this role more fearlessly and effectively than Anna Raccoon. Not only does she (like me) refuse to ignore the evidence of Scouse rowdiness and gate-pushing at Hillsborough, she is also sceptical about some of the claims of abuse made by former care home residents. Anna knows more about this than most, for as a young gel she legged it from more care homes than most of us have had hot dinners.
What Ms Raccoon tends to examine clinically is the tyranny of the self-styled “correct” cadres. She is addressing one dimension that worries her: are some so-called ‘victims’ just in it for the money…and are they being encouraged so to do by sensation-seeking hacks? Homo sapiens being what it is, the answer is yes, of course they are. The dimension I persistently address is another one: why does the MSM seem unwilling to address the nature of paedophilia? They ought to, because – if allowed to go largely unpunished through arse-covering protection – it is the sort of thing that will both render the unacceptable more acceptable….and convince yet more hotheads that the only good Establishment figure is a dead one.
My thesis about paedophiles is a simple one. They like being authority figures with the power to bully the vulnerable, and they like being in places where they have an excuse to be around small children. Once one grasps this, the places where they exist – in the priesthood, among MPs, and in the social work, teaching and policing professions – almost self-select.
I cannot believe that the Camerons and Milibands and Cleggs of this world don’t ‘get’ that. Equally, I cannot believe that the mainstream media don’t either. Apart from self-protection, the main motive here is fear: fear of where the trail might lead, and fear of it bringing The System down.
I have never been able to conclusively stand the following stories up, but I would like to know why more awkward questions aren’t asked about them – such as:
* Why does Prince Charles sponsor all three security services?
* Why did his brother Andrew have such a long and close relationship with paedophile pimp Jeffrey Epstein?
* How did the Clegg – Leon Brittan – Cameron appointment work?
* Why did such a powerful child campaigner as Esther Rantzen keep quiet about Jimmy Savile?
* Why are MP paedophiles only outed when they’re dead?
* Why is there this consistent closed-revived-closed again-revived track record when Plod investigates organised Establishment paedophilia?
* Why did Peter Bottomley stay a member of the Monday Club – with which he had so little in common?
* Why did JHJ Lewis of the Groucho Club so hastily take down a site he owned being used by paedophiles?
* Why does Lewis bankroll the activities of millionaire Jeremy Hunt?
* As the whole area of paedophilia is such a hot social topic, why do those who represent us do nothing – and look so uncomfortable – when the subject is raised?
Alistair McAlpine would call this “unsubstantiated rumour and innuendo”. I would counter that by saying Ali was talking out of his arse and being deliberately obtuse. The best way to end rumour and innuendo is the fully investigate them. Why, then, do McAlpine’s mates consistently evade the chance so to do – because they’re innocent?
It’s a fair question. But yet again, one the MSM doesn’t ask.