This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/nov/06/child-abuse-inquiries-theresa-may

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Making inquiries: government's child abuse investigations go hyper Making inquiries: government's child abuse investigations go hyper
(about 1 hour later)
Theresa May announced several new inquiries into child abuse on Monday, including an inquiry into an earlier inquiry on the same topic. It had better be a good inquiry because if it isn't someone will demand an inquiry into that inquiry, and before you know it, half of the country will be serving on inquries into the other half. Theresa May announced several new inquiries into child abuse on Tuesday, including an inquiry into an earlier inquiry on the same topic. It had better be a good inquiry because if it isn't someone will demand an inquiry into that inquiry, and before you know it, half of the country will be serving on inquiries into the other half.
The Commons was in sombre mood. MPs were warned by the home secretary that they should not think of using parliamentary privilege to utter any of the various names of possible abusers that are swirling around pubs, bars, and the internet. It would prejudice any future trial, she said, so denying justice to their victims. Not even the most publicity hungry MP would want to be accused of getting a paedophile off, so members with previous (I name no names either, but John Hemming knows who he is) did as they were told. The Commons was in sombre mood. MPs were warned by the home secretary that they should not think of using parliamentary privilege to utter any of the various names of possible abusers that are swirling around pubs, bars, and the internet. It would prejudice any future trial, she said, so denying justice to their victims.
MPs vied to produce the most ferocious condemnation of child molesters. They love saying something with which all right-thinking people agree. Theresa May said it was a "hateful, abhorrent and disgusting crime" and then, covering a wider field, said that Britain as a whole had "an appalling and shameful record of how we deal with children in care, across a range of issues". Not even the most publicity-hungry MP would want to be accused of getting a paedophile off, so members with previous (I name no names either, but John Hemming knows who he is) did as they were told.
Labour MPs were fazed by the number of inquiries. A single, overarching inquiry was suggested by May's shadow, Yvette Cooper (intriguing sidelight: not only do we now have a female home secretary and shadow home secretary, but both are being described by what the late Alan Watkins called "the Great Mentioner" as future leaders of their parties.) Keith Vaz, the great Vaz of Vaz, chairman of the home affairs committee, called for a single super-inquiry. Basically Labour wants a hyper-inquiry into every paedophile and every single victim going back to — well, into the distant past. MPs vied to produce the most ferocious condemnation of child molesters. They love saying something with which all right-thinking people agree. May said it was a "hateful, abhorrent and disgusting crime" and then, covering a wider field, said that Britain as a whole had "an appalling and shameful record of how we deal with children in care, across a range of issues".
Up sprang Tom Watson, one of the heroes of the phone-hacking saga and the man whose question to David Cameron last month reopened this particular can of squirming horrors. A series of independent inquiries created the building blocks of a cover-up, he said. Separate inquiries into Jimmy Savile and the Welsh care home would continue to protect the despicable paedophiles who had already been protected by the establishment for years. Then he threw in a "paedophile cabinet minister" – something he mentioned on Monday but which was new to the House and, I suspect, to most of the pub gossips and tweeters. Labour MPs were fazed by the number of inquiries. A single, overarching inquiry was suggested by May's shadow, Yvette Cooper. (Intriguing sidelight: not only do we now have a female home secretary and shadow home secretary, but both are being described by what the late Alan Watkins called "the Great Mentioner" as future leaders of their parties.)
He finished with: "Can she live with what she has announced – the next stage of a cover-up?" One or two people said "shame!" at this, but they muttered rather than shouted, since Watson has a fearsome track record of being right and not letting go of the bone. Keith Vaz, the great Vaz of Vaz, chairman of the home affairs committee, called for a single super-inquiry. Basically Labour wants a hyper-inquiry into every paedophile and every single victim going back to – well, into the distant past.
Up sprang Tom Watson, one of the heroes of the phone-hacking saga and the man whose question to David Cameron last month reopened this particular can of squirming horrors.
A series of independent inquiries created the building blocks of a cover-up, he said. Separate inquiries into Jimmy Savile and the Welsh care home would continue to protect the despicable paedophiles who had already been protected by the establishment for years.
Then he threw in a "paedophile cabinet minister" – something he mentioned on Monday but which was new to the House and, I suspect, to most of the pub gossips and tweeters.
He finished with: "Can she live with what she has announced – the next stage of a cover-up?" One or two people said "shame!" at this, but they muttered rather than shouted, since Watson has a fearsome track record of being right and not letting go of the bone.
Soon afterwards there was a brief debate on Denis MacShane, who has already quit. It was non-contentious, until Labour's Michael Connarty wanted to know how it was that David Laws had purloined £60,000 and was back in the cabinet, whereas Denis MacShane …Soon afterwards there was a brief debate on Denis MacShane, who has already quit. It was non-contentious, until Labour's Michael Connarty wanted to know how it was that David Laws had purloined £60,000 and was back in the cabinet, whereas Denis MacShane …
It was a very good point, so the Speaker shut him up.It was a very good point, so the Speaker shut him up.