Lady Butler -Sloss stands down....

[Saracen]

.... as chair of the inquiry into the alleged paedophile ring in 80s Westminster and the establishment.

And honestly, I'm just surprised it took this long to either stand down, or be removed.

I've NO reason, at all, to doubt either her qualifications or personal integrity, but I'm afraid it takes the arrogance and detachment of the real world of a judge or former judge to ever think that running an inquiry into a subject in which your deceased brother was a major player, as the leading law officer handling this at the time, was EVER going to look right, was ever going to look like it wasn't an establishment stitch-up, like the fox being hired to investigate hen-house security.

She probably could have done the job, and may well have done it with utter integrity, but because of the way it looks, it had no chance of credibility among either victims, or the public.

If anything was ever proof of political panic at No.10, it's this fiasco.

First, no inquiry.

Second, okay, inquiry, but we don't know who's running it.

<insert several days of headless chicken impressions trying to find someone>

Third, great, we found someone, elderly ex-judge, woman, experience in field. Superb. Make announcement.

Fourth, stink bomb explodes under nose. Brother. Flippin' brother!!! What the ....

Fifth, refuse to stand down.

<insert several days of headless chicken impressions, trying to work out what the "bleep" to do now. >

Sixth, reverse previous step and stand down, reality having rudely intruded into establishment nirvana. Again.

Seventh, revert to second phase, and try not to right royally bleep it up a second time.

Come on, Cameron. A few months before an election is not the time to be presiding over an inability to organise an, erm, night of heavy drinking in a brewery. This inquiry not only has to be fair, and laser-focussed on getting to the bottom of this whole apparently disgraceful episode, it also MUST have credibility with the public that it is and will.

[Spreadie]

I accept that her appointment was a mistake, but I hardly think it will matter who heads up the inquiry. Those 114 files aren't likely to be found tucked away - more likely they were shredded and burnt - so it is very unlikely it will achieve anything of substance.

I'm not suggesting we shouldn't have an inquiry, but I don't think we'll get any kind of result that will allay suspicions of a government cover up, regardless who the figurehead is.

[Saracen]

Very possibly, spreadie.

I'd like to see what was done to establish if why the dossier, and those files, went missing was conspiracy or cockup, but I'm entirely amenable to the notion of cockup. As I understand it, several thousand files have 'vanished', and that could mean thet're in a storage warehouse somewhere, but transfer records have been lost, or it could be they've been destroyed in accordance with normal civil service protocol, and the record of destruction has gone missing.

Or it could be conspiracy. If so, after what may be many years, the chances of proving it may be very small indeed.

But I'd like to see an open and publicly visible attempt to find out, not just a behind-closed-doors civil service inquiry, conducted by Sir Humphrey Appleby's replacement, and a "nothing to see here, move on" clean bill of health "official" statement.

[jim]

I can't say that it particularly bothered me who was running it - perhaps naive, but I do believe that people can be balanced and rational despite biases in the background.

However, it was just unworkable. There were only two options:

1) apportion significant blame to her brother
2) be accused of bias, because significant blame was not apportioned to her brother

It's hard to believe that she ever thought this was a good idea.

[peterb]

It is a pity, because she was extremely well qualified to run it. but, as was said on the coverage on R4 this morning, "Justice has to be seen to be done" and if spreadie is right, and no files are found, there would always be a suspicion, particularly from the conspiracy theorists, that there was a cover up to protect her brother.

There was also a comment that perhaps the link wasn't realised when she was apointed - although I'd have thought some civil servants might have had a long memory, even if Cameron was still in nappies when Havers was Attorney General.

[jim]

There was also a comment that perhaps the link wasn't realised when she was apointed - although I'd have thought some civil servants might have had a long memory, even if Cameron was still in nappies when Havers was Attorney General.

Even if that's true though, how long could it have taken her to realise the link?

[Andy3536]

Even if that's true though, how long could it have taken her to realise the link?

There was also this which may have tipped her over the edge

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28257488

[Dingo]

Do you really believe they want to appoint someone who would "actually want" to get to the bottom of this.....they would most likely be discredited or dead before any "real" truth came out..............files dead and buried.............. like any truth from a politician!!

[Lucio]

I'm not convinced that this enquiry is worth the cost at a time when we're all supposed to be struggling with restricted resources. Why not funnel the money instead into protecting children suffering abuse now, both at home and internationally.

Anyhow, with regards to the OP, the entire thing has been mismanaged and it looks like someone jumped the gun on the press annoucements before proper checks could be undertaken. Unfortunately, this close to an election we get these kind of knee jerk reactions where career politicians suddenly decide what their cause is.

Makes me wish all politicans were limited to a term or two really.