Carmichael blocks amendment to allow investigation of historic child abuse cases.

Alistair_Carmichael_at_Glasgow_2014This one is so serious that satire is not possible.  We need to know why our MP has behaved like this. 
“The Official Secrets Act 1989 amendment was proposed in parliament to make it easier to investigate systemic child abuse cases which have recently come to light with the leaking of a “missing” Westminster dossier which is said to have contained information about paedophiles in parliament and the house of lords. The Defence of Disclosure to Historic Child Abuse amendment was however, blocked by a majority Liberal Democrat and Conservative vote against it.”

Alistair Carmichael voted against the amendment on April 6th this year. [mistake – the vote took place on 23/2/2015 at 9 pm.] We know that a serious offender was Cyril Smith, an MP from his party now dead and so beyond prosecution. We know that he was allowed to get away with it. . Police investigations were blocked and officers made to hand over all evidence which was presumably destroyed,  He was not alone.

The Liberal Democrats are not the only people with reason to be nervous.  The BBC reported today that Lord Janner was known to be abusing boys in Leicestershire children’s homes between the 1970s and 1980s.  As the NSPCC said “something went badly wrong” in the way the allegations were handled and “we need to be reassured this will never happen again”.”

It is surely in the interests of everybody for there to be no appearance of secrets being kept and decisions being made behind closed doors by unaccountable people. We know the pain of this in Orkney perhaps more than most.  We know that practitioners need to be accountable and honest. We know that decision makers should not be able to hide under the Official Secrets Act. It has long been a principle that there is no principle of confidentiality more important than the protection of children.

This post has been amended to remove an image of Alistair Carmichael that was copyright to the Sheltand Times. We apologise to them for this inadvertant breach of copyright. This image is from WIKI.

16 thoughts on “Carmichael blocks amendment to allow investigation of historic child abuse cases.

  1. Whaup April 17, 2015 / 10:44 am

    For the first time ever I have approached our MP, and have asked for his reasons in voting to block this amendment. I will report back with his reply.


  2. Whaup April 17, 2015 / 10:45 am

    For the first time in my life, I have felt the need to approach my MP to query his voting strategy. I will report back with his reply (unless he’s too busy travelling around his constituency trying to drum up support, haha!).


  3. charlesobrien08 April 17, 2015 / 6:22 pm

    This needs spread everywhere.Cant like the article but can post it and tweet it.


  4. jim farrell April 17, 2015 / 11:30 pm

    Do these people think they’re above the law. They are abusing, raping and murdering our children and getting away with it. They must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law no matter what titles they hold.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Madeleine Marvier April 18, 2015 / 3:29 pm

    I do remember in the 80s, this individual been in the headlined daily, for collecting Children from Children’s home’s in the disguise of been a good Samaritan Charity worker, having them for weekends with his own wife and family. one of his Victims came forward then. Mysteriously all went quite. Often wondered what happened to this little Boy.


  6. Charles Macgregor April 18, 2015 / 7:30 pm

    I was not aware of the politicians being able to block crimes being brought to trial, I only thought it was bribery coription in Arms and Wars they were above the law and laws brought in to murder the most defenceless the unborn baby. Maybe the will change this so they will have more children to abuse as you have pointed out


  7. simon treasure April 19, 2015 / 7:45 pm

    I think you need to think long and hard before publishing information like this before you have a full understanding of the truth. By all means ask for the Alistair’s response as a responsible Journalist and I hope his public statement does satisfy your enquiry. You should understand that you are walking a fine line that could end in defamation and court action, not perhaps over this but certainly in the future. It is important to remember that the Internet is the same as any publishing medium and the same rules of libel apply. If you get an unsatisfactory response then of course publish. But don’t confuse the spin and obfuscation common to your cause as the acceptable standard when it comes to personal attacks.


    • The Vole April 19, 2015 / 8:12 pm

      I am only a Vole, so human affairs are beyond me. I do not see how asking an MP to justify a vote is a personal attack. If Alistair Carmichael posts a reply here it will be published. How is it defamatory to say that he voted against the amendment? Brevity meant that we were concise. This is what the amendment would have done:

      (1) The Official Secrets Act 1989 is amended as follows—
      (2) After section 8, insert—
      “(8A) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under any provision of this Act to prove that he knew, or had reasonable cause to believe, that the information, document or article disclosed was—
      (a) germane to an official investigation of, or inquiry into, historic child abuse, and
      (b) provided only to an officer of such an investigation or inquiry.

      John Mann in his speech to the House in the debate gave numerous examples of how Special Branch officers had chosen not to speak out because they would have been prosecuted. This amendment not going through means that block still exists. Of course Carmichael did not do it alone, many others voted with him. We make no accusations.

      Liked by 2 people

      • simon treasure April 21, 2015 / 11:52 am

        My observations were supposed to be in your best interests. I did not say you were wrong, simply that you should be aware of the boundaries that exist. I go not agree with your Natuonalist views, I certainly regard much of what the SNP does as disingenuous and highly parochial. I would however always defend your right to publish and promote your opinion, as you do so very well. Assuming you are not a professional journalist it would be prudent to have a clear understanding of where the lines of acceptable comment are drawn, for your own protection.


      • The Vole April 21, 2015 / 4:07 pm

        I am glad that you have my best interests at heart Simon. It makes me a bit nervous, it always sounds faintly sinister when someone says that.

        My anger about this issue is not to do with my Nationalist views. It is because Cameron did the wrong thing. I am not going to advocate people voting UKIP or Labour because they did the right thing. Special Branch officers do not have the protection, they feel they need to come forward. Blocking this amendment denies them the protection they asked for.

        It is about time Carmichael stopped dismissing all his opponents’ opinions and started responding to these real concerns.


    • Donald MacC April 20, 2016 / 6:24 pm

      This goes far deeper than Carmichael, who strikes me as careerist and cowardly, who will tell lies and not dare to go against the establishment in order to further himself.

      Were the murders of Gill Dando and Willie MacRae connected to child abuse carried out by Lords, MPs, BBC personnel and Royals. Who knows for sure, but it is known that Gill Dando was trying to investigate and Willie MacRae had stumbled across information.
      Enough to take down the establishment, probably, is that’s why the abusers walk free?

      Simon, as regards legal action you are correct, the establishment, which Carmichael is part of will, not start legal actions, as this is such a sensitive issue that they don’t want to draw attention to it, I wouldn’t put it past them to intimidate in other ways. You obviously know this by the what you say.
      Regarding your comments above, not everyone agrees with (British) Nationalist views and their mix of condescending demeanours, abuse and threats that is proof that Scotland is not and never has been in a Union.


  8. Peter Kennedy April 20, 2015 / 7:50 am

    Alistair responded to a request on facebook:

    “The vote concerned was a proposed amendment to the Official Secrets Act which would have created a defence for anyone charged with unlawful disclosure under that act. The defence was for the accused to show that the disclosure was made in relation to an official enquiry into child sex abuse. I voted against it because, as the Solicitor General confirmed in the House of Commons, a disclosure of this sort is already permitted and therefore a defence is not necessary.

    “Having worked with the victims of child sex abuse, both as a lawyer and as an MP, I have seen for myself how it can ruin lives. I also know how difficult it can be to get victims to come forward and I am afraid that suggesting that there is a barrier to proper investigation where none exists will make that more difficult still.”

    Having worked in family legal services myself I believe he is correct.


    • Louis Wu. April 19, 2016 / 3:46 pm

      So you support the silencing of whistleblowers in order to uphold the official secrets act. ( ‘unlawful’ disclosure). Making it impossible for a prosecution of the most heinous crimes, because the accused are protected by the OSA? That sounds about right, eh Mr Carmichael.
      The question still stands: Why would you do that?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s