Nov 12, 2012
By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions
Already a subscriber? Log in to keep reading
Your email has been successfully confirmed.
We’ve sent a confirmation to your email address — please open that email and click the “activate now” button. Then access is all yours!
If you can’t see the activation email in your inbox, check your junk mail folder. If you haven’t received an activation email within 30 minutes please contact [email protected] and we’ll help you out.
You must be logged in to post a comment.Not already subscribed? Get your free trial, access everything immediately
‘senior legal corgis’ – inspirational imagery, Mr Dog.
However, I fantasise about unleashing a few frothing-at-the-mouth dobermans amongst the most organised and churchiest . Reminiscent of that scene in ‘The Boys From Brazil’ film.
Or a Commission with the investigative powers of the Inquisition. Something they wouldn’t be expecting..
Excellent work today FD.
Unleash the corgis!
Is that a corgi of self-congratulation?
“Have Faith? You can. I’ll take Hope and Charity – now shut the door!”?
The tabloids seem a lot more willing to expose ordinary paedophiles than the ones in dog collars?
“Dog collars”? Conflict of interest?
Serious question … why was the Cole Inquiry referred to (at the time) as an “inquiry with the powers of a royal commission”? Wikipedia lists it now as a royal commission, but my fairly un-law-edumacated recollection is that it wasn’t a “royal commission” at all – it was merely an “inquiry with the powers of a royal commission”. I clearly recall the PM using those specific words several times, and nobody contradicted him.
Am I right about that? And can anyone explain to me/us what the difference was? My cynical assumption at the time was that it was somehow nobbled so that it couldn’t go crazy and start investigating the wrong people (which royal commissions have a way of doing), but I don’t actually have any evidence for that, partly because I don’t understand what the difference is anyway!
Matthew, you recall correctly about ‘with the powers of…’ being parroted ad infinitum.
The major criticism of the Cole Inquiry was the narrow terms of reference which a full blown Royal Commission would not have had. During the 2006 Inquiry Crikey did a collation of L0rd D0wner’s responses ie: “I can’t recall..”, “I don’t remember…”, “It could’ve done..”, “It may have been” etc. In essence the Sergeant Schultz approach.
Succinct and eloquent Mr D.
I particularly enjoyed the comments from the local bishop of Newcastle Maitland diocese – a dumping ground for troublesome perpetrators and where abuse was endemic – that he could not see the urgency for such an inquiry. Convinced me.