David Blunkett thinks Jim Gamble should take over the historical child abuse inquiry

by ProfessorPPlum 31.10.14 23:21

Did anyone else hear David Blunkett voice this opinion on R4's 'Any Questions?' Show tonight? I was screaming at the radio in seconds. If JG is the man for this job...well we might as well give up now.

by Liz Eagles 31.10.14 23:30

ProfessorPPlum wrote:Did anyone else hear David Blunkett voice this opinion on R4's 'Any Questions?' Show tonight? I was screaming at the radio in seconds. If JG is the man for this job...well we might as well give up now.

I thought it was quite humorous - bit like 'call my bluff'.

by **Tony Bennett** 01.11.14 0:08

ProfessorPPlum wrote:Did anyone else hear David Blunkett voice this opinion on R4's 'Any Questions?' Show tonight? I was screaming at the radio in seconds. If JG is the man for this job...well we might as well give up now.

This is beginning to look very ominous.

I had Radio 4 on and off during the day, and I heard a succession of spokespersons from child sexual abuse victims associations on the various news bulletins saying that Fiona Woolf couldn't do the job because she was a commercial lawyer who knew nothing about child abuse (as she herself admitted) and that 'what we need is someone who knows all about the subject of child sexual abuse and its effects on victims' etc.

I read a comment on a blog the other day from a child sexual abuse victim who said that 'Jimmy [sic] Gamble was the man for the job'.

Oh dear.

Oh very dear.

by espeland 01.11.14 0:31

Jim Gamble: Gr8 work by @skymartinbrunt

David Blunkett thinks Jim Gamble should take over the historical child abuse inquiry Empty

Get 'em Gonçalo on Sat Oct 25, 2014 3:37 pm
David Blunkett thinks Jim Gamble should take over the historical child abuse inquiry Gamble10

[list="stream-items js-navigable-stream"]
[*] David Blunkett thinks Jim Gamble should take over the historical child abuse inquiry KQvZpjLc_bigger

Annienonymous2 ‏@annienonymouss 11h11 hours ago
@LHLNews @JimGamble_INEQE oh dear Jimbo ..every word you mutter slides your dream of another public office position further and further away
0 replies 2 retweets 4 favorites

I agree with the final tweet - Gamble's opened his mouth too much, too many times.

by Liz Eagles 01.11.14 0:35

Jim Gamble's credentials are having been employed by the establishment.

There is nothing in Jim Gamble's recent business venture INEQE to say how successful he was in his role as head of CEOP.

Jim Gamble is very much an establishment man. Even his new business relies upon rolling out programmes to institutions without any proof of his success when employed by the UK taxpayer in his role in CEOP.

Gamble has a finger in lots of pies and as a British citizen I think I'm entitled to question his suitability for being the mouth-piece of Child Protection and his allegiance to the McCanns.

David Blunkett thinks Jim Gamble should take over the historical child abuse inquiry Vz_VWSOk_400x400

David Blunkett thinks Jim Gamble should take over the historical child abuse inquiry Vz_VWSOk_400x400

by Woofer 01.11.14 7:55

Remember David Blunkett is blind. Does this limit what he can read?

Also blind people must have to make judgements on a person`s character by their voice. If you listen to Jim Gamble`s voice alone without seeing his face one might think this is a gently spoken Irishman.

by mysterion 01.11.14 10:18

The focus at the moment is that it shouldn`t be an establishment figure. I agree with that. Further, it shouldn`t be someone involved with children`s work because he/she is too close to the problem and could unwittingly be adversly influenced by "contacts" they have respected for years.

by ProfessorPPlum 01.11.14 10:31

Woofer wrote:Remember David Blunkett is blind. Does this limit what he can read?

Also blind people must have to make judgements on a person`s character by their voice. If you listen to Jim Gamble`s voice alone without seeing his face one might think this is a gently spoken Irishman.

Woofer - I found myself wondering exactly that earlier this morning. I also wonder if someone who's blind would make the effort to follow on Twitter where many of JG's most threatening and bullying behaviour takes place - and so miss that whole aspect of his personality. It got me to thinking though, how much of my immediate judgement is linked to someone's face. So far in my life I've not been wrong and with that track record I'm not going to ignore that assessment. On top of that I really do believe that our true nature is written clearly on our faces. The only thing that's variable is our ability to read it - and yes I do believe David Blunkett would be at a disadvantage in that respect. Having said that, I would expect someone who is blind to have an acute ability to read personality from their voice...Maybe there are those who can read people's nature quickly and those who can't regardless of the senses they have available to them?

by Guest 01.11.14 10:45

Who cares what David Blunkett says, blind or not. I don't, he's just another politician, ex-minister retiring next year, I believe. Maybe he owes one to JG? Anyone hear JG on Stephen Nolan last night?

by Liz Eagles 01.11.14 10:53

I can't believe people are talking about Blunkett's disability as a possible reason for his backing of Jim Gamble.

How mad. He's a politician.

Get a grip is all I can say.

by Woofer 01.11.14 10:54

ProfessorPPlum wrote:
Woofer wrote:Remember David Blunkett is blind. Does this limit what he can read?

Also blind people must have to make judgements on a person`s character by their voice. If you listen to Jim Gamble`s voice alone without seeing his face one might think this is a gently spoken Irishman.
Woofer - I found myself wondering exactly that earlier this morning. I also wonder if someone who's blind would make the effort to follow on Twitter where many of JG's most threatening and bullying behaviour takes place - and so miss that whole aspect of his personality. It got me to thinking though, how much of my immediate judgement is linked to someone's face. So far in my life I've not been wrong and with that track record I'm not going to ignore that assessment. On top of that I really do believe that our true nature is written clearly on our faces. The only thing that's variable is our ability to read it - and yes I do believe David Blunkett would be at a disadvantage in that respect. Having said that, I would expect someone who is blind to have an acute ability to read personality from their voice...Maybe there are those who can read people's nature quickly and those who can't regardless of the senses they have available to them?

I agree with you about telling a lot from a face. A few months back I was going to do a picture gallery of all the McCann associates and ask `would you trust this person?`. I don`t go along with the adage that `you can`t tell a book by its cover` - I think a lot can be gleaned from outer appearances - its innate for survival.

by Liz Eagles 01.11.14 11:00

Ladyinred wrote:Who cares what David Blunkett says, blind or not. I don't, he's just another politician, ex-minister retiring next year, I believe. Maybe he owes one to JG? Anyone hear JG on Stephen Nolan last night?

I didn't hear it - is there an easy (ok - I'm too lazy to look it up) link?

by Woofer 01.11.14 11:02

aquila wrote:I can't believe people are talking about Blunkett's disability as a possible reason for his backing of Jim Gamble.

How mad. He's a politician.

Get a grip is all I can say.

No one`s saying you have to believe it, the fact is we are.
How come it`s `mad`- is it just because you don`t agree?
Are you saying we should `get a grip` just because you don`t agree?

by Guest 01.11.14 11:05

aquila wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:Who cares what David Blunkett says, blind or not. I don't, he's just another politician, ex-minister retiring next year, I believe. Maybe he owes one to JG? Anyone hear JG on Stephen Nolan last night?
I didn't hear it - is there an easy (ok - I'm too lazy to look it up) link?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04mbkhp

@ 27.00

by Liz Eagles 01.11.14 11:09

Woofer wrote:
aquila wrote:I can't believe people are talking about Blunkett's disability as a possible reason for his backing of Jim Gamble.

How mad. He's a politician.

Get a grip is all I can say.

No one`s saying you have to believe it, the fact is we are.
How come it`s `mad`- is it just because you don`t agree?
Are you saying we should `get a grip` just because you don`t agree?

Not at all Woofer, but as you're a self confessed 'fence-sitter' there are only so many apologies/excuses/wandering of the mind to ethereal places to be made for anyone involved in these disgusting cases (the cases being justice for Madeleine and the institutional cover-up of industrial scale paedophilia).

So Woofer, get a grip girl. Blunkett is a politician - and a soon to be retired one at that.

Stop making excuses or looking for excuses to exonerate these self-serving gits.

by Liz Eagles 01.11.14 11:10

Ladyinred wrote:
aquila wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:Who cares what David Blunkett says, blind or not. I don't, he's just another politician, ex-minister retiring next year, I believe. Maybe he owes one to JG? Anyone hear JG on Stephen Nolan last night?
I didn't hear it - is there an easy (ok - I'm too lazy to look it up) link?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04mbkhp

@ 27.00

Thanks. I'm off for a listen.

by **Tony Bennett** 01.11.14 23:59

Has anyone seen this video of Jim Gamble struggling up against a clearly well-briefed interviewer on Australian Panorama?

I think it's from 2012:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxjveVJDMW0#t=99

The interviewer asks very good questions and Gamble is immediately wrong-footed and admits he might be wrong about whether the parents had anything to do with Madeleine's disappearance!

Most of Gamble's words can be classed as vast clouds of evasive and diversionary waffle as he tries very unconvincingly to explain what the point of the Metropolitan police review/investigation is.

I liked the bit where in this jargon-infested interview he talks about 'small pockets of information' and 'larger pockets of information'.

P.S. Can anyone tell me to what extent (if any) Jim Gamble and CEOP did anything useful to stop mass child sexual abuse in Rotherham, Rochdale, Manchester, Oxford and elsewhere, on their watch?

by **sharonl** 02.11.14 1:16

Tony Bennett wrote:Has anyone seen this video of Jim Gamble struggling up against a clearly well-briefed interviewer on Australian Panorama?

I think it's from 2012:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxjveVJDMW0#t=99

The interviewer asks very good questions and Gamble is immediately wrong-footed and admits he might be wrong about whether the parents had anything to do with Madeleine's disappearance!

Most of Gamble's words can be classed as vast clouds of evasive and diversionary waffle as he tries very unconvincingly to explain what the point of the Metropolitan police review/investigation is.

I liked the bit where in this jargon-infested interview he talks about 'small pockets of information' and 'larger pockets of information'.

P.S. Can anyone tell me to what extent (if any) Jim Gamble and CEOP did anything useful to stop mass child sexual abuse in Rotherham, Rochdale, Manchester, Oxford and elsewhere, on their watch?

I want to know:

What his business was in Cambodia?
Did he have any jurisdiction out there?
What was his business at that Thai Bar?
Did he attempt to, or was he able to, suggest that the bar be closed down?
Why did he advertise the fact that these kids were available and where they could be found?

Should any person who condones the viewing of child images really be allowed to work in child protection?

It seems that at least 1 person doesn't agree with me http://www.easypolls.net/poll.html?p=5446adaee4b0bb916293b6c4#.VFVcF8nIRDk.twitter

Make that 2 if David Blunket didn't cast that vote

by jeanmonroe 02.11.14 3:41

sharonl wrote: (about Jim G)

I want to know:

What his business was in Cambodia?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jim Gamble, ex-chief executive of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (Ceop), and John Walsh said they were shocked when they went into a Cambodian bar where there were 50 to 60 girls.

Mr Walsh said: "Within two minutes a madam came up to us and said, 'What are you looking for?' and Mr Gamble said: 'We're looking for young girls.' She brought over three or four girls that were (about) 12 or 13 years old - very, very young."

Mr Gamble told her they wanted younger girls, Mr Walsh said.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Now you KNOW! winkwink

AND THIS CHILD 'PROTECTION' er, 'EXPERT' was the CEO of CEOP at one time!

'Asking' for YOUNGER, than 12 or 13 years old, GIRLS!

Maybe i'll contact the child 'abuse' inquiry!

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t1671-jim-gamble-asked-a-madam-for-young-girls-in-a-seedy-thailand-bar
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The best place to 'hide' is....... in 'plain sight'!

by **PeterMac** 02.11.14 8:37

I would suspect that both sides of the political world are very worries about who might bechosen to lead the enquiry. Especially if, as they are now debating, the Chair is given judicial powers to take evidence under oath.
What if they choose someone who does not understand the "Rules" and goes back to the heady days of the PIE, supported by Harman, Dromey and Hewitt.
What if that person also listens to evidence from the North Wales enquiry
What if that persons also follows up on the McAlpine "Fine Art collection"
What it that persons hears evidence about serving MPs and Lords involved in 'questionable activities'.
What if the person listens to evidence against living people.

Extremely dangerous for all.

by Liz Eagles 02.11.14 9:42

PeterMac wrote:I would suspect that both sides of the political world are very worries about who might bechosen to lead the enquiry. Especially if, as they are now debating, the Chair is given judicial powers to take evidence under oath.
What if they choose someone who does not understand the "Rules" and goes back to the heady days of the PIE, supported by Harman, Dromey and Hewitt.
What if that person also listens to evidence from the North Wales enquiry
What if that persons also follows up on the McAlpine "Fine Art collection"
What it that persons hears evidence about serving MPs and Lords involved in 'questionable activities'.
What if the person listens to evidence against living people.

Extremely dangerous for all.

Gamble, imo is wholly inappropriate for the job (I don't believe he wants this poison chalice either but that depends on who is pulling his strings). His company INEQE quotes Sky News and BBC as its clients.

Gamble's company (is it his company?) is 'associate based'. He'd have to surely declare all associates, all work done for 'the establishment', how such business was obtained, the nature of that business and hopefully the billing (I can live in hope). Gamble would need to declare openly - he bays for this from Woolf - any dealings he has ever had with the establishment - and that might prove very difficult.

Nope, I don't think Gamble wants the job. I believe Gamble is possibly doing a grand job in other areas winkwink

This is all bluster imo.

Just my opinion etc.

by jeanmonroe 02.11.14 11:17

PeterMac wrote:I would suspect that both sides of the political world are very worries about who might bechosen to lead the enquiry. Especially if, as they are now debating, the Chair is given judicial powers to take evidence under oath.
What if they choose someone who does not understand the "Rules" and goes back to the heady days of the PIE, supported by Harman, Dromey and Hewitt.
What if that person also listens to evidence from the North Wales enquiry
What if that persons also follows up on the McAlpine "Fine Art collection"
What it that persons hears evidence about serving MPs and Lords involved in 'questionable activities'.
What if the person listens to evidence against living people.

Extremely dangerous for all.

What if the child abuse 'witnesses' had to 'answer' to a chair-person who was in charge of CEOP for 4 years at the exact time they were being 'abused'?

Thousands of 'abused/exploited' victims while the ex CEO of CEOP sat in his ivory tower looking at 'disgusting' pictures and videos.

Whilst 'industrial' scale 'abuse' was happening on the EX Ceo's 'watch'!

The SAME EX CEO of CEOP that was 'asking' about the 'availibility' of girls, younger than 12-13 years old in Cambodia!

(for 'RESEARCH' purposes only, of course!)

by Woofer 02.11.14 12:20

Tony Bennett wrote:Has anyone seen this video of Jim Gamble struggling up against a clearly well-briefed interviewer on Australian Panorama?

I think it's from 2012:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxjveVJDMW0#t=99

The interviewer asks very good questions and Gamble is immediately wrong-footed and admits he might be wrong about whether the parents had anything to do with Madeleine's disappearance!

Most of Gamble's words can be classed as vast clouds of evasive and diversionary waffle as he tries very unconvincingly to explain what the point of the Metropolitan police review/investigation is.

I liked the bit where in this jargon-infested interview he talks about 'small pockets of information' and 'larger pockets of information'.

P.S. Can anyone tell me to what extent (if any) Jim Gamble and CEOP did anything useful to stop mass child sexual abuse in Rotherham, Rochdale, Manchester, Oxford and elsewhere, on their watch?

Yes, you`re so right about CEOP not doing anything about the thousands of kids in care being abused - it seems they only concentrated on who was downloading child porn - and it`s a big concern that Tony Blair applied a D notice on Op Ore - why?

I wouldn`t agree that Jim Gamble was `wrong footed` in that interview, perhaps that is what he actually believed.

What gets me is that these interviewers when asking `what chance is there that Madeleine will be found` is that they don`t follow it up with `considering the fact that a cadaver dog signalled a positive result in the apartment`. It`s the most major finding that is always ignored and the one which Gerry McCann seems most desperate to discredit.

by Lance De Boils 02.11.14 13:14

I think someone with the time to do so should compile a concise list, with refs, of reasons why Jim Gamble should most certainly NOT be even considered as a possible head of the CSA Inquiry.

by missbeetle 02.11.14 14:05

David Blunkett thinks Jim Gamble should take over the historical child abuse inquiry %3Ca%20href=

David Blunkett thinks Jim Gamble should take over the historical child abuse inquiry Mau_zps3d668de0

The shiniest shirt I've seen yet in this case...

Mauve Thai silk...?

I see Jim Gamble and I think "The Defendant".

My opinion only.

David Blunkett thinks Jim Gamble should take over the historical child abuse inquiry

David Blunkett thinks Jim Gamble should take over the historical child abuse inquiry

Re: David Blunkett thinks Jim Gamble should take over the historical child abuse inquiry

Re: David Blunkett thinks Jim Gamble should take over the historical child abuse inquiry

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

Re: David Blunkett thinks Jim Gamble should take over the historical child abuse inquiry

Jim Gamble: Gr8 work by @skymartinbrunt

Re: David Blunkett thinks Jim Gamble should take over the historical child abuse inquiry

Re: David Blunkett thinks Jim Gamble should take over the historical child abuse inquiry

Re: David Blunkett thinks Jim Gamble should take over the historical child abuse inquiry

Re: David Blunkett thinks Jim Gamble should take over the historical child abuse inquiry

Re: David Blunkett thinks Jim Gamble should take over the historical child abuse inquiry

Re: David Blunkett thinks Jim Gamble should take over the historical child abuse inquiry

Re: David Blunkett thinks Jim Gamble should take over the historical child abuse inquiry

Re: David Blunkett thinks Jim Gamble should take over the historical child abuse inquiry

Re: David Blunkett thinks Jim Gamble should take over the historical child abuse inquiry

Re: David Blunkett thinks Jim Gamble should take over the historical child abuse inquiry

Re: David Blunkett thinks Jim Gamble should take over the historical child abuse inquiry

Re: David Blunkett thinks Jim Gamble should take over the historical child abuse inquiry

Jim Gamble: I MAY BE WRONG ABOUT THE PARENTS NOT BEING INVOLVED IN MADELEINE'S DISAPPEARANCE

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

Re: David Blunkett thinks Jim Gamble should take over the historical child abuse inquiry

Re: David Blunkett thinks Jim Gamble should take over the historical child abuse inquiry

Re: David Blunkett thinks Jim Gamble should take over the historical child abuse inquiry

Re: David Blunkett thinks Jim Gamble should take over the historical child abuse inquiry

Re: David Blunkett thinks Jim Gamble should take over the historical child abuse inquiry

Re: David Blunkett thinks Jim Gamble should take over the historical child abuse inquiry

Re: David Blunkett thinks Jim Gamble should take over the historical child abuse inquiry

Suits you, sir...?

Log in for more topics