The HIA Inquiry

One of the enduring allegations of the last forty years has been that the state’s security agencies  have been complicit in the sexual abuse , and possibly the murder of children.  Kincora is the outstanding example  but maybe  not the only instance. In GB a  major inquiry is about to start. It will not deal with Kincora. So , what next? The inquiry in Banbridge, chaired by Tony Hart, has been lumbering on for months. If you think that it is going to cut a swathe through the state , think again. Allegations have already been made against “prominent members of the community” , his words, not mine. The result? Anonymity  orders. You are not allowed to know who these people are. This , despite social media naming one such person, an elected  public representative,  frequently. What is the point of these King Canute orders? “BP” , who says that she is a victim of this public representative ,  and is badly affected by something, wanted legal aid to pursue her complaint against one of these “prominent members” The court of appeal has refused her assistance. Would the decision have been different if the accused was not a “prominent member of the community” but Fred Bloggs? The smell from this is awful. if you think that there is the remotest chance of the Hart Inquiry getting anywhere near the truth, read sections 10 and 22 of the Act,  which created the Inquiry. The state ensured, before a witness was called that it was protected. Beating up  dead priests is just an obscene sideshow. Shame on all those who are participating in this farce.

One thought on “The HIA Inquiry

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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s