Jim Gamble, an open letter

Dear Jim

You have devoted yourself for many years to combatting sexual abuse.

I wonder what your view is on the Hart Inquiry in Banbridge and the wider issue of anonymous hackers posting allegations against alleged abusers?

The Hart inquiry forbids the publishing of names of people who have been named by alleged victims, if that alleged perpetrator has no criminal record. So, an MLA has so far not been named. The same criteria would have allowed Jimmy Saville to go unnamed. Are you happy with that?

It also is inhibited by statute from any investigation into non devolved matters. What is your view on that?

I know one high profile victim of Kincora. He is an intelligent and deeply damaged man.

The proclivities that drive men to carry out abuse are extant. Where do they get their release now and what are we doing about it?

You know that one of the tools of investigators is to have a name published so that other victims can come forward.

Another worrying issue, nationally, is that many famous people are not named until they are dead. It suggests that the state is complicit in this.

Do you depend for much of your work from the public purse and, if so ,  do you feel that you are in  any way inhibited by this? I refer to your recent quoted criticism of anonymous hackers.

Best wishes


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.