Take a ramble with Gamble
MM
You can listen to the whole session again on the above link.
I watched the whole of the proceedings of the Home Affairs Select
Committee today from just after 11 o'clock onwards. Kit Malthouse,
first up, London Deputy Mayor, especially was a model interviewee with
precise, comprehensible and comprehensive answers that rarely strayed
off the point. Those that followed him, especially Bernard Hogan-Howe,
were also lucid and helpful. Then it was Jim Gamble's turn.
I watched and listened to Jim Gamble as he gave evidence, but his
whole delivery was one long ramble, skittering from one topic to
another in a weird mishmash of what I could only describe as jumbled
thinking. First, he made the committee wait a good 30 seconds before
he took his seat after being invited to do so. He sat there, his face
sullen, looking like thunder. For the next 30 minutes his mien didn't
soften much, if at all. Then he wanted at the outset to deliver an
opening statement, but Chairman Vaz quashed that, saying firmly that
it would be better for the committee to ask him questions instead.
As the interviews with Mr Gamble passed off, I was becoming ever more
perplexed as to what he was on about most of the time. I could hardly
believe that he constantly gave the impression that he and only he was
capable of heading up the serious job as boss of CEOP. I don't know
whether the committee members warmed to him (difficult) or started to
wonder to themselves, why this intense confrontational style? Gamble
now appears to think that maybe there will be moves to have him
reinstated before his 4-month notice expires. However, at one point
near the end a committee member asked him to confirm or deny whether
rumours were true that he had another job lined up already. He denied
this emphatically. The man is a total enigma.
MM
totallyconfused
> Seehttp://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=6669
Rambling is right with nonsensical answers. Why the attempt to
compare the priorities of policing vs. children?
"We are no more about organised crime than domestic violence.' HUH?
What about Gamble's constant bleeting about organised crime running
indecent websites?
"We are not about fighting serious crime'. (around 1 hour 26/27
minutes)
Why is the relationship between CEOP and SOCA 'tortured'? (Talk about
laying into your former boss Jimbo- did you and Hughes fall out big
time?)
Jimbo- if you are all about child protection and 'the big society' why
is in run by a cop?
Jim I loved how you tied yourself in knots at 1 hour 33/34
minutes!!!!!! (Don't think MP Reckless will be joining your fan club
begging you to come back- love the MP's name by the way)
So hang on- IWF keeps the list of 'dangerous sites' but CEOP manages
the 'behaviour'. ?????
There's that word 'safeguarding' again.......
As for child trafficking....let me get this right......the McCann case
should ACTUALLY have been dealt with by SOCA not CEOP?
'Only 7% of CEOP's work last year had to do with activity for
profit.' HUH?????
Dear Lord Jim- what's wrong? You afraid that your 'culture' if you
have to mix with accountable organisations might force you to be
accountable yourself?
CEOP isn't about being 'offender focussed'? But if your job is about
regulating behaviour, then it is about stopping offending.
Is this about saving children or saving face? For you Jim it is all
about your face.......
TC
Nigel Oldfield
> this emphatically. The man is a total enigma.
The real questions, again, not asked ...
KV (JG's enabler) - "Mr Gamble, you say you have 'safeguarded' 7xx children?
How may convictions arose from this 'safeguarding'?"
JG - "Umm, eh, forces responsibility, not policing, child-centered etc, eh
... very small number."
KV (JG's enabler) - "So, CEOP is really nothing more than an expensive,
educational, ineffective, policing (when it suits them e.g. global
gallivanting) QUANGO?"
JG - "Um, transitional, direction of travel, eh, business model ... eh
....."
WM