Will it say that yes, there was some kind of abuse in many homes years ago and yes, some of it was taking advantage of the vulnerable but the majority was regarded as inquisitive behaviour and consensual at the time but coloured and changed by the passage of time and the desire of the media to colour up the mildest incident into an enormous tragedy? That visiting celebrities giving a kiss or a cuddle was regarded as standard behaviour 60 years ago, even though it is now considered rape? That the odd tweaked buttock or cheeky remark which was then dismissed with a giggle would now be serious abuse? Or, more important, that spending millions on examining such matters might be better used on safer cladding or more defences against loonies pretending to be terrorists?

Chance would be a fine thing. Common sense? Nah! 23 million quid well spent! Who needs nurses, hospitals, schools, police?

What we need to know is how many people got away with doing 35 mph in a 30 mph zone fifty years ago and why aren't they being prosecuted now, even though they are dead.

Ah those wonderful words - insufficient evidence. Meaning - no evidence at all but we don't want to kill a good story. Meaning - we are not interested in truth but in fantasy.

As for demolishing a building - for God's sake; aren't we desperate for places where people can live, be looked after, cared for, educated, given good health? Are they mad?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4661608...ndal-DEMOLISHED.html