Hillsborough

[old_windbag]

They mostly went to the same schools, go to the same clubs, play golf together, attend the same functions and have funny handshakes.

Thats how I see the "Establishment", it always makes people look like conspiracy theorists if they say such. But it's how many humans work and even at school I'm sure many of us had times when groups of friends would hold a secret that they'd not let us into, teasing but that unknown knowledge even if it didn't exist gave them some power over those who didn't have it. I do feel those behaviours carry on into adult life for many, the institutions we create for those with that type of personality become part of the political and governing structure. To climb the ladder in politics you have to be a "backstabber" to some degree as there'll be many vying for the positions you need to get where you want. All the friends,contacts and "clubs" will be more benefit to that than be a solitary figure with good intentions and ideas.

I've mentioned "corrupt" politician T Dan Smith in the past but he was on "After dark" and came out with a funny anecdote in relation to his political failings and trip to prison. The main man involved in his corruption scandal was part of the brotherhood.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quHxHaD0dvg

I worked in a system that had many within it, when I found out who some were the "co-incidences" in past promotions was quite alarming. Not on ability to do the jobs well either. We all network to some degree but normally openly and known to others.

[Ben@Forest]

The establishment is not as narrow as a political party. The establishment is the established hierarchy and connections between those at the top. MPs, press barons, top civil servants, Generals, Judges, heads of secret services etc etc all with the power to look after each others interests. They mostly went to the same schools, go to the same clubs, play golf together, attend the same functions and have funny handshakes.

Agreed, but I don't think they have to have gone to the same schools etc. Look at Neil and Glenys Kinnock. They started in very ordinary positions (son of a coal miner, daughter of a railwayman etc) and legitimately worked their way in positions of power and influence - but once they got there do we really think they were/are not part of the 'Establishment'?

Neil Kinnock became a life peer (after criticising the institution for many years), a European Commissioner (despite campaigning against the EC at one time and then often criticising its bureaucracy), he then became head of the British Council at the same time his son (Stephen) was made head of the British Council mission in St Petersburg.

Glenys Kinnock became an MEP, and also got a life peerage, she was caught up in the MEP scandal where she clocked into work at the Parliament building (to claim the allowance) and walked straight back out again.

Their son, Stephen, went to Cambridge University, got a job at the European Parliament, is an MP and is married to a former Danish prime minister.

Now the Kinnocks may all be a models of probity and may all have worked hard for the British taxpayer - but there's no doubt they are also part of the Establishment.

[meic]

I said mostly.
It isnt exclusive, you can work your way into the hierarchy as have Kinnoch Snrs and Murdoch snr. Yet most of them are just born into it. Like Kinnoch jr and Murdoch Jr, Benn Jnr and Snr!

[pete75]

But the use of the phrase "the Establishment" is a political stance of those who feel themselves in opposition to those currently governing.

No, not at all.

The establishment is not as narrow as a political party. The establishment is the established hierarchy and connections between those at the top. MPs, press barons, top civil servants, Generals, Judges, heads of secret services etc etc all with the power to look after each others interests. They mostly went to the same schools, go to the same clubs, play golf together, attend the same functions and have funny handshakes.

The main figure "in the dock" is a senior policeman who, I suspect, would be more grammar school than Eton. Does not fit the narrative, does it?

Of course. He's low enough down in the pecking order to be a fall guy. See my post above about the reaction of Thatcher to the original and accurate Taylor report. High up figures in the establishment supported and facilitated the cover up until it became impossible to do so.

Incidentally there's some evidence that the funny handshake brigade might have some responsibility for Hillsborough. Duckenfield was promoted way above his competence level because of his masonic connections and Chief Superintendent Mole, highly experienced in policing matches at the ground, was moved to Barnsley to make way for him.

[reohn2]

The establishment is not as narrow as a political party. The establishment is the established hierarchy and connections between those at the top. MPs, press barons, top civil servants, Generals, Judges, heads of secret services etc etc all with the power to look after each others interests. They mostly went to the same schools, go to the same clubs, play golf together, attend the same functions and have funny handshakes.

Agreed, but I don't think they have to have gone to the same schools etc. Look at Neil and Glenys Kinnock. They started in very ordinary positions (son of a coal miner, daughter of a railwayman etc) and legitimately worked their way in positions of power and influence - but once they got there do we really think they were/are not part of the 'Establishment'?

Neil Kinnock became a life peer (after criticising the institution for many years), a European Commissioner (despite campaigning against the EC at one time and then often criticising its bureaucracy), he then became head of the British Council at the same time his son (Stephen) was made head of the British Council mission in St Petersburg.

Glenys Kinnock became an MEP, and also got a life peerage, she was caught up in the MEP scandal where she clocked into work at the Parliament building (to claim the allowance) and walked straight back out again.

Their son, Stephen, went to Cambridge University, got a job at the European Parliament, is an MP and is married to a former Danish prime minister.

Now the Kinnocks may all be a models of probity and may all have worked hard for the British taxpayer - but there's no doubt they are also part of the Establishment.

Quite right,I'm of the opinion the Establishment isn't a rigid organised 'club' but more pliable that bends and tries it's utmost to appear upright and for the good of all but it's human face mask slips when threatened,I also believe ultimately it only has it's own interests at heart.There are those who straddle the fence trying to serve two masters but ultimately they fail..
Story alert:-
Some 25 years ago I found myself in the company of Lord Alton(then plain David Alton MP)Anne Widdecombe,two other MP's whose names escape me,and a Tory MP whose name also escapes me,but who was retiring at the next election.
The conversation got round to whether the soon to retire MP had made any difference in his political career.He stated quite openly that when he was starting out(he'd been in poltics 30 odd years)that if he got on the local council could make a diiference,he then realised he'd need to become an MP to have any effect,then realised he'd need to become a minister in the government but on realising that goal.
He then said "but" and held his hand out above his head in the form of a puppeteer and all the others nodded or said "ah yes" in agreement,it was an eye opener for me.
I later made some enquiries of the close friend who's house we were in and who was David Alton's agent at the time,a more upright human being you'd ever care to meet, and was educated about the Establishment and it's purpose and remit,and what many people within parliament are up against.
I have no doubt whatsoever as to the charade played by it to hold on to power and cover up some of the most heinous crimes.

Of course there are those who see the Establishment as a necessary evil that sticks everything together,,I see it as pure evil.

[pwa]

No, not at all.

The establishment is not as narrow as a political party. The establishment is the established hierarchy and connections between those at the top. MPs, press barons, top civil servants, Generals, Judges, heads of secret services etc etc all with the power to look after each others interests. They mostly went to the same schools, go to the same clubs, play golf together, attend the same functions and have funny handshakes.

The main figure "in the dock" is a senior policeman who, I suspect, would be more grammar school than Eton. Does not fit the narrative, does it?

Of course. He's low enough down in the pecking order to be a fall guy. See my post above about the reaction of Thatcher to the original and accurate Taylor report. High up figures in the establishment supported and facilitated the cover up until it became impossible to do so.

Incidentally there's some evidence that the funny handshake brigade might have some responsibility for Hillsborough. Duckenfield was promoted way above his competence level because of his masonic connections and Chief Superintendent Mole, highly experienced in policing matches at the ground, was moved to Barnsley to make way for him.

I'm not disagreeing with the substance of the accusations and the idea that some in positions of authority wanted this story to go quiet, but when we use the phrase "the Establishment" we imply a level of coordination and unity that I don't feel exists. We are not dealing with a monolithic body that acts in a tightly coordinated way. The reality is more mundane. Corruption at a high level in a South Yorkshire Police, and politicians of both flavours not wanting to rock the boat because of all the trouble it might cause.

[meic]

but when we use the phrase "the Establishment" we imply a level of coordination and unity that I don't feel exists.

It doesnt need co-ordination or at least probably isnt in need of control. Just an extended system of back-scratching, the circles get tighter higher up but they reach out more loosely lower down too. It may rely on codes, loyalty, prejudices and has existed since the days of feudalism.
They will naturally support each other against outsiders. A hundred years ago they would openly describe themselves as our (working class) "betters".

They generally exercise enough administrative power to defeat the will of democracy, though they normally have enough sense to know when not to do so.

[pwa]

but when we use the phrase "the Establishment" we imply a level of coordination and unity that I don't feel exists.

It doesnt need co-ordination or at least probably isnt in need of control. Just an extended system of back-scratching, the circles get tighter higher up but they reach out more loosely lower down too. It may rely on codes, loyalty, prejudices and has existed since the days of feudalism.
They will naturally support each other against outsiders. A hundred years ago they would openly describe themselves as our (working class) "betters".

They generally exercise enough administrative power to defeat the will of democracy, though they normally have enough sense to know when not to do so.

What you describe is what most of us do. A mate slips up so we cover for them. A bit. Maybe have a word with them and hope they don't do it again. Most of us do that. But we all have a limit. On a very low level, just to illustrate the point, I once had a colleague who flouted the no-smoking-in -vehicles rule, along with numerous other little things. Loyalty stopped me reporting him. Then it turned out he was passing around weed on construction sites. Loyalty went out of the window.

[reohn2]

What you describe is what most of us do. A mate slips up so we cover for them. A bit. Maybe have a word with them and hope they don't do it again. Most of us do that. But we all have a limit. On a very low level, just to illustrate the point, I once had a colleague who flouted the no-smoking-in -vehicles rule, along with numerous other little things. Loyalty stopped me reporting him. Then it turned out he was passing around weed on construction sites. Loyalty went out of the window.

But your meaning slight indiscretions as you describe,we're meaning cover ups on a grand scale,as an example take a look at the number of paedophiles in high places who've never been prosecuted and paedophile rings in high places that we know are/we're operating.
Take a look at who owns most of the media and how they tear apart the politicians that don't toe the Establishment line
Ask yourself why it took 28 years to get to the position the families of the 96 are at now,and no one,that's NO one,has been prosecuted yet!

[pwa]

What you describe is what most of us do. A mate slips up so we cover for them. A bit. Maybe have a word with them and hope they don't do it again. Most of us do that. But we all have a limit. On a very low level, just to illustrate the point, I once had a colleague who flouted the no-smoking-in -vehicles rule, along with numerous other little things. Loyalty stopped me reporting him. Then it turned out he was passing around weed on construction sites. Loyalty went out of the window.

But your meaning slight indiscretions as you describe,we're meaning cover ups on a grand scale,as an example take a look at the number of paedophiles in high places who've never been prosecuted and paedophile rings in high places that we know are/we're operating.
Take a look at who owns most of the media and how they tear apart the politicians that don't toe the Establishment line
Ask yourself why it took 28 years to get to the position the families of the 96 are at now,and no one,that's NO one,has been prosecuted yet!

My examples were deliberately petty but they illustrate how all of us, whichever circles we operate in, cover up for our friends and colleagues until they do something beyond what we are willing to tolerate for the sake of friendship. That loyalty gets called "Old Boy Network" if public school people are involved, or Establishment if it is people in powerful positions, but it is just normal society operating in different spheres. So I accept that up to a point. What I don't accept is people who take that loyalty far beyond the point I would find understandable. Turning a blind eye to a minor matter is one thing, but covering up for a paedophile, or altering evidence for an inquest is far beyond simple loyalty. Then it becomes complicity in a crime. That's how I saw things when I turned my back on a mate who had introduced cannabis to the workplace. He had crossed a line. I don't want to work in a potentially dangerous work environment with people who are stoned. So the loyalty bonds broke. Maybe it is harder to break those bonds in the police.

[reohn2]

My examples were deliberately petty but they illustrate how all of us, whichever circles we operate in, cover up for our friends and colleagues until they do something beyond what we are willing to tolerate for the sake of friendship. That loyalty gets called "Old Boy Network" if public school people are involved, or Establishment if it is people in powerful positions, but it is just normal society operating in different spheres. So I accept that up to a point. What I don't accept is people who take that loyalty far beyond the point I would find understandable. Turning a blind eye to a minor matter is one thing, but covering up for a paedophile, or altering evidence for an inquest is far beyond simple loyalty. Then it becomes complicity in a crime. That's how I saw things when I turned my back on a mate who had introduced cannabis to the workplace. He had crossed a line. I don't want to work in a potentially dangerous work environment with people who are stoned. So the loyalty bonds broke. Maybe it is harder to break those bonds in the police.

Crime is being covered up on a huge scale, paedophilia is being covered up on a huge scale,the police,politicians,armed forces,the church,the scouts,etc,etc.
Money is being syphoned off on a huge scale Sic Philip Green,etc,etc.
Do you think large scale drug dealing and money laundering which connected to it cant be stopped?
Wars created to use countries arsenals that the UK sold them,so the UK benefits from the spoils of those wars.
Else where I asked on the forum for people to look at what Theresa May's husband does for a living,or what Margaret Thatcher's Husband did for a living,and why she wouldn't support the anti Aparthied movement in South Africa.
Look at GW Bush's (and his father )business interests.

This is crime on a huge scale that goes to the top!
Of course I'm conspiracy theorist according to some.

PS,there are others on this forum who's knowledge is far greater than mine about such matters and I do hope they'll share some of that knowledge with us......

[meic]

but when we use the phrase "the Establishment" we imply a level of coordination and unity that I don't feel exists.

It doesnt need co-ordination or at least probably isnt in need of control. Just an extended system of back-scratching, the circles get tighter higher up but they reach out more loosely lower down too. It may rely on codes, loyalty, prejudices and has existed since the days of feudalism.
They will naturally support each other against outsiders. A hundred years ago they would openly describe themselves as our (working class) "betters".

They generally exercise enough administrative power to defeat the will of democracy, though they normally have enough sense to know when not to do so.

What you describe is what most of us do. A mate slips up so we cover for them. A bit. Maybe have a word with them and hope they don't do it again. Most of us do that. But we all have a limit. On a very low level, just to illustrate the point, I once had a colleague who flouted the no-smoking-in -vehicles rule, along with numerous other little things. Loyalty stopped me reporting him. Then it turned out he was passing around weed on construction sites. Loyalty went out of the window.

Yes that is true, the difference is that in a supposedly equal society things are not equal.
You can chose not to grass up a friend and I would certainly never grass on a friend over grass.
But you cant prevent the Police from investigating him, nor can you prevent the CPS from prosecuting him nor can you make the Judge let him off lightly. But the establishment regularly do that for their own.
You get to cast your vote and it counts equally to everybody else's. The establishment can then over-rule your vote through the power of judicial reviews, control of the administration and the levers of power.
The biggest determining factor as to whether or not somebody will be accepted into a medical school to be a doctor, is whether one of their parents was a doctor. It is like the free school meals test as a measure of a school's intake.

[old_windbag]

The biggest determining factor as to whether or not somebody will be accepted into a medical school to be a doctor, is whether one of their parents was a doctor.

I knew a doctor and in conversation mentioned I could not have thought of medicine when deciding a career as I knew I could not guarantee getting AAA or AAB grades at A-level( old style a-levels ). He asked what I finally had got and when I told him he said well you did lot better than me..... his grades would have just made polytechnic. I asked how did you manage to get in, he said "well it helps if your dad was a consultant".

What you say above is confirmed by my experience.

[Ben@Forest]

I knew a doctor and in conversation mentioned I could not have thought of medicine when deciding a career as I knew I could not guarantee getting AAA or AAB grades at A-level( old style a-levels ). He asked what I finally had got and when I told him he said well you did lot better than me..... his grades would have just made polytechnic. I asked how did you manage to get in, he said "well it helps if your dad was a consultant".

What you say above is confirmed by my experience.

Here too, l knew a woman who was accepted to a Cambridge college to read medicine when her grades were not the best. But her Dad had read medicine at the same college.

[Lance Dopestrong]

I was accepted for Cambridge, but after an argument with my parents joined the Army instead.

As for the subject of the thread, I'll wait before someone is found guilty before I get too excited.