How much evidence is there of long term high level UK paedophile ring?

[elbows]

this is relevant

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journali...Saviles-relatives-speak-of-their-turmoil.html

So the guy who actually recommended Savile be put in charge of Broadmoor, who in 1987 was in charge of the mental health devision of the department of health and social services later turns out to have been either been a paedophile, or at least have had such strong suspicions about him that police investigations lead to him being banned from working with children.

That'd seem to be pretty high level to me.

This is probably why McGinnis was banned from working with children:

http://archive.disabilitynow.org.uk/search/z06_07_Jy/arrested.shtml

 

[elbows]

I have not attempted to make any judgement about the exact extend of the abuse in Jersey, but the ex-senator who made a lot of noise about it certainly raises some interesting thoughts in some of his blog posts. He might have gotten carried away for all I know, but the premise of some stuff seems reasonable if not pushed to the extreme.

For example:

http://stuartsyvret.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/too-big-to-be-too-big-to-fail.html

​

Naturally, when such a valuable “currency” exists – such powerful “dirt” to use the common phrase – it won’t only be the small, self-interested individual who will want ‘in’ on the racket; bigger, powerful entities too will want a piece of the action. Entire departments with something to hide? Suppressive police forces? Corrupt prosecutors? Politicised judiciaries? The security services? Powerful financial institutions? Organised crime? Media empires?​

After all – if a person is worth being “owned”, the competition for rights of “ownership” may be intense indeed. ​

This is why governments, oppressive regimes, security forces and mafias around the world love child abuse. They simply love it. No other criminal activity, no matter how bad, is as foul, or gives such “leverage”, such “ownership" – such control – over those who commit it. And once a person has acted so despicably, or shown an unhealthy interest in the under-age or those on the borderline, or has failed to prevent the crimes, and instead helped to conceal them – then that person is “owned”. Forever more.​

Whoever holds the “currency” of your despicable secrets, owns you. ​

​

Even the BBC has failed to wake up to the new reality of the internet age.​

What that reality means, is that the former immense power of the media – namely, that of omission, which was always a greater power than publication – is dead. Now, any media still attempting to trade in that power only accelerates the destruction of its credibility.​

 

[elbows]

http://theconversation.edu.au/jimmy-savile-gary-glitter-and-the-politics-of-paedophile-rings-10461

My research on organised sexual abuse, in which multiple adults conspire to abuse multiple children, suggests that a culture of abuse can develop within some peer groups, institutions and even families.
It is well recognised that commonly held views about masculinity, sexuality and power are used by offenders to legitimise child abuse. In some circumstances, the abuse of children and women can become a means of male bonding. This form of abuse is poorly understood by investigators.

 

[ExtraRefined]

Newsnight reckon they've got something

If all goes well we've got a Newsnight out tonight about a very senior political figure who is a paedophile.

https://twitter.com/iainoverton/sta...4308253033381888&tw_e=details&tw_p=tweetembed

 

[butchersapron]

Weltweit - is that you?

 

[Barking_Mad]

I have not attempted to make any judgement about the exact extend of the abuse in Jersey, but the ex-senator who made a lot of noise about it certainly raises some interesting thoughts in some of his blog posts. He might have gotten carried away for all I know, but the premise of some stuff seems reasonable if not pushed to the extreme.

For example:

http://stuartsyvret.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/too-big-to-be-too-big-to-fail.html

An excellent piece i thought, even if what he says is wrong by degree, it is correct in its basic observations. Human relationships underpin all of this, even between people who are not at the pointed end of doing the abuse. We have to attempt to understand how all this works in some coherent, if not vague, structure.

 

[free spirit]

As names aren't named as such, I'm hoping this is ok to copy to here. It's an article written by Simon Regan, the editor of scallywag, prior to his death, which gives a good overview of their investigations, and the subsequent conservative party cover up operation.



So these are the accusations.

And this is what can only be described as a successful cover up operation in which the head of research at the conservative party central office is able to buy their entire office with contents, and remove those contents following a rent dispute (which a cter would point out would be fairly simple to manufacture as a pretext for the court action) .

I just realised that the conservative MP named in this article was the deputy director of the conservative party research department from 1990-96, and David Cameron worked for the same research department from 1988-93.

I'm not suggesting Cameron was involved in any cover up then, as apart from anything else, I don't think the timings match, but I do think this raises serious questions about his impartiality now when it comes to exposing the activities of someone he worked with directly for 3 years.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Cameron may not have been involved in a cover up but he almost certainly would have known about this...

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

This is a lady who I hadn't heard of till 5 minutes ago.

Andrea Davison.

Blew whistle on Iraq stuff and paedophilia. Has claimed asylum via Ecudor embassy for fear of her life.

seems to have known the spy who turned up dead in a suitcase.

Even the Kennedy / Stone case gets a mention in this piece.

Whatever's going on, and whoever is involved "weird" doesn't begin to cover it.

http://google-law.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/andrea-davison.html

This is one of things I scanned that took me there.

http://google-law.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/andrea-davison.html

How are we supposed to evaluate the credibility of any of this stuff? As with MSM, it's all just smoke and mirrors. Anyone could be lying through their teeth in a given instance.

That's why we need to keep spotting out for the recurring themes - on average they are more likely to carry water.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Cameron may not have been involved in a cover up but he almost certainly would have known about this...

Perhaps some people have to be protected by not knowing too much, or at least not in a way that could ever be ascertained.

He could be informed of vagueries while other people do the political "wet work" (Hague has been mentioned more than once for this - NOT alluding to him as an abuser you understand, but as mentioned as complicit in cover up - for example laying down the law to a senior minister that he would be pensioned off to Europe and never work in UK politics again)

Of course, if it could be shown that some people knew too much there's always D notices for that, though it is more a judiciary thing (see Dunblane). not that the judiciary are thought to be involved in any of this either.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

This is altogether fucking horrible innit

 

[Ax^]

 

[elbows]

Oh I was wondering how long it would take before Andrea Davison came up. I stumbled on stuff about her the other week.

I wouldnt bother going there at all unless something more useful emerges. She has a potentially interesting past but she got done for fraud, has been described by a journalist who seems to have known her at the time of the Scott inquiry as vulnerable, seems to have a health condition which can cause mental problems, has more than one name, may have been on a leaked BNP members list, etc. So I've no intention of muddying the waters by bringing her into this picture, especially as it sounds like she only started 'whistle-blowing' when she had legal trouble involving abusing her mail dropoff service to make false passports etc.

 

[Badgers]

Cameron may not have been involved in a cover up but he almost certainly would have known about this...

Shh. That post might get you 100 hours community service

 

[Corax]

I'd never heard of P.I.E. before this thread. Fucking horrifying.

Also deeply unpleasant to read that organisations like Liberty were on their side.

 

[eatmorecheese]

If anyone wants to read something that might explain the uniquely British upper and middle class attitudes to children and institutional care it might be worth reading "The Making of Them" by Nick Duffell.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Making-Them...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1351943294&sr=1-1

It helps explain the socially stunted nature of many adults that passed through these schools and institutions. There's a documentary of the same name from 20 odd years ago. This book has helped me come to terms with my childhood (and made me angry at he same time...)

 

[ViolentPanda]

Cameron may not have been involved in a cover up but he almost certainly would have known about this...

Or his office would have.

At least, that's how the Tories will play it.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I'd never heard of P.I.E. before this thread. Fucking horrifying.

Also deeply unpleasant to read that organisations like Liberty were on their side.

Much as I'm loath to give succour to Harman and Hewitt, I think people need to address the P.I.E. issue in the context of the time it was spawned, and also in the context that P.I.E. sold their paedophilia as being men who wanted to have sex with mid-teenage boys, which meant some misguided support from gay activists, and it was in this context that the Council for Civil Liberties supported them. People were a little more naive about the ambit of paedophilia back then. SOme didn't realise that for some paedophiles it was infants, toddlers or primary school-age children they wanted to have sex with.

 

[Corax]

Much as I'm loath to give succour to Harman and Hewitt, I think people need to address the P.I.E. issue in the context of the time it was spawned, and also in the context that P.I.E. sold their paedophilia as being men who wanted to have sex with mid-teenage boys, which meant some misguided support from gay activists, and it was in this context that the Council for Civil Liberties supported them. People were a little more naive about the ambit of paedophilia back then. SOme didn't realise that for some paedophiles it was infants, toddlers or primary school-age children they wanted to have sex with.

Oh, I agree with that. The fact that the homosexual age of consent was 21 at the time is also an important piece of context. Something similar to "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", iykwim. Nonetheless, the product of that naivety and misjudgement leaves a nasty taste in the mouth.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Or his office would have.

At least, that's how the Tories will play it.

Indeed, but given the tight knit world and the speed at which rumours and information gets around there's no way he'd not have known.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Indeed, but given the tight knit world and the speed at which rumours and information gets around there's no way he'd not have known.

True, but as always in such situations, "plausible deniability" comes into play.

 

[Libertad]

That's why we need to keep spotting out for the recurring themes - on average they are more likely to carry water.

That would depend on the interests of those who wished themes to recur. "A lie can travel halfway round the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

That would depend on the interests of those who wished themes to recur. "A lie can travel halfway round the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."

"eye of the beholder" is an issue in just about everything, it can all get like those ink blot tests I suppose, but if we don't see pattern X there's no real need to pretend it is there when we can look for something else instead.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Much as I'm loath to give succour to Harman and Hewitt, I think people need to address the P.I.E. issue in the context of the time it was spawned, and also in the context that P.I.E. sold their paedophilia as being men who wanted to have sex with mid-teenage boys, which meant some misguided support from gay activists, and it was in this context that the Council for Civil Liberties supported them. People were a little more naive about the ambit of paedophilia back then. SOme didn't realise that for some paedophiles it was infants, toddlers or primary school-age children they wanted to have sex with.

Much as one could go along with that, calling yourself a "paedophile information exchange" is very daft at the least if you are not actual paedophiles, which according to the UN is to do with pre-puberty and not 14/16 to 18/21 year olds (whatever the law is from place to place)

 

[peterkro]

This tweet raised a grim smile:

The senior Thatcherite accused by Newsnight of being apaedophile may sue for libel. "I've never been a Thatcherite," he told friends.

 

[Corax]

Yes, but only if they were investigating something where the use of a 15 year old would be needed.

ie not just for investigating the cash for questions allegations that the Guardian published.

He was almost 18 at the time, but playing the part of a 15 year old.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Much as one could go along with that, calling yourself a "paedophile information exchange" is very daft at the least if you are not actual paedophiles, which according to the UN is to do with pre-puberty and not 14/16 to 18/21 year olds (whatever the law is from place to place)

Back then (you're talking about late '60s/early '70s when P.I.E. got started), paedophilia was understood by most people besides health professionals to mean "Adults wanting sex with people below the age of consent". It took a couple of decades of the subject being slowly unpacked and explored by social scientists, legislators and litigators before anything like nuance was brought to the subject, unfortunately.

That isn't to say that society was innocent about sexual abuse of children back then, but if you trawl through the media it was very much projected as a working class vice, a minority of mostly drunken fathers raping their daughters, rather than a vice of the upper echelons, even though certain historical occurrences (W.T. Stead's campaign around child prostitution being one) showed otherwise.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Thanks VP. Might there have been a point through that passage of time where someone said "let's not call it Paedophile Information Exchange" anymore?

This stuff is really haunting Harman now, and though she aint my favourite poltician by a long shot she doesn't deserve the shit being flung at her.

 

[Treacle Toes]

Labour Left ‏@LabourLeft
Numerous Labour/Left Wing sites were attacked last night, including ours. We are fixing the problem, but thank you for letting us know

Gracie Samuels-Pleb ‏@GracieSamuels
@tobyornot_ @SoniaPoulton I don't think you are wrong & my blog along with other lefty blogs was hit by hackers yesterday! Coincidence?

Just a couple of many tweets from left leaning peeps reporting their blogs/websites hacked last night.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Thanks VP. Might there have been a point through that passage of time where someone said "let's not call it Paedophile Information Exchange" anymore?

This stuff is really haunting Harman now, and though she aint my favourite poltician by a long shot she doesn't deserve the shit being flung at her.

IIRC P.I.E. was wound up in the mid eighties, mostly because of the principal members being nicked for sex offences, so by the time public perceptions were such that paedophilia was widely understood as meaning "sex with pre-pubescent children", P.I.E. no longer existed.

As for Harman (and Hewitt), in my opinion they're both guilty of being grossly naive and perhaps of looking at the debate around paedophilia from a legalistic and civil liberties perspective rather than from a morality-based perspective, but that's all, and those Tories currently frottaging themselves at being able to cane Harman should remind themselves how the party rallied around the likes of Harvey Proctor and made excuses for him.