Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

IMHO the security services are now key to unravelling this saga.

The must have known what was in the Dickens files, and much more besides.

Indeed, if the Whips Office knew about abusers it is not unreasonable to assume MI5 did as well.

They are now in something of a bind of a “when did you stop beating your partner” variety.

If they maintain they did not know about alleged abuse, why not? It’s their job after all.

If they did know, why didn’t they do anything?

Indeed, it is not impossible that some of the alleged abuse, particularly that perpetrated by prominent figures, was with the connivance of, or even at the behest of, the security services.
Pretty much the whole story of 'elite level' nonces from Smith onwards could probably be told in the brefings between the security services, Chief Secretaries and the PM (along with the Whip's Office and their role in controlling/blackmailing MPs). There's a long list of people who would have 'known', including MPs, but each PM and/or Home Secretary would have had something like chapter and verse on the parliamentary nonces on their watch.
 
One thing I don't understand about this paedophile ring thing, or I suppose paedophile rings entrenched in power generally, is how exactly do all these paedophiles find each other to conspire in the first place? Surely the number of people who want to rape or rape kids is so tiny that paedophiles finding each other is difficult? Or do nonces just flock to politics?

Is it a 'Top public school' thing? Some kind of fucked up status/power thing that rises out of such practices as 'fagging' and having young people subservient to you? Are there any school links with those currently on the rumour list?
 
These four men all sentenced together as per article, Peters was down on Elmtree list. From 1989, see references to Whitehall etc.

BARRISTER and three other men are to be sentenced at the Old Bailey today for involvement in a sex ring which lured boys as young as 10 into prostitution.



Police believe the convicted men may only represent a small section of a network of men luring boys into homosexuality and male prostitution. The conspiracy, said to resemble the Mafia in its organisation and strength, includes well-placed and influential professional people and its tentacles reach into Westminster and Whitehall, police suspect.

The men were found guilty after a 13-week trial at the Old Bailey during which the court heard that the youngsters were treated as ''objects'' for sexual gratification.

The four men used a cleaning firm, a football team, and CB radio as vehicles to recruit boys.

Prosecuting counsel Mr Michael Hill QC said the boys were so thoroughly corrupted they came to believe the abuse to which they were subjected was normal and natural behaviour.

Company director Alan Delaney, 48, was found guilty of conspiracy to commit buggery, indecent assault, taking indecent photographs, indecency with a child and attempted buggery.

He was cleared of a charge of buggery, and of committing an act intended to pervert the course of justice. Delaney, of Hounslow, Middlesex, was said to have used his Twickenham firm as a vehicle to recruit boys.

He placed advertisements for teenage cleaning staff and then lured them into sex, the jury was told. He used a football team which he ran in north London for the same purpose.

Victor Burnett, 43, of Acton, was convicted of conspiracy to commit buggery. He was cleared of two charges of indecency with a child and one of buggery.

The court heard Burnett, unemployed, used CB radio to attract youngsters.

Barrister Colin Peters, 43, a former Foreign Office official from Bayswater, West London, had pleaded guilty to conspiracy to procure buggery and a charge of buggery.

The fourth man to be sentenced is Ernest Whittingon, 64, a council estate orderly at Harlesden, North West London. He pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit indecent assault and to three charges of buggery.

Eighteen young witnesses gave evidence from behind a screen during the trial.

The prosecution said children as young as 10 were among those subjected to abuse over a five-year period, and that the charges were only specimens.

Mr Hill said the men collectively set out to acquire boys for sex.

Some became male prostitutes, selling their bodies to other men, while others turned from being victims into corrupters themselves.

One 15-year-old was picked up within 10 minutes of arriving in London's Piccadilly Circus after hitch-hiking south, the court heard. The boy was taken to Peters' home and soon became a prostitute.

Scotland Yard believes the case may be only the tip of a massive conspiracy. Police say teenagers, some vulnerable runaways procured off the streets and often with disturbed backgrounds, are passed around the circle and quickly corrupted into 'rent boys'.

Detectives are convinced that only the establishment of a centralised ''paedophile squad'' at Scotland Yard could eradicate the evil.

Colin Peters

Ernest Whittington

Alan Delaney

Victor Burnett


http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport...d-guilty-in-rent-boy-conspiracy-case-1.641496
 
Last edited:
Is it a 'Top public school' thing? Some kind of fucked up status/power thing that rises out of such practices as 'fagging' and having young people subservient to you? Are there any school links with those currently on the rumour list?
It wouldn't surprise me!
These "all boys" schools are a seething mass of power and control. Trust no-one etc
 
I think Butler Sloss is a dame? It would certainly sound more aloof and patronising to keep referring to "Dame blah's" inquiry as the reason why they cant possibly say anything about covering up child rape for a year or 2. Scum.
 
I turned on Radio 5 at lunch time. Mistake. First thing was a little montage they've done from all abuse stories going back some time.

That's the idea : Now the spotlight is on government it's time to look at absolutely everybody (and therefore much less at government)

Then, the first interviewee had the softball put to him "you don't think this is a hard-headed coverup do you"? All nicey, and off he started but I had to switch off. I'm so fucking angry.

NO HARD HEADED COVER UP?

Why bring people on who haven't followed the barest basics? Why is the BBC repeating these dumb-down play-down mantras when they got it in the neck themselves?

MI5 waltzing off with Smith files is hard headed cover up.

Weird threats in Danczuk's ear are hard headed cover up.

Hard headed cover up then, hard headed cover up now. It's one big PR and news management exercise to these utter shits.
 
Sedwill before parliamentary committee at the moment - live reporting on guardian site. Fuck me, the 'can't remember' has started already, about stuff from just last year:

Q: Did you tell the home secretary not to look at this? Or did she say she did not want to see it?
Sedwill says the report was not shown to ministers or special adviser.
It was quite clear to him and to May that it was best for her not to see the whole thing.
Q: Did you tell her 114 files were missing?
Sedwill says he cannot remember doing so, but he did mention this when the Home Office had to reply to a further question from Watson last autumn.
Q: So did you tell May when the report was finished that 114 files were missing?
Sedwill says he does not recall doing so. And he doesn't think he would have done.
The investigator decided that he did not find any evidence that files had been destroyed or removed without authorisation.
Most of the files were probably destroyed in accordance with normal procedure, he says. But he cannot confirm that because proper records were not kept.
 
(this is going to go on for yonks, i really would recommend a re-read of the thread for all - it's not a thread you can skim through. It's taken me all day to do 40 pages with the concentration that they're worth - like a brief reviewing case notes)
 
Had Lyndon named this individual in the press while the person was alive, he would have been sued and almost certainly lost
You can't libel the dead.

I think that is one of the problems, I do not agree with Libel, or claims for compensation for victims, if they stopped the claims maybe more truth would come out, I think its kind of sick that money is the issue and not the sick depraved acts that the abusers are more worried about.
 
Had Lyndon named this individual in the press while the person was alive, he would have been sued and almost certainly lost


I think that is one of the problems, I do not agree with Libel, or claims for compensation for victims, if they stopped the claims maybe more truth would come out, I think its kind of sick that money is the issue and not the sick depraved acts that the abusers are more worried about.
I don't think it is libel per se that is the issue - just the way in which libel suits can be used in this country to "chill" any kind of debate: it comes down to who's got the deepest pockets. That's what is wrong.
 
Had Lyndon named this individual in the press while the person was alive, he would have been sued and almost certainly lost


I think that is one of the problems, I do not agree with Libel, or claims for compensation for victims, if they stopped the claims maybe more truth would come out, I think its kind of sick that money is the issue and not the sick depraved acts that the abusers are more worried about.

I do agree that the libel laws, when used simply as a gagging tool, are arguably draconian and are weighted in favour of the wealthy and powerful.

However those falsely, or indeed, maliciously accused of wrongdoing (say, in relation to child abuse) should have recourse to the law.

Otherwise the press could print all kinds of unfounded rumours and speculation about individuals which could be highly damaging (and, in extremis, life-threatening), with impunity.

That cannot be right.
 
Last edited:
This is so toxic that no one will want to admit any culpability; failing/missing memories and adherence to either presumed common practice (oh that's not the way things would have been done) or the 'letter of the law' (the regulations didn't say we had to report back to x, y or z) will be common place.

It is really depressing, not because I necessarily believe in the existence of some high level far reaching conspiracy (as opposed to a sometimes mutually beneficial coming together of many different self-interested networks e.g. security services, political parties and paedophiles). But rather because of the delusional arrogance of those in charge:
  • the arrogant delusion that they know best,
  • that they are capable of genuinely investigating themselves,
  • that the systems of power and influence which they profit from are the best arrangements for us all,
  • that the rest of us should and will trust them.
I really hope that enough leverage can be gained to actually lever the lid of these cans of worms - the child abuse, the corruption, the secrecy - but I am deeply sceptical that anything more than a quickly forgotten frisson of panic will affect those responsible (for the abuse, it's covering up and it's use).


Louis MacNeice
 
There's been mention of mass street protests in Belgium after the Dutroux scandal broke. Does anyone know of any proposals for a similar demo/march here (perhaps in London and ending up by/near Parliament), about this current stuff? I'd be up for it (as long as it wasn't organised by the EDL or David Icke etc etc)
If there were they'd be dismissed as whey faced harridans. The women of paulsgrove, the people of Bishop's Lydeard - heroes.
 
I really hope that enough leverage can be gained to actually lever the lid of these cans of worms - the child abuse, the corruption, the secrecy - but I am deeply sceptical that anything more than a quickly forgotten frisson of panic will affect those responsible (for the abuse, it's covering up and it's use).


Louis MacNeice
Sorry to cut the other bits of your post Louis - November 2012 this was gaining traction, inquiries thrown out left right and centre, most (handily) having to stop because of police investigations - they've had to do the same operation again. Point being this is still live as a political issue and they know it. And they can't handle it outwith of inquiries at all.
 
To me this is the worst of all crimes; these poor kids were in Children's Home so may have had a rough time already, and the people that are there to protect them are the ones that are indirectly or directly responsible for their suffering. They had nowhere to turn.
Man on LBC last night was in a children's home and was abused in this way. Said there had been suicides amongst his friends at the home at the same time.
I hope I don't come across all moral-outrage, but I would happily seeing the perpetrators tortured in the worst possible way for this.
 
Brendan O'Neill's penned this hatchet job. The LM network works tirelessly to smear anyone who has concerns. It's as if the kids who died don't count. Furedi, Fox, O'Neill Hume et al never once mention the victim.These people are scum.
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsit...-obsesses-over-child-abuse/15335#.U7wAT9ilDJY

Have you read the associated comments? There are some really brave free thinkers taking the opportunity provided by O'Neill to tell it like it is.

It is however a little odd that none of them seems able to imagine an objection to paedophilia based on by turns experience, empathy and care. Perhaps their thinking is just a little constrained after all?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice
 
Have you read the associated comments? There are some really brave free thinkers taking the opportunity provided by O'Neill to tell it like it is.

It is however a little odd that none of them seems able to imagine an objection to paedophilia based on by turns experience, empathy and care. Perhaps their thinking is just a little constrained after all?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice
Aye, I saw them and I wanted to puke.

At times like these, libertarians tend to reveal the limits of their thinking.
 
To me this is the worst of all crimes; these poor kids were in Children's Home so may have had a rough time already, and the people that are there to protect them are the ones that are indirectly or directly responsible for their suffering. They had nowhere to turn.
Man on LBC last night was in a children's home and was abused in this way. Said there had been suicides amongst his friends at the home at the same time.
I hope I don't come across all moral-outrage, but I would happily seeing the perpetrators tortured in the worst possible way for this.
You should have heard Claire Fox last night. She was talking about families, not kids in care homes, where all the abused victims came from, but families.:facepalm:
 
Back
Top Bottom