How much evidence is there of long term high level UK paedophile ring?
- Thread starter free spirit
- Start date
And as the main protagonists die the 'Cyril Smith truth' will out. Sadly instinct and experience makes me feel this is what will happen - tbh it's happening already.
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
Interesting one....(slight understatement). It was published back in 1983 by LaRouche in the USA. It has Government ministers - now dead, Adrian Smith (the PIE member who recently said PIE documents were kept at the Home Office), the Palace and the Home Office all rolled into one. You can read the pdf archived edition here
bluescreen
tofu eating wokerati
Yes, I saw that on Spotlight. Spotlightonabuse is a great resource for old newspaper articles and the like on this subject. It's interesting to see all the press around the time Dickens presented his dossiers.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
bluescreen
tofu eating wokerati
Tom Watson has just tweeted that the Met have trebled the number of officers working on historic abuse cases. And there is this article in HuffPo:
<snippage>By Geoffrey Seed, the author of The Convenience of Lies, a powerful story about a conspiracy between politicians, police and spies to cover-up the sexual abuse of children.
In December 1996, I arranged to meet a disaffected London detective in a motorway cafe where we couldn't be overheard, and was told how two investigations into alleged child sex abuse by MPs and other establishment figures were deliberately sabotaged.
I didn't realise then I'd have the basis of a novel or that it'd take another eighteen years before the truth or otherwise of such crimes - supposedly covered up by Westminster insiders - would finally be addressed.
My source was in what I named the Blackened Name Club, officers who'd fallen foul of the Metropolitan Police anti-corruption squad in contentious circumstances which didn't guarantee convictions in court.
He contrasted their treatment - phoned-tapped like terrorists, family lives scrutinised, liberty in jeopardy - with how official blind eyes were turned when paedophile politicians, churchmen and lawyers were allegedly violating children. /snip
In December 1996, I arranged to meet a disaffected London detective in a motorway cafe where we couldn't be overheard, and was told how two investigations into alleged child sex abuse by MPs and other establishment figures were deliberately sabotaged.
I didn't realise then I'd have the basis of a novel or that it'd take another eighteen years before the truth or otherwise of such crimes - supposedly covered up by Westminster insiders - would finally be addressed.
My source was in what I named the Blackened Name Club, officers who'd fallen foul of the Metropolitan Police anti-corruption squad in contentious circumstances which didn't guarantee convictions in court.
He contrasted their treatment - phoned-tapped like terrorists, family lives scrutinised, liberty in jeopardy - with how official blind eyes were turned when paedophile politicians, churchmen and lawyers were allegedly violating children. /snip
comrade spurski
Well-Known Member
If there aint a conspiracy then the level of sheer incompetence is equally amazing and frightening.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
You're probably right, but I think quite a few people had more than money on the idea that Savile et al would go a similar way.
There is a snowballing process going on here. MI5 et al may yet stop it in its tracks, but I am not 100% convinced they can. It will only take another credible report of a Senior Establishment Figure having been up to a spot of pederasty and somehow not being nailed for it, and I think the dam will break.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
It's both, I think. Most of it is incompetence, but that has fed the ability of those interested in doing such things to be able to construct real conspiracies, secure in the knowledge that they don't even need to be that good, if the appetite of the current elite for truth, justice, and protection of innocent and powerless individuals is as it is...which is to say, mostly, near non-existent.
We live in a strange society: one in which most of the "system" really doesn't give a shit about the poor, the vulnerable and the easily exploited, but at the same time one in which we like to believe that we, as a society, do give a shit. The "paedo panics" of the red-top press are both a symptom of and the driving force behind so much of our society's attitudes towards child sexual abuse: when we didn't much care, the "paedos" were demonised and put "out there" - remote figures who occasionally touched up unwary or careless kids in the park, a stereotype which conveniently kept us looking the wrong way while known-to-us, responsible, and - yes - respectable types were busily fiddling around with children at every opportunity they were so conveniently handed.
Now, we are confronted with the reality of what child abuse does to people - far from the "they'll get over it", we're seeing people we respect and whose views carry some weight, if only in some cases by virtue of their celebrity, coming out from the shadows and saying "yes, I was abused, and it wrecked my life". Against that, it's rather hard to cling onto the blandishments of 40-50 years ago which suggested that, well, when it all came down to it, a bit of light kiddy-fiddling never really did anyone any harm, and anyway the kids wouldn't stick around if they didn't like it...
And, all of a sudden, the core protective strategies of "the establishment" - essentially, "it doesn't really matter", and "it'll all blow over anyway" - are being shown to be ineffective. People - people like me, damnit - who were abused up to and beyond 40 years ago are prepared to stand up and say what happened, and they cannot be ignored. It hasn't "blown over", and it won't. And it does matter. And there are enough of us saying it now that it is becoming increasingly hard to ignore it, discredit the victims, or simply pretend there isn't a problem. And there will be enough of those inside the establishment - people like Lord Tebbit, whose politics I continue to loathe three decades after they first came to light, but who at least has the conviction to be able to point out the wrongness in the attitudes of his time - who are disgusted enough by what was done, both by the abusers, and by those seeking to cover up their activities, that the ability to keep those secrets is further diminished.
It all comes down to how willing and able "the establishment" is to face down the onslaught of disclosures, allegations, and criticisms. If there's one thing I can say for the ship of fools that currently runs the show, their ability to face anything down is limited to the point of non-existence. They will, no doubt, mount a coverup. They will fall over themselves to stonewall the truths they think simply cannot be revealed. But they will fail, because even now they underestimate the weight of public revulsion at not just the abuse of children, but the idea that those in power were a) doing it, and b) able to get away with it. They will grossly miscalculate, and with any luck, the fallout will ensure that a deep and abiding suspicion of power and privilege so profound that it completely cuts the ground away from under the system that has operated, for longer than any of us have lived, to protect those it represents.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
Like Thatcher, whose politics I also despise, the Chingford Strangler operated from a position of principle, rather than expediency.
It is telling that Thatcher was very successful in purging her - repellant - political ideology of those whose motives seemed to be something other than grabbing power at any cost. Perhaps she wanted to be the last of her line.
He's settling old scores, Leon Brittan stabbed his beloved Thatcher in the back, he's like a Dickensian Workhouse type character, you don't really think he's really motivated by wrongs done to orphans and waifs and strays do you.
Last edited:
discokermit
Well-Known Member
tebbit is a cunt. thirty odd years he's kept his mouth shut about this. he was happy enough to work with these people at the time.
pitchforks and torches. it's the only way to deal with vampire cunts like these.
pitchforks and torches. it's the only way to deal with vampire cunts like these.
Blast off my socks you'd sell your kidney for dots. Or something. Probably.
Batboy
Trumpeting is good for you...
I cannot believe the press is not lambasting the appointment of Butler Sloss considering how her brother was involved in so much controversy in failing to deal with investigations on people like Sir Peter Hyman a known paedophile who operated in the upper echelons and corridors of power.
Eta.... some finally look like they are. If she stays as chair of enquiry, we will see just how corrupt this is.
Eta.... some finally look like they are. If she stays as chair of enquiry, we will see just how corrupt this is.
Last edited:
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
For Tebbit there is an equivalence between homosexuality and paedophilia. Add this to an over riding loyalty to the Thatcher governments (a loyalty that he doesn't feel towards Cameron et. al.) and Tebbit's apparent change of heart makes sense. Of course it doesn't make it any less objectionable.
Cheers - Louis MacNeice
Last edited:
teqniq
DisMembered
I did say 'unlikely', and pretty much inevitably there is always an ulterior or hidden motive with politicians.
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
Reading this back, it says something about the moral vacuum that the current lot inhabit that I could ever have said something even remotely positive about the reactionary old curmudgeon Tebbit. I feel I need to take a shower now.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
I think it is very telling that, almost from the moment the appointment was announced, there has been little but a chorus of disapproval.
Cameron does not want a proper enquiry, but a whitewash that can quickly brush all this stuff under the carpet. If he had had an ounce of ability, he would have made sure, before he opened his stupid big trap, that he had secured an uncontroversial "consensus" person to lead the
Good. The more stepping on his own dick he does, the likelier we are to have to move to a a proper independent public inquiry.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
Every word in that clip rang true, particularly the 'not giving the press a bishop'. A perfect example of how the process works. There's no grand lizardy conspiracy, just a few key figures with a certain mindset and background - who makes separate decisions that together amount to a watering down, a weakening, making the whole thing more cautious. Power in play.
Thanks for the link, unbelievable appointment:
"A man abused by a paedophile priest in Sussex says Baroness Butler-Sloss is the wrong person to lead an inquiry into how public bodies dealt with allegations of child abuse.
Phil Johnson says she told him she wanted to exclude his allegations of abuse at the hands of a bishop from a public report because she "cared about the church" and "did not want to give the press a bishop".
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
That's fucking disgraceful.
Some victims are still not being treated properly , apparently Vanessa Feltz has faced terrible personal attacks since revealing the gross incident with Harris on the Big Breakfast, she is a tough woman but listening to what she has faced on twitter, etc, was shocking.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
We haven't really even scratched the surface, yet. It is going to take a long time before we get anywhere meaningful. And even when most of us have got there, there'll still be the cunts and idiots who insist "we're not allowed to say this, but...", or who just do their shit for attention and effect.
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
Perhaps the Baroness should have been less concerned to stop 'the press getting a bishop', and much more worried about what the ecclesiastical big wig was getting?
The apparent presumption that the establishment (in the person of the bishop) needs protection from the press (laughable as that may seem), and that this need takes priority over both the experience of victims and the potential for further abuse, is more evidence of the huge distance between the interests of a very small, very powerful minority and everybody else.
Cheers - Louis MacNeice
The apparent presumption that the establishment (in the person of the bishop) needs protection from the press (laughable as that may seem), and that this need takes priority over both the experience of victims and the potential for further abuse, is more evidence of the huge distance between the interests of a very small, very powerful minority and everybody else.
Cheers - Louis MacNeice
ska invita
back on the other side
its a scandalous comment as shes meant to be acting as an impartial judge - in fact shes shown up exactly what these inquiries are, a chance to throw a token person to the press
Similar threads
- Poll
