Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
Well, maybe, probably even, but there's scope for a bit of light hearted comtempt before returning to the grim truth of the thread.
How much evidence is there of long term high level UK paedophile ring?
- Thread starter free spirit
- Start date
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
I do have the vaguest memory of him chipping in in the distant past, conceivably a direct defence of his Dad in the 80s/90s? On his role in the guildford/maguire cases?
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
Love these little details
All you fuckers moaning about the bedroom tax, FFS, just take a job with your wine merchant!
You don't know what it's like! You weren't there man!
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
My last derail, I promise (from the DM, copied so you don't need to):
The Charmer wrests £375,000 (and a Mercedes) from dead wife's son
By DANIEL BOFFEY
Last updated at 22:00 31 March 2007
Actor Nigel Havers has been involved in a bitter legal battle with his stepsons over his late wife's multi-million-pound estate.
Mr Havers, best known for his roles in the movie Chariots Of Fire and TV series The Charmer, was prepared to go to court to fight Polly's will, which limited his inheritance.
The actress's two sons from a previous marriage would originally have inherited all of her £2.3million estate, which included the family home in Barnes, South-West London. In the will, Mr Havers was given the right to live rent-free in the house until he died, but it would then pass to her sons Ben and William Bloomfield.
But now, after nearly three years of legal tussles with Ben, 26, and William, 28, Mr Havers has received a cash settlement of £375,000, a Mercedes car and 32 items of her jewellery including seven gold rings and 14 watches.
The 'compromise', struck just before the matter was due to go to court, was agreed between Mr Havers's solicitors and the trustees of Polly's estate, which paid the £180,000 legal fees. The actor also fought for 'reasonable financial provision' for his daughter Kate, from his first marriage which ended in divorce.
Kate helped care for Polly at the house in Barnes - which has now been sold - and has been awarded a substantial percentage of the increase in its value.
The Bloomfield brothers admitted the battle had been a 'long, drawn-out, painful process'. Ben said: 'You can imagine the scenario. It has not been a nice thing.'
Polly died aged 54 in June 2004 after a five-year battle with ovarian cancer. She and Mr Havers had married in 1989. The 57-year-old actor had been with first wife Carolyn for 18 years, but left her for Polly, sister of his actor friend Simon Williams.
During Polly's illness, Mr Havers turned down film offers to be with her, but eyebrows were raised when he was spotted with his current girlfriend, 57-year-old multi-millionaire divorcee Georgiana Bronfman, just six weeks after his wife's death. The couple now live in Holland Park, West London.
Polly's will, written in 1990, decreed her sons would inherit the rest of the estate at 25, plus the house when their stepfather died. Now Ben and William will get £235,000 and some jewellery between them.
When Mr Havers dies, they will also inherit any properties bought with the proceeds of the sale of the Barnes house.
Last night Mr Havers refused to comment on the legal battle.
elbows
Well-Known Member
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Indeed. (Sorry, have to dip out for proper posts tonight, cricket now)
elbows
Well-Known Member
Well I won't dwell on him for long them. But to save others who may be inclined to look into him some time, but can't be arsed to wade through comment sections of sometimes fruit loopy sites for details that debunk him and damage his credibility, here is something from a local US paper from a few years ago when an anti-WIFI school thing went to legal action that was costing the state quite a bit of cash.
http://www.wweek.com/portland/artic...00_fighting_a_parents_lawsuit_over_wi_fi.html
http://www.wweek.com/portland/artic...00_fighting_a_parents_lawsuit_over_wi_fi.html
terryterry
New Member
Have you seen this? More questions than answers - what else was 'doing the rounds'??!? http://www.express.co.uk/news/polit...video-between-underage-boy-well-known-grandee
Buckaroo
Donkey piss and tractors
Fuck off.
terryterry
New Member
Why?!
elbows
Well-Known Member
To be honest I did suggest he post that story here, since it was posted in the Savile thread. The article and the events it suggest are part of the shit and still worthy of a mention, even if the only question is which of numerous sorts of shit on display there is the most important to keep in mind when thinking about that sort of thing.
From another thread:
Yabbut, what's the story? Jerry Hayes saw a video alleged to show "a Tory grandee" with an underaged boy and concluded ""I knew [the alleged politician] and it looked nothing like him."
Bad, bad Express.
Hayes also observed:
"You saw a lot of grunting but it was all bollocks."
And as FridgeMagnet observed: "Tory grandee not seen in sex tape" is surprising but not news. (I paraphrase.)
Yabbut, what's the story? Jerry Hayes saw a video alleged to show "a Tory grandee" with an underaged boy and concluded ""I knew [the alleged politician] and it looked nothing like him."
Bad, bad Express.
Hayes also observed:
"You saw a lot of grunting but it was all bollocks."
And as FridgeMagnet observed: "Tory grandee not seen in sex tape" is surprising but not news. (I paraphrase.)
Buckaroo
Donkey piss and tractors
I thought you were putting it up on the Jimmy thread again, apologies, elbows suggested you put it on this. So you did. Still a bit shit though. Reminds me of the time some cunt waded into this thread on his first day on Urban with a conspiracy theory about Kirsty Walk being a mason which he found hilarious. Elbows called him an idiot.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Thing is I want that sort of shit here because that sort o press article is part of the picture.
And when it comes to the subject of this thread, I'm interested in anything that talks about the 'rumour mill', press bubble etc, both present and historical. More interested than I would like to be, but to date nearly all of the revelations of recent years are actually the very same ones that partially surfaced decades ago. That may be somewhat fitting since the Savile stuff triggered this era of re-examining historical child abuse, and there were no shortage of rumours about him at the time. But if this time around we only get to hear about, or see brought to justice, cases that actually slightly came out in the past, it means we are only getting ones that were not covered up very effectively back in the day. People that evaded justice, but not without at least some lingering reputations damage and echoes of whispers.
There are quite a lot of people out there, often quite vocal on twitter, who will believe that there is a modern-day coverup if the cases and names they have already heard about on the net or in the past, are not prosecuted. I've decided to judge it a bit differently, in that my mind will cry out 'cover-up' most strongly if, when all this stuff is done over the years to come, there are no prosecutions of political figures that have NOT been rumoured about in the past. i.e. someone that nobody here currently suspects or has ever heard whispers about.
And when it comes to the subject of this thread, I'm interested in anything that talks about the 'rumour mill', press bubble etc, both present and historical. More interested than I would like to be, but to date nearly all of the revelations of recent years are actually the very same ones that partially surfaced decades ago. That may be somewhat fitting since the Savile stuff triggered this era of re-examining historical child abuse, and there were no shortage of rumours about him at the time. But if this time around we only get to hear about, or see brought to justice, cases that actually slightly came out in the past, it means we are only getting ones that were not covered up very effectively back in the day. People that evaded justice, but not without at least some lingering reputations damage and echoes of whispers.
There are quite a lot of people out there, often quite vocal on twitter, who will believe that there is a modern-day coverup if the cases and names they have already heard about on the net or in the past, are not prosecuted. I've decided to judge it a bit differently, in that my mind will cry out 'cover-up' most strongly if, when all this stuff is done over the years to come, there are no prosecutions of political figures that have NOT been rumoured about in the past. i.e. someone that nobody here currently suspects or has ever heard whispers about.
elbows
Well-Known Member
I suppose I should not go as far as to say nobody, since in theory someone here could be a victim, or know a victim that confided in them, and therefore knows about a person that hasn't been rumoured about more widely to date.
happie chappie
Well-Known Member
I’ve just got my tin foil hat out of the cupboard and it’s time to give my favourite hobby horse another run round the paddock.
On reflection, I think I’ve been looking through the wrong end of the telescope regarding Leon Brittan, who I still think is a central figure. He would have certainly been vetted by MI5 when he became Home Secretary, if not before. The security services would have been fully aware of the allegations and rumours about him.
I think it’s possible that he became Home Secretary not in spite of the speculation about sexual misconduct, but because of it. MI5 now had “their” man in the Home Office, the very department nominally in charge of its activities, and he was completely beholden to them. In return he gets one of the highest offices of state and what he understands is lifelong protection against any really damaging material being made public by the security services. He was certainly very helpful to MI5 during his time at the Home Office. Amongst other things he:
1] gave them primacy in the intelligence gathering activities against the NUM during the Miners’ Strike
2] authorised highly controversial phone taps on organisations such as CND and
3] buried the Dickens Dossier.
The last was particularly important - especially if it contained some of the people named on the Elm guest list. One was listed as an MI5 operative and some of the others were probably security service assets (or at least “persons of interest”) such as Colin Jordan.
So job done - at the end of his Cabinet career he’s given a plum EU post, a peerage and off he goes to enjoy his retirement on a promise that MI5 will keep his alleged dirty secrets secret.
But fast-forward 30 years and things start to unravel in a way that no one could have foreseen three decades earlier:
1] Jimmy Savile is exposed as a serial paedophile, bringing the subject of sexual abuse to the public’s attention in the most salacious way. It’s all over the media and it won’t go away thanks to people like Stuart Hall, Max Clifford and Rolph Harris.
2] Tom Watson, aided by Peter McKelvie, starts to ask awkward questions about a high-level paedophile ring which includes senior politicians - and he threatens to name them.
3] In parallel Simon Danczuk exposes Cyril Smith as an alleged serial abuser- the first time such a high profile politician has been named in this way. Danczuk also threatens to name others.
4] Questions re-emerge about the missing Dickens Dossier.
The spotlight inevitably falls on Brittan in relation to the dossier and matters possibly to be raised by Watson and Danczuk. First he denies knowing anything about the dossier and then, after the Home Office (read MI5) says it did exist he has to admit he did get it, but says he passed it on to the “appropriate authorities”. As we know, nothing further happened - likely at the behest of the security services for the reasons outlined above.
Curiously to my mind, just a week later, in a newspaper article based on some sort of leak, Brittan is exposed as a person who has been recently questioned about an allegation of serious sexual assault that allegedly took place decades ago.
Meanwhile the Government, which had resisted calls for a public enquiry regarding the dossier and the allegations contained in it, has to give ground. Teresa May announces the two enquires (neither of which are public enquiries). During her statement there are 4 specific questions raised by different MPs about the role of the security services. MI5 know they will have to give up some names. Who better than Leon Brittan for starters? A man now pretty much discredited - seen as untrustworthy and unreliable regarding the missing Dickens Dossier and who is also facing allegations of serious sexual assault. Not particularly popular with the public and, as someone said in another post, a person who comes across as very shifty at the best of times.
MI5 renege on their promise to protect him. But Brittan can’t do anything about it. Whichever way he turns he’s completely fucked. He just has to sit it out.
The enquiry, when it eventually gets around to reporting, finds a few more names - some MPs (dead and alive) not even their constituents have heard of; a few Lords; a couple of senior clergy; some Directors of Social Services, a couple of NHS bods and some high-profile celebrities for titillation value, perhaps even a judge or two and some senior civil servants and coppers for good measure. But then there’s the awkward question of why MI5 didn’t expose Brittan before? Here’s where my theory is a little sketchy but FWIW it could be something along the lines of:
“We only became aware, and could corroborate, the allegations once he became Home Secretary. But the country was then facing a grave national emergency. The NUM was trying to overthrow a democratically elected Government. If news of Brittan’s alleged indiscretions had come out the Government would have been brought down and could have been replaced by one run by communist sympathisers such as Arthur Scargill. Complete anarchy would have ensued. We simply could not let that happen. Of course we agonised over the decision. We wished we could have done things differently but you have to realise our hand was forced - the very fabric of society was under serious threat. Anyway, it all happened at a different time when the Service had a different ethos. But we can assure you it couldn’t happen today” etc.
(Just as a matter of interest Sir John Jones, Director General of MI5 between 1981 and 1985, died in 1998).
But why didn’t they expose Cyril Smith, the other MPs, the clergymen, the directors of Social Services, the entertainers? The answer is given on MI5’s own website: “The Security Service does not routinely monitor the private lives of prominent people and never simply because of their high profile. We will only carry out an investigation if there is a clear national security reason for doing so”.
https://www.mi5.gov.uk/home/about-us/faqs-about-mi5/does-mi5-monitor-the-private-lives-of-public-figures.htm
In summary MI5 could conceivably claim:
"We [MI5] didn’t know because we weren’t monitoring them. At the time we were far too busy combatting domestic subversion and the IRA. Anyway we weren’t particularly interested in any of them in the first place".
So all-in-all not a bad outcome for MI5. They still may have a few other dirty tricks up their sleeve just in case any other difficulties arise - hiding files, blackmailing vulnerable people, forging documents etc. The usual stuff. Other accusations of incompetence, or even cover-ups, could conveniently be blamed on Special Branch and the police who have hardly emerged from the affair thus far covered in glory.
On reflection, I think I’ve been looking through the wrong end of the telescope regarding Leon Brittan, who I still think is a central figure. He would have certainly been vetted by MI5 when he became Home Secretary, if not before. The security services would have been fully aware of the allegations and rumours about him.
I think it’s possible that he became Home Secretary not in spite of the speculation about sexual misconduct, but because of it. MI5 now had “their” man in the Home Office, the very department nominally in charge of its activities, and he was completely beholden to them. In return he gets one of the highest offices of state and what he understands is lifelong protection against any really damaging material being made public by the security services. He was certainly very helpful to MI5 during his time at the Home Office. Amongst other things he:
1] gave them primacy in the intelligence gathering activities against the NUM during the Miners’ Strike
2] authorised highly controversial phone taps on organisations such as CND and
3] buried the Dickens Dossier.
The last was particularly important - especially if it contained some of the people named on the Elm guest list. One was listed as an MI5 operative and some of the others were probably security service assets (or at least “persons of interest”) such as Colin Jordan.
So job done - at the end of his Cabinet career he’s given a plum EU post, a peerage and off he goes to enjoy his retirement on a promise that MI5 will keep his alleged dirty secrets secret.
But fast-forward 30 years and things start to unravel in a way that no one could have foreseen three decades earlier:
1] Jimmy Savile is exposed as a serial paedophile, bringing the subject of sexual abuse to the public’s attention in the most salacious way. It’s all over the media and it won’t go away thanks to people like Stuart Hall, Max Clifford and Rolph Harris.
2] Tom Watson, aided by Peter McKelvie, starts to ask awkward questions about a high-level paedophile ring which includes senior politicians - and he threatens to name them.
3] In parallel Simon Danczuk exposes Cyril Smith as an alleged serial abuser- the first time such a high profile politician has been named in this way. Danczuk also threatens to name others.
4] Questions re-emerge about the missing Dickens Dossier.
The spotlight inevitably falls on Brittan in relation to the dossier and matters possibly to be raised by Watson and Danczuk. First he denies knowing anything about the dossier and then, after the Home Office (read MI5) says it did exist he has to admit he did get it, but says he passed it on to the “appropriate authorities”. As we know, nothing further happened - likely at the behest of the security services for the reasons outlined above.
Curiously to my mind, just a week later, in a newspaper article based on some sort of leak, Brittan is exposed as a person who has been recently questioned about an allegation of serious sexual assault that allegedly took place decades ago.
Meanwhile the Government, which had resisted calls for a public enquiry regarding the dossier and the allegations contained in it, has to give ground. Teresa May announces the two enquires (neither of which are public enquiries). During her statement there are 4 specific questions raised by different MPs about the role of the security services. MI5 know they will have to give up some names. Who better than Leon Brittan for starters? A man now pretty much discredited - seen as untrustworthy and unreliable regarding the missing Dickens Dossier and who is also facing allegations of serious sexual assault. Not particularly popular with the public and, as someone said in another post, a person who comes across as very shifty at the best of times.
MI5 renege on their promise to protect him. But Brittan can’t do anything about it. Whichever way he turns he’s completely fucked. He just has to sit it out.
The enquiry, when it eventually gets around to reporting, finds a few more names - some MPs (dead and alive) not even their constituents have heard of; a few Lords; a couple of senior clergy; some Directors of Social Services, a couple of NHS bods and some high-profile celebrities for titillation value, perhaps even a judge or two and some senior civil servants and coppers for good measure. But then there’s the awkward question of why MI5 didn’t expose Brittan before? Here’s where my theory is a little sketchy but FWIW it could be something along the lines of:
“We only became aware, and could corroborate, the allegations once he became Home Secretary. But the country was then facing a grave national emergency. The NUM was trying to overthrow a democratically elected Government. If news of Brittan’s alleged indiscretions had come out the Government would have been brought down and could have been replaced by one run by communist sympathisers such as Arthur Scargill. Complete anarchy would have ensued. We simply could not let that happen. Of course we agonised over the decision. We wished we could have done things differently but you have to realise our hand was forced - the very fabric of society was under serious threat. Anyway, it all happened at a different time when the Service had a different ethos. But we can assure you it couldn’t happen today” etc.
(Just as a matter of interest Sir John Jones, Director General of MI5 between 1981 and 1985, died in 1998).
But why didn’t they expose Cyril Smith, the other MPs, the clergymen, the directors of Social Services, the entertainers? The answer is given on MI5’s own website: “The Security Service does not routinely monitor the private lives of prominent people and never simply because of their high profile. We will only carry out an investigation if there is a clear national security reason for doing so”.
https://www.mi5.gov.uk/home/about-us/faqs-about-mi5/does-mi5-monitor-the-private-lives-of-public-figures.htm
In summary MI5 could conceivably claim:
"We [MI5] didn’t know because we weren’t monitoring them. At the time we were far too busy combatting domestic subversion and the IRA. Anyway we weren’t particularly interested in any of them in the first place".
So all-in-all not a bad outcome for MI5. They still may have a few other dirty tricks up their sleeve just in case any other difficulties arise - hiding files, blackmailing vulnerable people, forging documents etc. The usual stuff. Other accusations of incompetence, or even cover-ups, could conveniently be blamed on Special Branch and the police who have hardly emerged from the affair thus far covered in glory.
Last edited:
elbows
Well-Known Member
I could be wrong but perhaps more people will read your entire post if you remove quite a lot of the blank lines. I've not managed to get through reading it all myself yet for that reason.
edit - cheers, this has been done, so anyone reading it now won't be seeing the version that I had a little moan about there.
edit - cheers, this has been done, so anyone reading it now won't be seeing the version that I had a little moan about there.
Last edited:
happie chappie
Well-Known Member
sorry - will do!
teqniq
DisMembered
happie chappie
Well-Known Member
I forgot about those!
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
Quite possibly not. Perhaps just the reality of the situation - for years, the police have been used to operating on a "har, yes, sorry to hear it but it'll never get to court" basis, and now, really quite suddenly, they're actually having to investigate and prosecute cases - and not just any cases, but complicated historical ones without forensic evidence and needing lots of tracking down of other victims, corroborating witnesses, etc.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
Nobody expects the Unfortunate Fatal Accidents!
elbows
Well-Known Member
And you never know, we could always hope that if they actually do some of these investigations properly, it may develop skills, teams, attitudes and channels of communication that will, once the historical cases are done, lead to more effective policing of the here and now.
No matter how unlikely such a possibility may turn out to be, I refuse to live in a world where I cannot at least retain at least the hope that it might be possible.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
I have to say that my first-hand experience of such an investigation yields the following:
- It's slow. V-E-R-Y slow. Typical turnaround time on an email is somewhere between 3 weeks and 2 months. Almost every email I send to the investigating officer I am working with, no matter how soon after he sends me one, gets an out of office reply.
- They are being incredibly painstaking. I can provide a bit of information and then, a considerable while afterwards, will get a request for contacts in this, that or the other area - people I might have disclosed to in the past, the schools I attended, any organisations I knew the perpetrators were involved in, etc., and so on.
- They are at pains to be sensitive and supportive, sometimes to a somewhat excruciating degree.
But I do very strongly suspect that they are extremely thin on the ground.
Incidentally, I happened to - quite coincidentally - have a conversation with a former military plod who worked in this area on the MOD police side. They tell a similar story: the stuff is being taken seriously, staff are receiving intensive and in-depth training, from psychologists and psychiatrists who specialise in the field of abuse, on how to investigate and question suspects. But there are precious few of them, and they are victims of their own success - as each case proceeds to a conclusion, more allegations come out of the woodwork.
We're paying the price for decades and decades of kicking the can down the road. It is self-limiting - perpetrators and victims die eventually, but in the worst case, they're trying to catch up on a 60+ year backlog. It's no wonder they're snowed under.
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
Just to go back over Geoffrey Prime (MI5), as it was mentioned in the depths of this thread some time ago IIRC. But it ties in neatly with current events given Havers second intervention following Sir Peter Morrison. Worth looking at the article as it comes with press clippings.
Havers, Prime, Thatcher, MI5, PIE, Dickens.
Havers, Prime, Thatcher, MI5, PIE, Dickens.
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
Thanks for this, v interesting. I believe Tom Watson tweeted the other day that the number of police had been increased. Here you go:
tom_watson @tom_watson · Jul 10
The Met police have just announced they've tripled the number of cops investigating historic allegations of child abuse. Best news all week.
Issues for many people I suspect are the two words "Met Police".
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
Dickens asked Thatcher about Prime's membership of PIE, which she denied. However Telegraph reports suggest that at his secret trial this was confirmed to be true.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-dismissed-as-fantasies-of-a-deluded-man.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-dismissed-as-fantasies-of-a-deluded-man.html
Similar threads
- Poll
