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

[angelraven]

It's also entirely possible that the customs officer felt that they couldn't back down and send the minister on his way, because he was acting suspiciously, and the customs officer acted altruistically, against his own interests.
As a psychologist, I'm sure you're aware that altruism informs many seemingly counter-intuitive actions?

Yeah because customs and immigration officials are well known for being such lovely altruistic souls

 

[angelraven]

The evidence has disappeared. This is fact.
That the evidence "got disappeared" is speculation.

Riiiight. I guess they might have accidentally lost it or something

 

[ViolentPanda]

Gotta love the gratuitous abuse on this site. Miaow!

That's hardly "gratuitous abuse", it's a bit off off-the-cuff character analysis based on your posts.
Or do you, as a psychologist, think that all people react similarly to stimuli - that what you think or do will be broadly similar to what persons A through Z will do?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Yeah because customs and immigration officials are well known for being such lovely altruistic souls

Now you're just being an arse. You're conflating the organisation with the individuals that staff it. Individuals, even within closed employment environments such as customs, or the old bill, still react as individuals first, altruism and all.

 

[angelraven]

Riiiight. I guess they might have accidentally lost it or something

Or taken it home and mixed it up with another video's box. Now that would have been embarrassing when they were showing Aunt Marjorie the home movie!

 

[ViolentPanda]

Riiiight. I guess they might have accidentally lost it or something

Like I said, apply Occam's Razor. It might not give you the answers you want but it'll point you towards the answers that are most likely.

 

[angelraven]

Like I said, apply Occam's Razor. It might not give you the answers you want but it'll point you towards the answers that are most likely.

That's exactly what I've been doing! Anyway, enough for the time being, I don't want to derail this thread again: as people pointed out last time, it has generally been quite informative.

 

[angelraven]

BTW I can accept that the video in question might be genuinely lost *today*. It's been a long time. But it must have been deliberately sat on, at some level, for a prolonged period of time back in the 80s. Or possibly stolen. You don't just randomly mislay a piece of evidence like that. In fact, first thing I would have done would be to make a copy just in case.

 

[Quartz]

DLT is up for a retrial

BBC article here.

Ah well, if he gets away with it again at least the whole saga will have bankrupted him.

That's a disgusting attitude. Have you perhaps considered he might be entirely innocent? Don't you think it's disgraceful that an innocent person could be reduced to penury? Imagine working all your life and amassing a nice nest-egg only to see it disappear in lawyers' fees.

 

[bluescreen]

Hopefully on acquittal the defandant's lawyers will apply to have costs paid out of central funds. That won't cover everything, though, and someone found not guilty can still be substantially out of pocket.

 

[Wilf]

That's a disgusting attitude. Have you perhaps considered he might be entirely innocent? Don't you think it's disgraceful that an innocent person could be reduced to penury? Imagine working all your life and amassing a nice nest-egg only to see it disappear in lawyers' fees.

As an assumption about anyone going before the courts, yes. Beyond that formality, to be honest, no.

 

[Quartz]

Beyond that formality, to be honest, no.

Do you assume everyone brought up before the courts or even just charged is guilty? Do you think lawyers work for free?

 

[bluescreen]

Wilf, I hope you never serve on a jury.

 

[Plumdaff]

I'd rather have someone on a jury who's open and honest about assumptions and prejudices than people who delude themselves of their objectivity.

 

[bluescreen]

Eh? Who wouldn't? Not that people are mostly aware of their assumptions and prejudices, because those assumptions and prejudices blind them.

(Not excluding myself from that blindness, as you may have been suggesting. )

 

[Celt]

This thread has been a great piece which gave lots of info and very little bitching but since the closure of the previous Saville threads its got quite a flurry of derail. Please people this thread is important,

 

[Plumdaff]

edited - sorry if derailed - glass(es) of wine on a Friday evening

 

[bluescreen]

This thread has been a great piece which gave lots of info and very little bitching but since the closure of the previous Saville threads its got quite a flurry of derail. Please people this thread is important,

Sorry. Yes, it's important.

 

[Lurdan]

Judge 'FELL ASLEEP during sex abuse trial' - now alleged victim must repeat harrowing evidence

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/judge-fell-asleep-during-sex-3915489#ixzz38Xufcj00

The jury was sent home as a probe was launched into claims Recorder Philip Cattan snoozed as the girl gave evidence via video link.

Are they still looking for a judge to head that inquiry ?

 

[brogdale]

The "Croydon (S)Advertiser" is running, this week, with a series of reports of alleged abuse at the Shirley Oaks children's home between the 1970s and 1990s. Collectively the allegations of the victims/survivors appear to indicate that the joint council/police investigation "Middleton" did not expose the full extent of abuse suffered by the children.

Shirley Oaks is one of three Lambeth-run children's homes the Daily Mirror has linked to an alleged paedophile ring thought to involve an unnamed MP in Tony Blair's government.

Those allegations include claims the unnamed politician took boys out of South Vale children's home in West Norwood in the 1980s.

Some of the people who agreed to speak to the Advertiser this week detailed how they were sexually abused by mysterious figures who were regular visitors to the home.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Do you assume everyone brought up before the courts or even just charged is guilty? Do you think lawyers work for free?

Given the CPS's calculus for prosecution, whereby a case has to stand a 50/50 chance or better of a conviction to actually be tried, then assuming at least an "evens" likelihood of guilt is understandable, and in line with probability.
As for lawyers, everyone is entitled to a certain level of representation. If you opt to "go private" because you believe you'll get better service, then that's your own look-out, surely?

 

[bluescreen]

Given the CPS's calculus for prosecution, whereby a case has to stand a 50/50 chance or better of a conviction to actually be tried, then assuming at least an "evens" likelihood of guilt is understandable, and in line with probability.
As for lawyers, everyone is entitled to a certain level of representation. If you opt to "go private" because you believe you'll get better service, then that's your own look-out, surely?

Yikes, VP. Not all briefs are equally competent. The Tories have totally wasted legal aid. If I had the money, I'd always go private.

 

[MrSki]

Yikes, VP. Not all briefs are equally competent. The Tories have totally wasted legal aid. If I had the money, I'd always go private.

That depends if the most experienced in that particular field does legal aid work surely?
Would you not want say Michael Mansfield QC representing you? Not all lawyers are cunts. Some still believe in the concept of justice.

 

[bluescreen]

That depends if the most experienced in that particular field does legal aid work surely?
Would you not want say Michael Mansfield QC representing you? Not all lawyers are cunts. Some still believe in the concept of justice.

I would want him, Mr Ski. Is he available on legal aid?

 

[MrSki]

I would want him, Mr Ski. Is he available on legal aid?

He does legal aid work. He represented Mark Duggan's family in the recent judicial review. Plus plenty of other well deserving causes.

 

[elbows]

I believe the Sun on Sunday is the original source for this story, but anyway...

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...e-sir-peter-morrison-bodyguard_n_5624475.html

Margaret Thatcher was told about alleged sex parties with under-age boys held by one of her closest aides claims her former personal bodyguard.

Barry Strevens, who worked as the prime minister's personal bodyguard, said that he passed on allegations about her confidant Sir Peter Morrison.

The former senior police officer said that Lady Thatcher appointed Sir Peter deputy party chairman of the Conservatives despite learning of the rumours.

The former bodyguard said that he first found out about the claims from a senior Cheshire Police officer.

At the time, Sir Peter was being considered as the replacement for deputy party chairman after Jeffrey Archer had stood down over prostitution claims in 1986.

Strevens said that he "immediately" passed on the information to Lady Thatcher and her private secretary Archie Hamilton at a meeting in Downing Street.

"A senior officer in Chester had told me there were rumours going around about under-age boys - one aged 15 - attending sex parties at a house there belonging to Peter Morrison," he said.

"After we returned to No10 I asked to go and see her immediately. It was unusual for me to do that, so they would have know it was something serious.

"When I went in Archie Hamilton was there. I told them exactly what had been said about Peter. Archie took notes and they thanked me for coming.

"There was no proof but the officer I spoke to was certain and said local press knew a lot more."

Responding to the claims, Hamilton said that he remembered that the officer had been at No10 but could not recall any mention of under-age boys.

"I don't remember him saying they were under-age," he said. "There may have been but the point he was making to her was that there were only men involved.

"She listened to what he said and that was it. It was merely a party and men were there."

Tory grandee Lord Tebbit has previously stated that he confronted Sir Peter over the allegations and received a flat denial.

 

[brogdale]

I believe the Sun on Sunday is the original source for this story, but anyway...

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...e-sir-peter-morrison-bodyguard_n_5624475.html

Indy seems to be running the Huff account of the Sun story almost word for word...

that Hamilton denial to protect the dead queen's reputation looks lame, even by their normal duplicitous standards...

Responding to the claims, Archie Hamilton told the paper that Mr Strevens had gone to Number 10 for a meeting but that he could not recall the mention of underage boys.

He said: “I remember Barry Strevens coming in and what he actually said at the time was that there were partes at peter Morrison’s home in Cheshire and there were only men who were there.

“I don’t remember him saying they were underage. There may have been but the point he was making to her was that there were only men involved in the party.

“She listened to what he said and that was it. It was merely a party and men were there,” he said.

 

[Barking_Mad]

MI5 & Kincora

In October 1974, Wallace told his superiors that he wanted out of Clockwork Orange. He then wrote a memo explaining in detail that destitute boys were being systematically sodomised by members of Kincora staff and were being supplied for abuse to prominent figures in unionist politics. The abusers – among them MPs, councillors, leading Orangemen and other influential individuals – became potentially important intelligence assets.


MI5 had come across Kincora through its interest in paedophile “housemaster” William McGrath, also leader of an eccentric loyalist organisation, Tara. The agency didn’t report the scandal, but allowed it to continue while monitoring the abusers. It wasn’t until an Irish Independent expose in 1980 that official notice was taken. An RUC investigation led to the imprisonment of McGrath and two other Kincora staff. Two inquiries were then established in succession by secretary of state James Prior. The first, under complaints commissioner Stephen McGonagle, collapsed on its first day when three of five panel members resigned upon being told they couldn’t delve into any matter which might be the subject of police investigation. The collapse of an inquiry after one half-day session may be a unique occurrence.

Prior pledged to the Commons that a second inquiry under retired judge William Hughes would investigate allegations of a cover-up involving state agents. But Hughes announced he would examine only “the administration of boys’ homes” and wouldn’t take evidence about “allegations [of] any cover-up”.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/irel...-to-be-exposed-1.1875925#.U9ZXa7hbSYF.twitter

 

[Betsy]

That tweet is getting on a bit now. I only point this out because most recently they have been preoccupied with what they've decided is a disinformation campaign that the police and other state agents are complicit in, in regards to changing the details of the 'customs seized child porn video' story.

There were two quite different stories, that I was previously treating as separate historical events. But it seems proponents of each story reckon enough details are the same that the other version of the story is relating to the same event but is a lie.

One version is that an important politician was stopped at customer many years ago, in possession of a child porn video. The other version is that someone else was stopped, and the politician was IN the video.

Exaro support the latter version of the story, but details of what the customs officer said in some audio recording (e.g. whether he named the politician without prompting or whether the journalist/person interviewing him offered the name) are currently in dispute due to comments from a rival journalist who wrote the other version of the story (we discussed this on the thread recently). Exaro have gone massively on the attack on their twitter feed over this. Several MPs now have a copy of the audio recording so some parties out there know the truth about certain details that we cannot right now. Obviously I want to take Exaros word for it, but I suppose I cannot exclude the possibility that they have been fed some shit for one reason or another, so I have to wait and see.

Yes,sorry. I realised after I had posted. It was fresh from Twitter which made me think it was 'new' news.

 

[elbows]

No worries.

Anyway I'm still on the fence regarding the customs video thing. I'm a big fan of what Exaro have done to date, but some of the better considered criticisms of them stem from the possibility that they do over-egg things at times and are a tad keen on blowing their own trumpet, especially as time has gone on.

If it really is the same customer officer and audio recording of a February interview with him that several critics think it is, then I'm afraid Exaro really did overcook the story to the extent that I will be annoyed. But at the same time, one really important detail in a transcript of that interview is, according to at least one person who first had the transcript and then later got to listen to the audio, wrong. The transcript indicated that the customers officer didn't say the cabinet ministers name, but apparently this was inaccurate and he did name him rather than simply being fed a name by the journalist.