Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

elbows said:
Matters relating to this, or something else?

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1991/dec/03/contempt-of-court
Click to expand...
That, directly.

In the course of that trial, one of the defendants, the major defendant, an evil man, chose to use the name of an honoured colleague in the House entirely for his own ends. He was determined, I think, to try to blackmail the—I almost put it in quotation marks—establishment.

I think that the defendant felt that, by naming persons who were in public life and putting them forward as people from whom children had to be defended—this was a child abuse case —he might frighten the authorities into not prosecuting or not pursuing the prosecution with the vigour that one might have expected. The defendant was wrong about that. He should have known that in Britain we conduct our prosecutions independently and fairly.

The defendant could not achieve his objective, but he sought to do so during the course of the trial, and anything said in the course of a trial is not subject to the laws of slander or libel when it is reported in newspapers. It was spread throughout the newspapers the length and breadth of the country, on the radio and on television.
Click to expand...
 
Catching up with todays media, I see the Telegraph drew attention to whats happening on Twitter, and had another interesting bit near the end too:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...litician-in-North-Wales-child-abuse-case.html

But yesterday his name was widely circulating on the internet including through hundreds of messages on the social networking site Twitter. However several other politicians not suspected of any involvement were also included in the messages.
Click to expand...

Mark Stephens, who represented around 15 of the children at the Waterhouse Inquiry, said: “I am convinced parliamentary privilege will be used to ask a question as to why this high-ranking politician who was named by a victim in the north Wales child abuse inquiry has been afforded protection.”
Click to expand...
 
Hmm - two former tory cabinet ministers keep coming up in association with 'the fusileer' and the 'failed reality Tv peresenter' (who was named by tom watson in the commons) if you put the latter two names into google.

The sources are various blogs - some of them are conspiraloon bollocks - but others seem sensible as far as I can tell.

The story has got a lot bigger over the last 48hours with cameron announcing new enquiries and all the media leading on it. Yet there is really no more new details than what there was on friday night - which maybe suggests that the media and polticians know there is def a lot to this and that more will come out?
 
Kaka Tim said:
Hmm - two former tory cabinet ministers keep coming up in association with 'the fusileer' and the 'failed reality Tv peresenter' (who was named by tom watson in the commons) if you put the latter two names into google.

The sources are various blogs - some of them are conspiraloon bollocks - but others seem sensible as far as I can tell.
Click to expand...

i've also got them on my list.

these names were included in the original scallywag article way back. they're not new and in my view the allegations carry some weight.

the allegation is that they the attended Pimlico parties hosted by the former tory advisor (who is also a failed reality tv star). these allegations strike me as being less clearcut however - the evidence that supports them doesn't appear to be as strong from my reading of the Scallywag articles. it is also unclear to me whether they took part in illegal activities or 'merely' attended the parties as observers (which sounds implausable now i've typed it, and which in itself would ruin their careers and possibly warrant criminal prosecution).

the key point is though, these names are not being thrown in retrospectively. they are a part of the original Scallywag allegations.

edit: also, the names will be on conspiraloon websites for one simple reason: the conspiraloons have lifted the Scallywag articles wholesale and have tried to co-opt them, to fit into their wider and insane narratives.
 
I'm not going to harp on for much longer about the Messham charges, but it seems the benefits stuff and the charity stuff were supposed to be handled in court at the same time:

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/w...-group-leader-denies-stealing-91466-12313987/

A whole bunch of other articles relating to Messham, mostly but not exclusively detailing the stuff we've already covered in relation to fraud and theft charges, can be found here:

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/_/search/Search.aspx?SearchBy=0&Word=Steven+Messham&Search=Search&By=0
 
Also since I recently posted an article that suggested Messham was happy with the Waterhouse inquiry at the time, I should post this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/feb/17/davidbrindle.davidward


Abuse victim Steven Messham, 37, who claims to have been sexually assaulted and physically abused in four different Welsh care homes, said he had been promised that no stone would be left unturned.
He expressed disappointment over yesterday's announcement by North Wales police that there would be no new prosecutions.
Mr Messham, chairman of Norwas (North Wales Abuse Survivors) said he had believed that Sir Ronald Waterhouse would name and shame the abusers.
"He only named people we already knew about.
"As far as I'm concerned, the fight will go on and one day we will get the justice we deserve."
Click to expand...
 
where to said:
the key point is though, these names are not being thrown in retrospectively. they are a part of the original Scallywag allegations.
Click to expand...

Ah - that explains where they come from and - I agree - does give them more creedance.

If that comes out - fucking hell! Anyone who was in the government at the time will have to answer questions about what they knew and why they did nothing.

Did Hauge set the terms of the original enquiry?
 
Kaka Tim said:
Did Hauge set the terms of the original enquiry?
Click to expand...

I think so

Meanwhile, from the Tom Watson letter to David Cameron:

"Since sharing my concerns with you at PMQs, a number of people have come forward to say that they raised their suspicions with the police, but investigations were not carried out. One allegation involves alleged child abuse and a former cabinet minister. We both know that many untruths are told about politicians, but this allegation was specific, informed and appeared well corroborated."
Click to expand...
 
Hmmm - puts hauge in a difficult position if moe shit comes out. Why did he exclude investigating accusations agasint anyone outside the care home when he knew those accused included his cabinet collegue/s.
 
The guardians report that absolves itself of keeping mouth shut:

Cameron and the cabinet secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood, rushed to act as the media threatened to identify the senior Tory figure close to Lady Thatcher alleged to have been involved in the child abuse.
Click to expand...

Threatened? You mean sat on it for two decades.
 
A lot of people may use Mr. Messham's alleged crimes as proof that his account can't be trusted, but we know from countless other tales of abuse victims that "bad" youths are so often chosen by predators in this way precisely because they won't be believed. Plus, one won't find abuse victims always acting in the most restrained and sensible ways. Abuse ruins people, and even good treatment can't eradicate all the damage.
 
Kaka Tim said:
Hmm - two former tory cabinet ministers keep coming up in association with 'the fusileer' and the 'failed reality Tv peresenter' (who was named by tom watson in the commons)
Click to expand...
When did he name names? I only saw the clip of his question at PMQs, which didn't show that. Is it in Hansard?

where to said:
the allegation is that they the attended Pimlico parties hosted by the former tory advisor (who is also a failed reality tv star). these allegations strike me as being less clearcut however - the evidence that supports them doesn't appear to be as strong from my reading of the Scallywag articles.
Click to expand...
One fairly persuasive bit - although I can't recall if it was Scallywag or elsewhere - was that (reportedly) several victims were independently driven round the area and asked to point out the flat, and each pointed out the same one. In the days before Google Streetview, that wouldn't be so easy to orchestrate.

Kaka Tim said:
Hmmm - puts hauge in a difficult position if moe shit comes out.
Click to expand...
Even more so if the tale of his early morning Brighton beach rendezvous has any substance to it. Bang goes plausible deniability.
 
Corax said:
When did he name names? I only saw the clip of his question at PMQs, which didn't show that. Is it in Hansard?


One fairly persuasive bit - although I can't recall if it was Scallywag or elsewhere - was that (reportedly) several victims were independently driven round the area and asked to point out the flat, and each pointed out the same one. In the days before Google Streetview, that wouldn't be so easy to orchestrate.


Even more so if the tale of his early morning Brighton beach rendezvous has any substance to it. Bang goes plausible deniability.
Click to expand...
Hague wasn't old enough to be involved - it's about his role in possibly covering it up that will come under the spotlight - as Minister for Wales. Nor can his career and **'s cross for one MP to meet another on Brighton Beach as fellow MPS to sort shit out due to him not being an MP at the time. Crazy shit getting posted under a thin veil now. Sort it out, check it up before posting ffs.
 
elbows said:
Argh, little else but a flood of anti-semitic horror when I try to find other articles about that.
Click to expand...
I'm not going to be much help on this for now. I can see a defence of the type that peck tried might be normal etc - but for now, can't say anything more.
 
butchersapron said:
Hague wasn't old enough to be involved - it's about his role in possibly covering it up that will come under the spotlight - as Minister for Wales. Nor can his career and LB's cross for one MP to meet another on Brighton Beach as fellow MPS to sort shit out due to him not being an MP at the time. Crazy shit getting posted under a thin veil now. Sort it out, check it up before posting ffs.
Click to expand...
As I said - "if". I don't have the time to research everything I've read about this, and at present I have no idea which bits are true and which aren't. You've helpfully debunked the LB story for me, thanks. xxx :)
 
Corax said:
As I said - "if". I don't have the time to research every thing I've read, and at present I have no idea which bits are true and which aren't. You've helpfully debunked the LB story for me, thanks. :)
Click to expand...
That's an offshoot of the ** theory - not the theory itself!
 
butchersapron said:
That's an offshoot of the ** theory - not the theory itself!
Click to expand...
Not sure I get you. The thing I'd read & was referring to had it that he was shunted to the EU by Hague as a result of an abuse cover-up. But as you've pointed, and wiki "confirms", the dates don't match.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Kid_Eternity
Is a revolution possible in the UK?
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
195
Views
7K
A380
A380
tim
Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby's time is up.
2 3 4
Replies
98
Views
3K
Dom Traynor
Dom Traynor
Buddy Bradley
How long before we get a proper Tory-style sleaze gaffe from Labour?
Replies
0
Views
213
Buddy Bradley
Buddy Bradley
burtabraham
  • Poll
Should there be an elected second chamber, and how should it be elected?
2 3
Replies
63
Views
2K
Puddy_Tat
Puddy_Tat
B
The status of terms 'people of colour' and BIPOC in the UK
2 3 4 5
Replies
144
Views
7K
likesfish
likesfish
Back
Top Bottom