How much evidence is there of long term high level UK paedophile ring?
- Thread starter free spirit
- Start date
hot air baboon
Well-Known Member
.....pure unadulterated bullshitters / fantasists / time-wasters are probably ( one would hope ) easy enough for competent investigators to trip up through basic interview technique..although more difficult for "spectators" to take a view on...
...where you go down the rabbit-hole is having to unscramble issues like : the testimony of genuinley troubled or even traumatised victims of some type of abuse being able to identify all the who/what/where etc elements that need to be made legally watertight, that fact they seem to be going after stuff from decades ago where building up all the supporting evidence is going to be that much more difficult , dealing with criminal low-lifes who may genuinley be involved or have knowledge about this type of underground activity but who also make rotten witnesses , have all sorts of incentives to incriminate others or fabricate / embroider a story...
...corroboration also becomes problematic once the sensational front page stories get disseminated into public consciousness - as this blog post addresses...
Exaro News Is Playing A Dangerous Game With Its Paedophile Murder Story
http://barristerblogger.com/2014/11/16/exaro-news-playing-dangerous-game-paedophile-murder-story/
the first effect of broadcasting Nick’s detailed allegations is that anybody wishing to make a false allegation has now been given not just rumours, which in truth have been flying around on the internet for years, but a detailed and apparently first-hand description of exactly how another witness says the abuse took place. This, of course, flies in the face of good policing practice in which the account of one witness is never given to other potential witnesses precisely because of the danger of contamination.
...but yeah..thinking about the whole dot-joining thing......I had a chill down my back when I realised I was at school with "Dave"...one of the Elm Guest House victims.....there’s no doubt its him….really brings it all home to you...but for a pure accident of birth could have ended up in exactly the same position.....his younger brother Peter wasn't so lucky and commited suicide....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...phile-victim-I-forced-wear-fairy-costume.html
.....I remember him very well....as a bit of a cocky, disruptive little so-and-so but no worse than a lot of others.....but exactly as the article says......"They would pick out the pretty boys, especially the ones who looked young for their age".......small stature, with very long eye-lashes...
...where you go down the rabbit-hole is having to unscramble issues like : the testimony of genuinley troubled or even traumatised victims of some type of abuse being able to identify all the who/what/where etc elements that need to be made legally watertight, that fact they seem to be going after stuff from decades ago where building up all the supporting evidence is going to be that much more difficult , dealing with criminal low-lifes who may genuinley be involved or have knowledge about this type of underground activity but who also make rotten witnesses , have all sorts of incentives to incriminate others or fabricate / embroider a story...
...corroboration also becomes problematic once the sensational front page stories get disseminated into public consciousness - as this blog post addresses...
Exaro News Is Playing A Dangerous Game With Its Paedophile Murder Story
http://barristerblogger.com/2014/11/16/exaro-news-playing-dangerous-game-paedophile-murder-story/
the first effect of broadcasting Nick’s detailed allegations is that anybody wishing to make a false allegation has now been given not just rumours, which in truth have been flying around on the internet for years, but a detailed and apparently first-hand description of exactly how another witness says the abuse took place. This, of course, flies in the face of good policing practice in which the account of one witness is never given to other potential witnesses precisely because of the danger of contamination.
...but yeah..thinking about the whole dot-joining thing......I had a chill down my back when I realised I was at school with "Dave"...one of the Elm Guest House victims.....there’s no doubt its him….really brings it all home to you...but for a pure accident of birth could have ended up in exactly the same position.....his younger brother Peter wasn't so lucky and commited suicide....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...phile-victim-I-forced-wear-fairy-costume.html
.....I remember him very well....as a bit of a cocky, disruptive little so-and-so but no worse than a lot of others.....but exactly as the article says......"They would pick out the pretty boys, especially the ones who looked young for their age".......small stature, with very long eye-lashes...
Last edited:
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
Since we're not privvy to any police reports on those they have interviewed everything else on this thread is largely assumption and/or guesswork (perhaps with the exception the good with of a few news outlets in covering the story and in depth such as Exaro)
So I guess you either apply those standards in full or you don't.
I'm not sure which of those people who have come forward you could consider "bullshitters". Ben Fellows, yes, but as with all bullshitters their story falls apart very quickly once people start asking questions to which they don't have more specific answers. I'm sure those interviewed by Exaro in the presence of The Met have very credible stories to tell.
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
I agree with all of this - aside from making a little note about Exaro's interview with 'Nick'. I agreed with the blog when I first read it (a few days ago) But I'd imagine that there were many more details left out that anyone claiming to have been abused would be able to make mention of. I'd be very surprised if Exaro who sat in with his interview with The Met, were not advised about what they should and shouldn't put. Although Im sure it's quite possible that a mistake has been made.
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Which would either stand up a lot of the current and past stories, or help to separate fact from fiction.
My major worry with regard to any testimony, whether by known quantities or newly-brought-to-light perpetrators or victims, is that human memory is very easily warped, polluted or otherwise tainted. Just the act of reading a bit of newspaper sensationalism can have an effect on victim and perpetrator testimony, and the ongoing coverage provides (pardon the pun) coverage that the lawyers of any paedophiles brought to court will use in order to demonstrate that witness testimony is hopelessly tainted by decades of media schlock.
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
Suppose I've only kept up with these issues as general news stories, indeed urban is my main source when it comes to more in depth stuff. For those who have done detailed research, what are the chances of all this translating into an arrest of a senior political/establishment figure? My guess is we are still hovering around zero. Just possible a tory mp from the 80s, long since abandoned by their party could get it. There are possibilities, no more than that, that local councillors and even senior-ish civil servants might do time. However it seems inconceivable that a former or current cabinet member will do time. Not quite a waste of time, but not much good comes out of the whole process for survivors.
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
Most of the names that have been touted as being involved, are dead. So even if they were guilty there's obviously going to be no arrests. As of the others - well the police are slow to act. Whether that's because they are 'lining their ducks up' as it were, or because they are under pressure not to start charging politicians, I don't know. There was an article the other day about Leon Brittan saying that some of the allegations made in the past were in fact an MI5 plot to smear him as he wanted to "shake up" the organisation, and because he was Jewish. Edit: Brittan at the time made play of this to other journos as IIRC it was reported in Private Eye.
One name mentioned was apparently captured on a video tape at a party and in the same frame as someone who has claimed he was abused. As a result the figure concenred had no option but to admit they were present. Again, what this means as far as prosecutions go is down to the police and if they feel it's worth pursuing or if they get the MI5 collywobbles.
It's clear that arrests were made in the past of known paedophiles and people at care homes who were involved in some sort of child sex ring. Several retired police have said they knew prominent abusers were involved but they were "scared off" investigating. I suspect that much of the information from those original enquiries went missing and is not available to police today - hence the length of time its taking to put the missing pieces back together - and the appeal last week for retured detectives to come forward with any information.
Last edited:
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Get tae fuck.
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
Suppose I'm almost wanting to gauge their anxiety. A generation of politico-rapists will have gone through 20-30 years of hearing their names whispered, touched on in private eye and now in corners of the internet. It's obvious they will have shit themselves in the post-Savile world as a few (entertainment) household names were interviewed and, what, about 4 have done time? At the same time they won't quite have shaken off the idea the law doesn't apply to people like them - though they'll be thinking about the dirt they will threaten to dish if the police do go for them. Anyway, working on the assumption that the 'big beasts' will never see the inside of cell, never mind a police station, I'd just like some reassurance that they are not getting a good night's sleep.
sotsialenru
New Member
спасибо я даже не знала)
Интернет магазин одежды SOTSIALEN.RU
Интернет магазин одежды SOTSIALEN.RU
I work for a solicitor (as a gardener)who has made a career out of child abuse cases - his case loads run into thousands...but the emphasis always seems to be based around compensation rather than any attempt to bring perpetrators to justice. He is dealing with over a dozen schools in Norfolk and Suffolk where there is a three cornered narrative involving the schools (board, trustees and management), the insurance companies and the legal process which generally allows for monetary compensation - (approx £40,000 would be an average payout). While a financial settlement could be seen as better than years of disbelief, this paying off and settlements with various non-disclosure clauses does not lead to any real sense of justice.
The solicitor (and, I am sure, the courts) have full awareness that a number of claimants have not suffered any abuse but accepts a more sweeping generalisation. I have very mixed feelings about this and cannot help feeling that everyone, from the courts, the schools and other institutions and certainly the whole legal process benefit from what continues to be a cover-up.
The solicitor (and, I am sure, the courts) have full awareness that a number of claimants have not suffered any abuse but accepts a more sweeping generalisation. I have very mixed feelings about this and cannot help feeling that everyone, from the courts, the schools and other institutions and certainly the whole legal process benefit from what continues to be a cover-up.
maomao
普費斯
Добро пожаловать. Это говорит английский сайт.
1%er
Well-Known Member
The channel 4 Documentary "The Paedophile Next Door" aired last night (25th Nov2014) can be viewed here, for people who don't have access to British TV.
I have not had the chance to watch it so can not comment on its content.
I have not had the chance to watch it so can not comment on its content.
elbows
Well-Known Member
The one upside to the number that escaped justice by dying is that it potentially gives the various non-police inquiries something to get their teeth into. We might actually get to hear about some of their offences and the ways in which they exploited their power to commit them, in the same way that various Savile inquiries have at least been able to start touching on such stuff when it came to him. We've seen a preview of this via some Cyril Smith stuff, but they'll have to go a lot deeper than they have so far in order for anyone to think we've really explored the issues properly.
And if various institutions prove unwilling to deliver frank narratives about the crimes of even deceased people, then I can make a judgement about their sincerity, levels of elite fear, fresh coverup etc based on that. Phew, I don't have to rely only on thinking I actually already know which of the still living suspects are actually guilty, and that any failure to prosecute particular individuals is concrete proof of a fresh coverup.
elbows
Well-Known Member
It will be some time yet before my hopes go permanently down and hover around zero, although there are some days where they do. I also have to try to remember that many of the factors that reduce the chances of it happening aren't sinister. There aren't likely to be that many cabinet level abusers to choose from because not that many people have been a minister. And given the fact that the whole era of abuse gained fresh attention because Savile died, its sadly not surprising that death or infirmity will be a legitimate excuse for non-prosecution in some cases.
Thats not to dismiss the multitude of more sinister reasons why things may not be properly explored, ranging from how effective at destroying all useful evidence, including witnesses, past coverups were, to the various potential levels of spookery that might be involved in the full story.
Right now I can't do justice to the full question of how much good for survivors comes from everything that is happening post-Savile. But I will say that the desire to focus on perpetrators with the very highest levels of power in the land, whilst very understandable and interesting for a number of reasons, is probably given a prominence which is quite out of whack with the actual number of offenders with other levels of power, and their respective victims. Certainly, as with various celebrity cases, it is important the survivors, victims of the future, and indeed potential perpetrators of tomorrow, receive examples showing that those who had silly amounts of power to throw around are not always immune from prosecution. So it is a nervous time waiting to see if enough victims come forwards and the forces of coverup prove weak enough that we get some high level prosecutions. But meanwhile much good is still being done by the new climate for justice that is resulting in court action against 'lesser individuals'. After all, there are many ways to gain enough power over someone to be able to abuse them, and enough other institutions beyond the political to act as enablers of abuse.
Buckaroo
Donkey piss and tractors
What?
elbows
Well-Known Member
My stance over the course of the thread is mostly, and to a tedious extent, grounded by the need for concrete, tested evidence. I may wander a tad at times because peoples concerns must be taken seriously, victims must not be discouraged, there are various questions to be answered, historical rumours and their modern incarnations are an interesting subject in themselves, etc. To discuss all possibilities properly, I will likely sometimes go beyond employing only assumptions that are completely safe and up to proper evidence-based standards. But not to the extent that I could demand that the justice system operate with such flexibility when it came to evidence too, or go around shouting that failure to prosecute automatically equals cover-up.
Dogsauce
I’ve got Skol but I’m not a Scholar
If someone as insignificant (in the overall scheme of things) as Rebekah Brooks can walk despite clear evidence and admission of wrongdoing, don't expect a more seriously connected political figure to do time for anything. It'll all be blamed on the dead or on political minnows in the town hall.
Fair enough but I think one needs to draw a distinction between what is known and what remains unproven.
For instance, I find it very difficult to believe that young boys were snatched off of the street or else passed on to abusers by their parents for monetary reward and then murdered for sexual gratification by groups of people at Elm Guest House or anywhere else for that matter, regardless of the alleged offenders' social status, without any significant alarm being raised at the time or subsequently.
This whole thing is starting to take on a moral panic dimension, which seems rather odd.
Paedophile rings, if that is what you want to call them (when concerted abuse is probably more accurate, IMO) are well evidenced at the moment in a number of different scenarios.
What these purported historic cases seem to show, by contrast, is a degree of scale and secret organisation which runs counter to common sense.
Rotherham was a paedophile ring, if you want to use that term effectively. Savile, also, was a coordinated paedophile.
I fully accept that I may be wrong on this point, but the idea of a shadowy cabal, protected by the security services, abusing and murdering at will in recent history seems absurd.
Last edited:
DaveCinzano
WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!
Apropos of nothing, I believe that Diane Tudway is the wife of former National Coordinator Domestic Extremism Det Ch Supt Adrian Tudway. Can anyone confirm?
free spirit
more tea vicar?
and yet we have an ex deputy director of MI6, and the prime ministers private secretary accused directly amongst others, and multiple credible reports (by former newspaper editors) of the use of D notices, intimidation by special branch, local police investigations being quashed or taken over and dropped by special branch etc.
Not to mention the multiple accounts of basically the same thing happening to abused kids from different parts of the country in terms of the paedo sex parties in the same few locations in London, and the widespread abuse happening in their home areas never gets properly investigated, with obvious signs of the investigations that do happen being subverted / not published / organisations like scallywag being shut down by unlikely alliances of powerful politically connected london types and local Welsh coppers.
I suppose the way to look at this when it comes to motivations for covering up actual murders of one or more of the kids involved would be to put yourself in the shoes of any of those who were witnesses to it. Either they're abused kids who'll be treated as CTer nutjobs if they went public with these allegations, or they'd be senior figures who's lives would be entirely wrecked if they were to go to the police and inform them about what they'd witnessed while participating in a paedophile orgy. And let's not forget that several did come forward, 20-25 years ago, and were treated as CTer nutjobs, as were those publishing their allegations before the establishment conspired to use the courts to shut them down and bankrupt them.
Either a hell of a lot of those raising their concerns now are lying, which would include former newspaper editors, former coppers etc as well as those who're alleging they were abused, or this actually did happen, and by the looks of things, to a far greater extent than I'd have thought likely to be credible when I started this thread.
Here's a former editor of the Mirror explaining how Peter Morrison escaped public exposure / trial in his lifetime, to give an idea of how it seems to have worked, with powerful people like him somehow able to pull rank with arresting officer, get the matter kicked upstairs where they knew that it would then be hushed up.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
Somewhere in this thread there'll be a link to an article with an explanation that still seems to resonate for me.
Basically explaining that the prevailing attitude among the upper ranks of the security services and special branch at the time was that protecting the establishment was the priority, and if that meant covering up a few indiscretions involving no mark kids from children's homes in the provinces, then so be it.... especially as it then gave those who'd done the covering up a hold over those they then held the incriminating files on, and could then rely on them to do their bidding when they needed something.
Bearing in mind these were old cold war warriors who'd learned their trade at the height of the cold war, and saw their role primarily as being to prevent a communist take over, and ensure continuity of their preferred flavor of UK government at all costs.
And also remember these are the same types who'd later think nothing of allowing generations of undercover coppers to sleep with, form relationships with, and even have children with political activists from the groups they were infiltrating. It's all justifiable means to an end for these fuckers, and I'd imagine that having this sort of dirt on someone who was the deputy chairman of the tory party, and later Thatchers private secretary and election campaign manager, would have seemed pretty valuable to them.
Basically explaining that the prevailing attitude among the upper ranks of the security services and special branch at the time was that protecting the establishment was the priority, and if that meant covering up a few indiscretions involving no mark kids from children's homes in the provinces, then so be it.... especially as it then gave those who'd done the covering up a hold over those they then held the incriminating files on, and could then rely on them to do their bidding when they needed something.
Bearing in mind these were old cold war warriors who'd learned their trade at the height of the cold war, and saw their role primarily as being to prevent a communist take over, and ensure continuity of their preferred flavor of UK government at all costs.
And also remember these are the same types who'd later think nothing of allowing generations of undercover coppers to sleep with, form relationships with, and even have children with political activists from the groups they were infiltrating. It's all justifiable means to an end for these fuckers, and I'd imagine that having this sort of dirt on someone who was the deputy chairman of the tory party, and later Thatchers private secretary and election campaign manager, would have seemed pretty valuable to them.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
One of the more intriguing aspects of this situation for me, assuming that those doing the covering up were doing it at least in part to give them a level of control over those who's crimes they'd covered up..... is what did they then do with that control over those high up political assets?
On that point, I'd have to make the link between the cover ups involving Morrison, and the incredibly bad campaign he's supposed to have run for Thatchers re-election (as leader), and part he played in her decision to step down after asking the opinions of individual cabinet members.
Having someone who's that badly compromised in charge of the prime ministers campaign for survival seems pretty suspicious to me, particularly when he does such a terrible job of it.
All of which is very much CTer territory, but I think it's more stretching credibility to assume that those who've covered up his crimes haven't then used it to influence his actions in any way as a result, than it is to think that they would have used their hold over him to influence his actions when he was in a position to determine the fate of a prime minister who was never really considered to be one of them / the establishment.
On that point, I'd have to make the link between the cover ups involving Morrison, and the incredibly bad campaign he's supposed to have run for Thatchers re-election (as leader), and part he played in her decision to step down after asking the opinions of individual cabinet members.
Having someone who's that badly compromised in charge of the prime ministers campaign for survival seems pretty suspicious to me, particularly when he does such a terrible job of it.
All of which is very much CTer territory, but I think it's more stretching credibility to assume that those who've covered up his crimes haven't then used it to influence his actions in any way as a result, than it is to think that they would have used their hold over him to influence his actions when he was in a position to determine the fate of a prime minister who was never really considered to be one of them / the establishment.
Similar threads
- Poll
