bluescreen
tofu eating wokerati
Sharing your questioning of Exaro. Not that I necessarily distrust them, but I don't automatically trust them either.
How much evidence is there of long term high level UK paedophile ring?
- Thread starter free spirit
- Start date
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
You're dismissing claims because we don't know enough about them whilst lambasting others for even letting them into the research further ledger because we don't know enough about them. It's an odd inconsistent stance.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I trust them, that's why we have to be very careful. Equally, diamond doesn't trust them which is why he needs to be very careful about chucking anything they come up with out.
bluescreen
tofu eating wokerati
They're heavily invested in this. So I think they must believe it. I find that more credible than the alternative narrative that they are establishment stooges.
Two of the three that I know are very far from being socialists. But no, it's not plausible that they're stooges.
(Unless, that is, one subscribes to the join-the-dots paranoia that holds that because I have met a past Secretary of the D-Notice Committee, you are a stooge...)
bluescreen
tofu eating wokerati
Or patsies. Surely they are too smart to fall for anything like that.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Exaro don't have to completely buy into every detail that every witness tells them in order to report on things in the way they have been doing for some years now.
They are clearly interested in many things. Keeping the stories alive to maintain pressure. Encouraging other witnesses and victims to come forwards, and supporting them when they do. Placing pressure on police & CPS where it looks like decisions not to prosecute or investigate further are taken too lightly. The opportunity to do proper investigative reporting of stories that they are not in competition with too many other media entities over. Drawing attention towards their own publication. In my book the main things they've been guilty of so far actually happened quite a while ago - encouraging too much optimism about how imminent certain arrests were ages ago. And at times stretching too few details into a few too many stories. They will have to make a lot more serious mistakes before I'd begin to be at a point of judging them to be doing more harm than good.
They are clearly interested in many things. Keeping the stories alive to maintain pressure. Encouraging other witnesses and victims to come forwards, and supporting them when they do. Placing pressure on police & CPS where it looks like decisions not to prosecute or investigate further are taken too lightly. The opportunity to do proper investigative reporting of stories that they are not in competition with too many other media entities over. Drawing attention towards their own publication. In my book the main things they've been guilty of so far actually happened quite a while ago - encouraging too much optimism about how imminent certain arrests were ages ago. And at times stretching too few details into a few too many stories. They will have to make a lot more serious mistakes before I'd begin to be at a point of judging them to be doing more harm than good.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Report key word here.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Since its right on present topic direction to finally respond to this...
Yes, and even without advice from the Met I reckon they are probably well-versed in the sorts of detail it is responsible to leave out when an investigation is at this stage in relation to potential prosecutions and discovery of victims.
They even said this in one of their articles about 'Nick':
There are ways things can go wrong in future, in theory, but not many (or perhaps any) of them in my mind involve anything Exaro has said so far. And part of the reason I reject fears about a repeat of the McAlpine-Messham stuff is that such an outcome required a specific set of attributes in order to go that way. The media actually naming the alleged perpetrator, combined with not having received the name from multiple independent victims/witnesses, plus an apparent case of mistaken identity, quite possibly caused by dubious practices by a journalist many years earlier. And at a time when a bunch of police investigations into historical abuse by political perpetrators were not up and running.
Plus the politicians didn't use the accusations of murder to undermine the credibility of investigations. May had enough of a clue to use the revelations as an opportunity to make the right noises and use the language of taking things very seriously.
They can't get the outcome they ultimately seek, of being able to 'draw a line under things' (bleurgh), simply by relying on elements of the press to mess things up, or of too many 'fantastical' tales emerging.
I'm not lambasting anyone - not sure where you got that impression from but please don't misrepresent my posts.
Nor is my stance inconsistent in the slightest.
I am not dismissing any claims, I am simply saying that when we have reached the stage that we have now, and given what we do and do not know about the circumstances in which these claims have arisen, it is perhaps wise to focus a bit more on the process that produced them while still keeping an eye on their substance.
It seems to me that there are broadly three categories of knowledge here:
(i) What has been proven - that Peter Hayman was a member of the Paedophile Information Exchange, that he was a member of the establishment and that the establishment protected him as best it could using contemporaneous legislation.
(ii) What is claimed - roughly in ascending order, coordinated child sex abuse by members of the establishment, that was protected by the security services and involved the murder of those children.
(iii) Further speculation - that the information under category (ii) was used as a tool to influence those in power.
Of category (i), there is nothing more to say, of category (ii), the focus should be upon a detailed examination of its contents and, more to the point, how these claims came about, while category (iii) should be treated as being so contingent as to be of little use whatsoever.
The problem with conspiratorial thinking is that it outstrips itself at such speed that one can construct almost any theory with remarkable results because of an increasing readiness to accept the kind of contingent thinking that lends itself to category (iii).
(i) What has been proven - that Peter Hayman was a member of the Paedophile Information Exchange, that he was a member of the establishment and that the establishment protected him as best it could using contemporaneous legislation.
(ii) What is claimed - roughly in ascending order, coordinated child sex abuse by members of the establishment, that was protected by the security services and involved the murder of those children.
(iii) Further speculation - that the information under category (ii) was used as a tool to influence those in power.
Of category (i), there is nothing more to say, of category (ii), the focus should be upon a detailed examination of its contents and, more to the point, how these claims came about, while category (iii) should be treated as being so contingent as to be of little use whatsoever.
The problem with conspiratorial thinking is that it outstrips itself at such speed that one can construct almost any theory with remarkable results because of an increasing readiness to accept the kind of contingent thinking that lends itself to category (iii).
elbows
Well-Known Member
One of the interesting things about the current process and the substance, as far as what is presently available in the public domain (as opposed to e.g. what the police know so far) is that in many areas its not substantively different to that that could have been learnt by studying historical rumours. Thats a useful thing to know that came out of exploring those rumours a long time ago on this thread. Exceptions to this are that we now have quite a list of dead names, and a list of names that include some still alive, in relation to one very specific line of inquiry. And there is at least one new rumour that, as far as I know, hadn't made it into print before recent times.
This is an admittedly rather barmy website (with an impressively old school approach) but it provides an interesting take on things and apparently sprung up in opposition to the original SRA panic:
http://www.saff.ukhq.co.uk/dickens.htm
It claims that there were 7 dickens dossiers in total and that they sprawled from allegations against Hayman and the PIE, through to the current day Westminster abuse scandal and along the way took in apparently homophobic accusations at Buckingham palace before ending up at SRA and the procedure used to look into it.
The picture they paint of Dickens is of a very opinionated, bigoted, energetic and unreliable character.
http://www.saff.ukhq.co.uk/dickens.htm
It claims that there were 7 dickens dossiers in total and that they sprawled from allegations against Hayman and the PIE, through to the current day Westminster abuse scandal and along the way took in apparently homophobic accusations at Buckingham palace before ending up at SRA and the procedure used to look into it.
The picture they paint of Dickens is of a very opinionated, bigoted, energetic and unreliable character.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Various authorities are content to use the language of proven facts when describing a bunch of Cyril Smith stuff, so I think its quite reasonable to add these to the list. For example:
(taken from wikipedia to save time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_Smith )
There are lots of other Cyril Smith strands that we may or may not ever learn enough about to add to the proven pile.
More to the point of where we are at right now with this particular discussion maybe, but surely not more to the point of investigations than the content. Either the content becomes strong enough to lead to prosecutions or official narratives about the crimes of deceased perpetrators, or it doesn't. Because if there is one difference between how the police etc will treat reports of sex crimes now compared to how they often did before the post-Savile shitstorm, its that the reality (or the impression) that early investigational work will excessively focus on the credibility and motives of the victim was part of the historical problem that must now be overcome.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Although I've been happy to share various thoughts on Dickens the person in this thread, the bottom line for me is that we should probably think of him as mostly a conduit for forwarding material his constituents and other members of the public sent to him, to higher offices.
I've not looked at that link yet, since not in the mood to look at anything barmy right now. But the report that came out recently into allegations of coverup/missing home office files, or one of the previous investigations into this issue, certainly went into detail about some of the correspondence of Dickens that could still be found on file. And one of those cases did involve someone who was upset that 'their son had become homosexual as a result of experiences when working at Buckingham Palace'.
It's definitely worth a read actually - going through it now, it's well evidenced and well reasoned. Whoever wrote it clearly knows their stuff, presumably because they were at the receiving end of Dickens' SRA ire nearly 20 years ago.
I had no idea that Dickens was the main political proponent of SRA in the UK before I raised it in relation to these abuse allegations - it simply struck me that similar questions were starting to arise.
e2a - amusing to add that that website has Dickens and Cyril Smith collaborating on a Bananarama charity single...
I had no idea that Dickens was the main political proponent of SRA in the UK before I raised it in relation to these abuse allegations - it simply struck me that similar questions were starting to arise.
e2a - amusing to add that that website has Dickens and Cyril Smith collaborating on a Bananarama charity single...
elbows
Well-Known Member
Dickens also featured in my posts several times prior in this thread because some time ago when I briefly had a cheap subscription to online historical archive of crap newspapers like the Express, a couple of stories about him caught my eye. It was possible to add a little more meat to the bones of how he was treated on the occasions he was making a real nuisance of himself by doing stuff like '(ab)using parliamentary privilege' in regards Peter Hayman.
In particular, that when he scheduled a press-conference to talk about such stuff, he instead had to turn it into a press conference about the affair he had been having, and how he was leaving his wife (he went back to her later if I recall). Exquisite timing, though I doubt I'll ever find out exactly how the press came to be aware of the affair, and there are explanations which are no more sinister than the usual press expose thang.
In particular, that when he scheduled a press-conference to talk about such stuff, he instead had to turn it into a press conference about the affair he had been having, and how he was leaving his wife (he went back to her later if I recall). Exquisite timing, though I doubt I'll ever find out exactly how the press came to be aware of the affair, and there are explanations which are no more sinister than the usual press expose thang.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Theres been one reported victim who included abuse of a type that wasn't described in detail in the article, committed by a drunk female at one of the parties. I forget off the top of my head what 'rank' she was said to be, quite possibly MP.
As for the mental stuff, its an example of attitudes relating to homosexuality muddying the waters for sure. There were other details I didn't mention that could link it to other stuff that has a more solid foundation though, its rather unclear, and the report was a bit nervous about going into any detail that could identify the potential victim, whether or not they were an actual victim.
Last edited:
elbows
Well-Known Member
Regarding the Royal case specifically, see pages 16 & 17 of this for a start, i.e. the report stuff I've just been going on about thats relevant to this case. And the last three paragraphs of page 25, and page 26 for Leon Brittans reply to Dickens about this matter in particular.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...data/file/372926/Interim_Report_-_Annex_E.PDF
The website that I linked to has a transcript of the letter so I am aware of its contents. Useful link nonetheless.
Thinking more about Dickens involvement here, there are so many potentially awful consequences of his actions on SRA.
What is apparent most clearly from the "paedophile rings" uncovered recently is that children and teenagers in care are exceptionally vulnerable to abuse.
Which rather begs the question, how many children and teenagers were abused in care because of Dickens' obsession with sexual deviancy, having been removed from their family because of his politicking?
What is apparent most clearly from the "paedophile rings" uncovered recently is that children and teenagers in care are exceptionally vulnerable to abuse.
Which rather begs the question, how many children and teenagers were abused in care because of Dickens' obsession with sexual deviancy, having been removed from their family because of his politicking?
elbows
Well-Known Member
Well thats certainly one area where that website tries too hard, it describes those Brittan replies in a manner that multiplies their significance and scope too much. Hopefully you can tell that I've been uninterested in inflating the importance of Dickens 'dossiers' for a long time. But given how meticulous that site comes across as being when is as it puts names and dates of all different sorts of Dickens dossiers, its a bit odd that they want to describe the response from Brittan as being a response to 'the Westminster Dossier'. As part of a balanced diet the site appears to be fine for adding to the picture.
Another reason for people to rebalance the importance of Dickens dossiers in their mind is that it's fairly likely that sections of the press have, at times, been using aspects of the Dickens dossier story and cover-up as placeholders or providers of innuendo for stories they cannot tell properly and people they cannot name at the moment. Other ways to achieve the same result have been gifted to them recently, so perhaps the importance attached to Dickens stuff will diminish.
Oh come on!
That is truly magical thinking.
"The papers can't say what they mean but they are indicating the truth to me by saying something else and I have insight into what that truth really is."
That's semantically preposterous.
e2a - are you saying that website is factually incorrect because, if so, I would be interested to know on what basis?
elbows
Well-Known Member
Those who have been paying attention know that whilst the situation created at times is indeed preposterous, what I am describing has in fact actually been happening. Except you do a great disservice to the picture I am describing by repeatedly using the word 'truth'. I am not claiming that the press know a truth, and that I also know it to be true. What Im saying is the press know a story, or rather a collection of stories. So do lots of other people, because the internet exists, and a lot of the stories have been around a long time. And sections of the press will try to hint at the story, or wink at those readers who already think they are in the know, or attempt to create pressure that would change the situation in a manner that let them say a little more of the story.
And indeed in this case, more of the stories have come out over time, although not to the extent that the innuendo is gone. But not long ago it reached so far that it looked like we wouldnt have to speak in silly riddles about it anymore at all, but that hasnt quite proven to be the case, hence my waffle. I probably haven't adjusted to the latest reality and am being a bit more cautious than I need to be right now, but since I don't have parliamentary privilege or a good legal team, I'm not about to misspeak now.
But to be clear, I'm talking about one specific name, and when I speak of press innuendo I am certainly making some comparisons to the kind of hideous homophobic sneering that certain publications have had a field day with when certain politicians have almost been dragged out of the closet by sustained rumour. Regardless or not of whether any of it is true, I can observe it as a phenomenon without concluding that there is no smoke without fire.
Last edited:
So, to be clear, you are talking about rumour and innuendo?
elbows
Well-Known Member
On what basis can the site use the few Dickens letters, both to and from him, to make the claim in big red letters 'Allegations against Leon Brittan utterly false'?
They do a fine job of alerting people to all the overblown dodgy crap of Dickens, and all the reasons that undue emphasis should not be attached to tales of his dossiers being suppressed. I was simply complaining that they over-egged the extent that the letters prove their own case against Dickens.
They said quite specifically that the dossier was just another collection of third-hand tittle-tattle sent to him in letters which didn't stand the test of law.
That is certainly true of some of the material he gave to the Home Office. However there is much that is not covered by the material available, and even the letter they have transcribed includes the following:
In other words, for me even if 99% of what Dickens forwarded to the home office was useless, there is no need to pretend that it was 100%. Because even in some fucked up world where most victims were actually fakes, its not right to use that to make the genuine ones vanish from the picture.
Last edited:
At the very least that website raises serious questions about the provenance of the person, Dickens, who initially made these allegations and the style in which he chose to advance them.
I was not aware of any of this until earlier this afternoon and it has been widely overlooked and / or ignored in the reporting to date, perhaps on the recommendation of those now conducting the multiple inquiries that relate to his allegations.
I was too young to experience the SRA stuff first hand but did a fair bit of research into it a few years ago as a matter of interest - were you aware of the allegations then and, if so, what was your view on Dickens at the time and subsequently?
Similar threads
- Poll
