How much evidence is there of long term high level UK paedophile ring?
- Thread starter free spirit
- Start date
toggle
wobbly
thankyou for that. interesting.
They put the boot in to Cyril Smith in the most recent issue. Just a little reminder that our political class has known about noncery within it's own ranks before and covered things up.
I must admit I didn't know much about Mr Smith - PE alleges that Special Branch removed some files from Lancashire police relating to him in 1974 when the Libs were being courted by the Heath and those files then vanished
It was nice to read as well that he helped set up a and became a governer of a special residential school for children which then became mired in sexual abuse scandals and wasn't closed until the mid 90s and his use of lawyers in 1979 to kill of a story about his sexual abuse of boys in another placement he was a governer of.
'One of the most likeable politicians of his day' - Nick Clegg
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Thanks.
says it all really -
on what possible fucking grounds can shit like that stand?
does that Tooter person still post here. Reminded me of a LanceArmstrongbot
Home Secretary Theresa May has warned MPs about naming anyone involved in abuse in North Wales, saying it could harm any future trials.
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2012-11-06/may-warns-mps-not-to-name-those-involved/
Labour's Tom Watson says that the lesson from Hillsborough and hacking is that a narrow-down inquiry is a recipe for a cover-up. He says some paedophiles could remain protected by the establishment if the inquiry is now widened. The police should have the support of child protection experts. He talks about children being abused "from Wales to Whitehall" and says the media are transfixed with the prospect of "a cabinet minister abusing children". All abuse should be investigated, he says. He says that what May has announced amounts to "the next stage of a cover-up".
Some MPs protest at this point.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2012/nov/06/north-wales-abuse-inquries-live-blog
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2012-11-06/may-warns-mps-not-to-name-those-involved/
Labour's Tom Watson says that the lesson from Hillsborough and hacking is that a narrow-down inquiry is a recipe for a cover-up. He says some paedophiles could remain protected by the establishment if the inquiry is now widened. The police should have the support of child protection experts. He talks about children being abused "from Wales to Whitehall" and says the media are transfixed with the prospect of "a cabinet minister abusing children". All abuse should be investigated, he says. He says that what May has announced amounts to "the next stage of a cover-up".
Some MPs protest at this point.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2012/nov/06/north-wales-abuse-inquries-live-blog
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
This was Waterhouse's mad logic for not naming names. The tories have jumped the wrong way on this - this is going to be incredibly politically damaging.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Yes, this is what we are after - did they vet people and come up with stuff that they passed onto the political side. Key as fuck.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
It'd allow abuse scandals large and small to be looked at while limiting the possibility of cover-up. Without a full public enquiry there's always the distinct possibility of cover-up.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
The initial police investigation to report by april 2013 (which means later). And they had people asking questions to make sure that the police investigation will be given priority over the independent investigation - i.e that shit has to wait. They are going to force this beyond may 2015. They have their plan.
Badger Kitten
oof
There is a theory that the security service
A) knew of the existence of the parties/proclivities and were required to cover up UK politician involvement in order to protect state from scandal, loss of public confidence in government etc
And
B) went further and used covert filming at parties (or placed orders from targets requesting tapes and pics from parties) from foreign diplomats and others they wanted to have a hold over.
Anyone else heard of this theory?
A) knew of the existence of the parties/proclivities and were required to cover up UK politician involvement in order to protect state from scandal, loss of public confidence in government etc
And
B) went further and used covert filming at parties (or placed orders from targets requesting tapes and pics from parties) from foreign diplomats and others they wanted to have a hold over.
Anyone else heard of this theory?
Badger Kitten
oof
And that this is why there was an amnesty on publicizing or prosecuting attendees and alleged abusers in Waterhouse.
Badger Kitten
oof
Meanwhile I think the DA notice wrt Ore was simply because Blair needed all bums on seats to get Iraq war vote through at the time. MPs being suspended at the time would have impacted his go to war vote.
marty21
One on one? You're crazy.
particularly as most of the names being bandied about are Tories , they will probably delay the enquiry reporting until after the election
Badger Kitten
oof
From Yes Minister
'"It is only totalitarian governments that suppress facts. In this country we simply take a democratic decision not to publish them."
"How to discredit an unwelcome report:
Stage One: Refuse to publish in the public interest saying
1. There are security considerations.
2. The findings could be misinterpreted.
3. You are waiting for the results of a wider and more detailed report which is still in preparation. (If there isn't one, commission it; this gives you even more time).
Stage Two: Discredit the evidence you are not publishing, saying
1. It leaves important questions unanswered.
2. Much of the evidence is inconclusive.
3. The figures are open to other interpretations.
4. Certain findings are contradictory.
5. Some of the main conclusions have been questioned. (If they haven't, question them yourself; then they have).
Stage Three: Undermine the recommendations. Suggested phrases:
1. 'Not really a basis for long term decisions'.
2. 'Not sufficient information on which to base a valid assessment'.
3. 'No reason for any fundamental rethink of existing policy'.
4. 'Broadly speaking, it endorses current practice'.
Stage Four: Discredit the person who produced the report. Explain (off the record) that
1. He is harbouring a grudge against the Department.
2. He is a publicity seeker.
3. He is trying to get a Knighthood/Chair/Vice Chancellorship.
4. He used to be a consultant to a multinational.
5. He wants to be a consultant to a multinational."
"To suppress an internal government report, rewrite it as official advice to the Minister. Then it is against the rules to publish it, so you can leak the bits you want to friendly journalists."
'"It is only totalitarian governments that suppress facts. In this country we simply take a democratic decision not to publish them."
"How to discredit an unwelcome report:
Stage One: Refuse to publish in the public interest saying
1. There are security considerations.
2. The findings could be misinterpreted.
3. You are waiting for the results of a wider and more detailed report which is still in preparation. (If there isn't one, commission it; this gives you even more time).
Stage Two: Discredit the evidence you are not publishing, saying
1. It leaves important questions unanswered.
2. Much of the evidence is inconclusive.
3. The figures are open to other interpretations.
4. Certain findings are contradictory.
5. Some of the main conclusions have been questioned. (If they haven't, question them yourself; then they have).
Stage Three: Undermine the recommendations. Suggested phrases:
1. 'Not really a basis for long term decisions'.
2. 'Not sufficient information on which to base a valid assessment'.
3. 'No reason for any fundamental rethink of existing policy'.
4. 'Broadly speaking, it endorses current practice'.
Stage Four: Discredit the person who produced the report. Explain (off the record) that
1. He is harbouring a grudge against the Department.
2. He is a publicity seeker.
3. He is trying to get a Knighthood/Chair/Vice Chancellorship.
4. He used to be a consultant to a multinational.
5. He wants to be a consultant to a multinational."
"To suppress an internal government report, rewrite it as official advice to the Minister. Then it is against the rules to publish it, so you can leak the bits you want to friendly journalists."
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
They will - which is going to extend it and the association of kiddy fucking with tories until at least the election - big big gamble.
gosub
~#
But the term public enquiry is a misnoma, most of the submitions would have to be taken in camera
marty21
One on one? You're crazy.
true - but they'd be more fucked politically if it comes out before the next election - if the allegations against senior Tories are true
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Not at all - the waterhouse inquiry, which was the most serious type of inquiry available, was carried out in public.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
This is one of the interesting aspects - the new generation trying to cover their own back and that of the previous one at the same time and how those agendas might clash.
Similar threads
- Poll
