Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

el-ahrairah said:
16 years, well that's something i guess.
Click to expand...
Well, I don't know. Maybe it's just me but I reckon some people need locking up for the safety of the community and for other offenders pointing and jeering is enough. I haven't followed the case so don't know which category is appropriate here.
 
bluescreen said:
Well, I don't know. Maybe it's just me but I reckon some people need locking up for the safety of the community and for other offenders pointing and jeering is enough. I haven't followed the case so don't know which category is appropriate here.
Click to expand...

Punishment may be an appropriate category. I reckon he could take pointing and jeering at this stage in his career.
 
Buckaroo said:
Punishment may be an appropriate category.
Click to expand...

hqdefault.jpg

They don't deserve punishment. They deserve gunishment.

 
Hencke is angry, and with good reason.

The trial reveals two shocking facts. First it shows that yet another paedophile Roman Catholic priest – McSweeney will be sentenced on March 27 – has escaped justice for some 35 years and been able to work as a pillar of the community across the East of England.
Click to expand...
Second is the shame it has heaped on Richmond Council which failed to act at the time to halt these crimes and has been in denial ever since this investigation began. It is quite clear from the court proceedings that Stingemore when in charge of Grafton Close was able unchecked to take boys out of the children’s home to his Bexhill flat where they were abused and employ his paedophile friend McSweeney – who also accompanied boys to his flat – without anyone taking much notice.
Click to expand...
One might be tempted not to heap blame on the authority if it was not for the attitudes of leading political figures and officials to recent events. Sir David Williams, the former Liberal Dem leader in the wake of this scandal told me he did not believe there was any child sexual abuse in Richmond and it had all been got up by the press. Tell that to the jury at Southwark Crown Court. Two other prominent Liberal Democrats councillors at the time now peers Tim Razzall and Jenny Tonge appeared to be in denial or did not want to talk about it. And Louis Minister, then Richmond’s director of social services, now retired in Malta, denied he had ever heard of Elm Guest House and said he knew nothing of what happened at Grafton Close. Only with a trial imminent did he recover his memory loss. And there are leading Richmond Tories who knew at the time- an issue I am still investigating.
Click to expand...
:mad:
 
On the world news round-up they just has a story about Savile and said that there have now been 41 different investigations/inquires into his sexual abuse at state institutions, including NHS hospitals, secure hospitals for the criminally insane, children's homes, the BBC and somewhere else I can't remember atm. The reporter interviewed an ex-director of social services who said (words to the effect) "despite the massive number if separate reports, no-one has been held to account, made to take responsibility or has faced disciplinary action.........................."

In light of this, do people here think that anyone "alive" will be held accountable or responsible, even face criminal charges from the information provided to and the findings of the governments CSA inquiry or will it just come up with a number of recommendations that the government of the day will say they support and will implement?

This inquiry, if it does its job, will looking into National and local governments and many of their departments and highlight failings in there legal obligations and duty of care, it will inquire into the police services to look for failings, their legal obligations, failure to act, corruption and the duty of care, the same for hospitals, children's homes, schools etc. etc.

Organizations that I would expect the vast majority of the British public have confidence and trust in. What will be the reaction if the walls come tumbling down and it shows these institutions have been failing in there duties for years, if not decades? I don't think any inquiry, however "Independent" would be allowed to undermine and discredit so many public institutions.

I think it is interesting that the police have set up a national strategic coordinating group called, Operation Hydrant. its brief is "to act as an information, advice and good practice-sharing hub for forces investigating historic child abuse cases which involve institutions and prominent individuals". It is an "information, advice and good practice-sharing hub" that is its job apparently. It is not a task force and will not be leading any investigations, that is a matter for individual forces.

It sounds to me like a filtering committee to ensure they have an input into what is said and provided by individual forces to the inquiry, what reason is there for a national police group when the onus to provide information to the inquiry and any investigations arising from it are a matter for individual force, I wonder if government departments, social service departments, education departments, hospitals etc. around the country are setting up similar groups.
 
I think the main fault with the picture you paint there is that you have the police investigations/prosecutions and the government inquiry the wrong way round in the order of things.

Yes its likely that some people who've not found justice any other way will present specific allegations to the inquiry. But inquiries in the past were ill equipped to deal with this sort of thing, and there is only so much they could do to change that this time around. It will be a problem, because for some people the most outrageous coverups and failings of past inquiries were to do with specific allegations that the judge, insurers, or various legal concerns wouldn't allow to go public. We'll just have to see what happens.

But in the meantime we already have specific police inquiries, which may or may not lead to prosecutions of anyone of public prominence from the political world. I don't expect the inquiry to be our direct conduit to learning of further specific allegations against living people. It might lead to more police investigations, regardless of what the inquiry and its participants actually say at any point, because simply having a detailed examination in public of the past may encourage yet more victims to come forwards.

As for institutional credibility, I think various Savile investigations undermined a lot of credibility across a fairly broad spectrum already. The main automatic protector of their reputations in the face of this is the passage of time - some of the sorts and scales of institutions involved already fell out of favour some decades ago and if not extinct have gone through multiple structural changes. Throw in all the other stuff that some people used to get away with more blatantly, that played into certain standards of what was considered acceptable decades ago, and there is some insulation between the eras of offending in question and the credibility of institutions today.

My main hope for the inquiry being able to bring us a reasonable reflection of past truth, is also related to time. The inquiry could get into a lot of detail about specific deceased offenders if it so chooses. The fact there are less people still around to hold to account may at least hold this advantage.
 
Those interested have probably already seen stories about his denial to the media, but for the sake of completeness of this thread here it is:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31754908

I've nothing to say about it right now, both because of the present limitations on what can be said about these matters legally, and because I am too bloody tired.
 
Dan U said:
Procter was interviewed on Today about 8.10 (ish) which I thought was a bit unusual
Click to expand...
Me too; but just think how convenient it would be for those seeking to defuse/discredit the claims of victims if someone like Procter were 'hung out to dry' for a bit but, ultimately, completely exonerated. It would even be convenient for such people that Procter had previously been convicted for sexual offences...that would now be legal.(I think)
 
I don't really think he is the ideal character to use for that, because even given the change in the age of consent for same sex activities, there are still aspects of his historical story that are incompatible with 'public morals' in 2015.

Sorry for the Mail link, but this is what I'm on about:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...lice-investigating-VIP-abuse-search-home.html

Proctor, who represented Basildon and nearby Billericay, was an outspoken hard-right Tory but left Parliament after pleading guilty to gross indecency. The MP – who was given the nickname ‘Wacko’ – would order rent boys as young as 17 to call him ‘Sir’ or ‘Keith’ and pretend he was a headmaster as he caned them.

He was fined just £1,450 but the case signalled the end of his career because his confession followed years of vehement denials.

Two months before his court appearance it was revealed how Proctor was caught by security staff on holiday in Morocco with a naked 15-year-old local boy hiding under his bed.
Click to expand...
 
I seriously believe its really not fair to victims/alleged victims to talk about these things in such conspiratorial terms. Writing such things off as having suspicious timing etc is hardly appropriate given that people who have made allegations against him will see this as their chance to find justice.

Whats bloody convenient about it, really?
 
His connection to various far-right groups was well-known and he was a prominent member of the Monday Club. Nothing conspiratorial about that. One of the worst kept secrets of the 1970s were the numbers of NF members who were also members of the Monday Club (that he had allegedly purged in 1973). Indeed, you could go to Conservative Clubs and expect to rub shoulders with fash.
 
Last edited:
Sorry for not being clear, it wasn't that stuff I was complaining about. It was the idea that it is somehow well convenient for him to be thrust into the spotlight now.

As for the Monday club, I doubt its the last we have heard about that.
 
elbows said:
I seriously believe its really not fair to victims/alleged victims to talk about these things in such conspiratorial terms. Writing such things off as having suspicious timing etc is hardly appropriate given that people who have made allegations against him will see this as their chance to find justice.

Whats bloody convenient about it, really?
Click to expand...
You're probably right but, that said, I've not seen anything suggesting that specific allegations have been made against Procter. There are, I suppose, reasons why the OB might investigate even if no specific allegations had be made against him?
 
There will be specific allegations against him, of that much I am extremely confident. They had a warrant to search his home, this isn't some vague fishing operation. But of course we have no idea if they will find enough evidence to go after a prosecution or proceed much beyond the current step.
 
elbows said:
I seriously believe its really not fair to victims/alleged victims to talk about these things in such conspiratorial terms. Writing such things off as having suspicious timing etc is hardly appropriate given that people who have made allegations against him will see this as their chance to find justice.

Whats bloody convenient about it, really?
Click to expand...

Yes, and in any case the conspiracy is, as so often the case, too bloody intricate.

Many, many voters have trouble remembering the names of politicians. The take-home message for them is "Tory nonce". And it is by such ill-informed people that elections are decided.
 
So Cyril Smith stuff made the front page of the Mail on Sunday. I'm sick of linking to the Mail so here is a different report of the matter:

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...ws/cyril-smith-cabinet-office-accused-8795701

The Cabinet Office has been accused of attempting to cover up information about Whitehall's knowledge of Cyril Smith's child abuse at the time he was granted a knighthood.

The documents revealed that Margaret Thatcher was made aware of allegations involving the Liberal MP before he was given the honour.

The papers, released to the Mail of Sunday following repeated demands for disclosure, also show that the country's most senior civil servant wrote to the director of public prosecutions to find out why Smith did not face justice for alleged offences against teenage boys.

The newspaper first requested the documents under the Freedom of Information Act in April last year but they were only released on Friday following an intervention by the Information Commissioner.

The 19-page dossier of information on the decision to confer a knighthood on former Rochdale MP Smith in 1988 included one undated letter, marked secret, from a member of the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee to Mrs Thatcher, warning of "the risk that such an award could give rise to adverse criticism".
Click to expand...
 
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