Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

How are they not being prosecuted? It's out in plain sight. Do the establishment think 'if we can get away with this publicly the plebs will know they don't stand a chance'. Blows my mind.

Assuming your talking about the wanking judges, they won't be prosecuted because looking at pornography involving consenting adults isn't a crime. However, doing so on your workplace laptop is clearly a disciplinary issue which is shy they've been fired.
 
Assuming your talking about the wanking judges, they won't be prosecuted because looking at pornography involving consenting adults isn't a crime. However, doing so on your workplace laptop is clearly a disciplinary issue which is shy they've been fired.
No I meant the lack of prosecution of paedophiles in Parliament.
 
No I meant the lack of prosecution of paedophiles in Parliament.

In the case of Cyril Smith and the others because nobody wad bothered enough. This wasn't just the BBC and parliament. In the 70's and 80's most schools had their share of perverse and sadistic teachers. We had a vicious thug; at least one pair of wandering hands and and one who had a fling with a sixth former in the neighbouring girls school.
 
In the case of Cyril Smith and the others because nobody wad bothered enough. This wasn't just the BBC and parliament. In the 70's and 80's most schools had their share of perverse and sadistic teachers. We had a vicious thug; at least one pair of wandering hands and and one who had a fling with a sixth former in the neighbouring girls school.
It still seems to be the case. You hear the expression 'power defends itself' but the lengths it'll go to boggles the mind. I work in psychiatry. It makes me wonder if the mindset is in place before these cunts get power or its more sociopathic. Getting stinking drunk on power over time. Never getting challenged when they cross a line. Going a bit further, etc. There's a great book about psychopath's in the workplace called Snakes in Suits by Robert Hare and Paul Babaik that's worth a read. The implications are scary.
 
would I be right in assuming these coppers who've come forward are the same / some of the same who were quoted a while back discussing if they should come forward in some private coppers forum?

Sorry if that's a bit oblique, I can't remember where that came from, maybe exaro a few months back?
 
How are they not being prosecuted? It's out in plain sight. Do the establishment think 'if we can get away with this publicly the plebs will know they don't stand a chance'. Blows my mind.

What is available to the public is more than enough to warrant a variety of investigations. It's not enough to be sure there is enough evidence to prosecute anyone. Thats partly because of the passing of time, the passing of victims, the effectiveness of past coverup. But also that a lot of whats in the public domain isn't terribly high quality on its own, a starting point for investigation rather than the conclusive smoking gun in many cases. The police have already stated in at least one case that they find the victims testimony credible, but generally the last we heard is that there isn't much other evidence successfully secured yet, and its probably still likely that not enough victims have come forwards to do the sort of thing that was done with the trials of certain celebrities.

Stuff is rumbling on though, I can still hold out hope for prosecutions, especially given certain homes were searched recently, demonstrating that the investigations are not dead. I still think the powers that be need at least one prosecution in order to be able to do their standard 'draw a line under it and move on' thang. I'm not betting on getting one though. But at a minimum we are almost certain to learn some more stuff about some aspects of coverups.

I'm not at all happy with the situation, and I am impatient too, but the stories aren't going away and so I expect we'll get something.
 
Interesting comments this morning from Geoffrey Robertson QC. He said the only person who can decide whether or not the OSA can be used is the Attorney General and not the Prime Minister who has no legal powers - this relates to the newly launched 'immunity' petition to Cameron from Tom Watson M.P.

Robertson also stated that since the striking off of Section Two of the Act in 1989 it is improbable that anybody would be prosecuted. Moreover, he stated that the Attorney General would see no reason why evidence should not be given that would serve the Public Interest in exposing serious crimes.

He likened the modern day interpretation of the Act as a licence to bully.

I don't know about you but I feel we are being fed disinformation on a daily basis. Will this bastard Establishment ever crumble?
 
Last edited:
would I be right in assuming these coppers who've come forward are the same / some of the same who were quoted a while back discussing if they should come forward in some private coppers forum?

Sorry if that's a bit oblique, I can't remember where that came from, maybe exaro a few months back?

I'm guessing you mean this stuff?

http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5428/police-privately-admit-cover-up-for-paedophile-mps-and-vips

http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5429/protected-paedophile-mps-and-prominent-people-say-police

http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5434/police-discuss-submitting-statements-on-paedophile-cover-up

http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5...ions-ex-police-to-submit-dossier-to-met-chief

Summary thread:

http://www.exaronews.com/content/child-sex-abuse-fernbridge-and-fairbank-exaro-story-thread
 
would I be right in assuming these coppers who've come forward are the same / some of the same who were quoted a while back discussing if they should come forward in some private coppers forum?

I don't think it's safe to assume that, but it's certainly possible - probable, even. There must be quite a few ex-coppers - and a few still serving - who were involved in the halted investigations of paedophile rings, or at least knew about them. Or, for that matter, who just saw things in their line of work, such as that retired copper who recounted a year or two ago how, as a young constable in Leeds, he encountered Jimmy Savile in his car with a girl who might well have been under-age and was told to 'bugger off if you want to keep your job.' Hopefully the exposure all this is getting now will encourage more of them to come forward.

It's not only coppers either: care home staff, social workers, teachers, civil servants who dealt with the politicians involved, government drivers - all of them might have heard things, been told things, seen things, and either not really understood their implications or simply kept quiet for various reasons. Again, hopefully some of them will speak out now.
 
Last edited:
Its like punching fog isn't it? Never ending enquiries, evasions, the official secrets act, the libel laws, foot dragging. Its clear they want to stretch this out for as long as possible. The only political pressure seems to be coming from a couple of backbench MPs. Its clear that a large part of the truth is already well known to senior politicians - yet they react to each new revelation with a "well i never!" and set up another inquiry. I.e - The collusion of the met in covering up and or/enabling child rape (and murder?) has been an obvious feature of the case for years - yet only now have the less than fearsome bloodhounds of IPCC been set on the case. And the role of the spooks in all this continues to go unmentioned.

We need a hardcore VIP noncesquad on this with unrestricted powers who could begin by rounding up all the senior spooks past and present and waterboarding the cunts whilst going through their files - starting at "Brittan. L" and carrying on from their.

The fact that anything like such a scenario is outside the bounds of reasonable probability highlights just how corrupt, corrupting, devious and unaccountable the establishment is. And who has the real power in the land. Will a change of government make any difference? When do we get the angry mob with pikes and torches marching on Whitehall and Thames house?
 
Last edited:
In the case of Cyril Smith and the others because nobody wad bothered enough. This wasn't just the BBC and parliament. In the 70's and 80's most schools had their share of perverse and sadistic teachers. We had a vicious thug; at least one pair of wandering hands and and one who had a fling with a sixth former in the neighbouring girls school.
Yes, exactly this. Perhaps those that were born later find this difficult to understand but those of us at school in the 60s-70s will understand. I look back on my school days, memories are hazy but I certainly recall teachers who acted then how they could not act now. Some, would lose their rags & lash out, we would get slapped on legs/arms/heads, some would throw board rubbers at us & laugh when it hit us. Just par for the course, nobody complained. Others were really kind, I recall one or 2 male teachers who were perhaps too 'kind'. I remember one at primary school, had kids, always the same girls back to is house after school. The flip side was as teachers did not have to worry about 'suspicious' behaviour, the genuinely kind ones would pick us up & cuddle us when we cut our knees in the playground & wipe our tears away.

I must admit all this does make me rack my brains to think back. Certainly I recall incidents with other kids Dad's & older siblings that I did not like but the memory is hazy. But fact is then adults did not talk about sex to young kids & 'sex talks' at secondary school where we watched films & so on were all very embarrassing & sniggery, we learn't more in the playground from other kids who seemed to know more than most. It would not even have occurred to me as a child to report any incident really, we were told about 'nasty men' that would do 'hurtful things' to us, but that was it really.

& the background was the 'liberated' late 60s & onwards into the 70s. Talk of lowering the age of(hetro)consent to 14, legalising gay sex between men over 21 & the argument that it should be at least 16 anything could be discussed....But not much on radio or tv. I recall reading 'underground' newspapers like Oz where the publishers were briefly jailed after an obsenity trial relating to the 'schoolkids edition'(do your own reasearch)& we talked endlessly among ourselves through the night as we smoked dope. Exchange of ideas was on a much more personal level, we did not have information streamed at us 24/7 as we do now.
 
Last edited:
I don't think it's safe to assume that, but it's certainly possible - probable, even. There must be quite a few ex-coppers - and a few still serving - who were involved in the halted investigations of paedophile rings, or at least knew about them. Or, for that matter, who just saw things in their line of work, such as that retired copper a year or two ago who recounted how, as a young constable in Leeds, he encountered Jimmy Savile in his car with a girl who might well have been under-age and was told to 'bugger off if you want to keep your job.' Hopefully the exposure all this is getting now will encourage more of them to come forward, especially
.

There was a journalist from Rochdale on PM yesterday (I can't recall his name) who offered a bit of an insight in to this.

He was investigating Smith in the 80s and had been leaked a load of Home Office docs which detailed some of the arrests etc. He confronted Smith about it and Smith essentially laughed in his face and threatened him. Two days later 2 Special Branch officers and about 14 uniformed Met Police turned up at his office and (according to him) bashed him around a bit, demanding the papers and threatening him with prison for perverting the course of justice. They ransacked his offices, took the papers and left.

He contacted South Yorkshire Police who genuinely seemed to know fuck all about it.

He went on to say he now knows of at least ten ex Special Branch and other Police who want to speak about but have previously threatened with the Official Secrets Act. He claimed that as recently as a few weeks ago, at least one had a call from 'the intelligence services' reminding him about the OSA and how nice his pension currently was...

His view was, if this threat was removed, people will speak.
 
He went on to say he now knows of at least ten ex Special Branch and other Police who want to speak about but have previously threatened with the Official Secrets Act. He claimed that as recently as a few weeks ago, at least one had a call from 'the intelligence services' reminding him about the OSA and how nice his pension currently was...

His view was, if this threat was removed, people will speak.
Is that the first we've heard in the mainstream media about a current/ongoing cover-up of the high-level stuff?
 
Is that the first we've heard in the mainstream media about a current/ongoing cover-up of the high-level stuff?

How does an mp buggering little boys come under the official secrets act?
Signed it so military secrets stuff that might upset diplomatic relationships covered etc. Covering up crimes is not. Cops should know this stuff.
 
There was a journalist from Rochdale on PM yesterday (I can't recall his name) who offered a bit of an insight in to this.

He was investigating Smith in the 80s and had been leaked a load of Home Office docs which detailed some of the arrests etc. He confronted Smith about it and Smith essentially laughed in his face and threatened him. Two days later 2 Special Branch officers and about 14 uniformed Met Police turned up at his office and (according to him) bashed him around a bit, demanding the papers and threatening him with prison for perverting the course of justice. They ransacked his offices, took the papers and left.

He contacted South Yorkshire Police who genuinely seemed to know fuck all about it.

He went on to say he now knows of at least ten ex Special Branch and other Police who want to speak about but have previously threatened with the Official Secrets Act. He claimed that as recently as a few weeks ago, at least one had a call from 'the intelligence services' reminding him about the OSA and how nice his pension currently was...

His view was, if this threat was removed, people will speak.

Time for a British version of Belgium's White March.

On October 20 about 300,000 people (estimates range from 275,000 to 325,000, around 3% of Belgium's population)[1][2] marched through Brussels. Many Belgians who lived outside Brussels came to the city to take part in the march. This demonstration, called the "The White March", was the largest one Brussels had ever seen. Everyone was carrying something white: a balloon, a cloak, etc.; some had painted their face white. White was meant symbolically, as the color of hope. This symbolism had grown after Queen Fabiola wore white at the funeral of her husband. During the march, the fire brigade turned their hoses on the Federal Parliament buildings to symbolically cleanse it. With the demonstration, the Belgian public opinion wanted to indicate something had to change in Belgium and that the justice system and the police had to show more attention to children

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_March
 
Is that the first we've heard in the mainstream media about a current/ongoing cover-up of the high-level stuff?

I didn't heard the interview that Dan U mentioned, but I can tell from the detail that it was almost certainly Don Hale.

His story has received press attention on a number of occasions since he first spoke out last summer. I haven't heard him mention recent threats, so I can't comment on that yet, but will try to find out.

Meanwhile here is a story from when he first spoke out:

http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/jul/15/daily-star-sunday-cyril-smith
 
There was a journalist from Rochdale on PM yesterday (I can't recall his name) who offered a bit of an insight in to this.

He was investigating Smith in the 80s and had been leaked a load of Home Office docs which detailed some of the arrests etc. He confronted Smith about it and Smith essentially laughed in his face and threatened him. Two days later 2 Special Branch officers and about 14 uniformed Met Police turned up at his office and (according to him) bashed him around a bit, demanding the papers and threatening him with prison for perverting the course of justice. They ransacked his offices, took the papers and left.

He contacted South Yorkshire Police who genuinely seemed to know fuck all about it.

He went on to say he now knows of at least ten ex Special Branch and other Police who want to speak about but have previously threatened with the Official Secrets Act. He claimed that as recently as a few weeks ago, at least one had a call from 'the intelligence services' reminding him about the OSA and how nice his pension currently was...

His view was, if this threat was removed, people will speak.

Yes, I should have mentioned journalists. elbows is right: I'm sure that's Don Hale. I'm sure, too, that plenty of other journalists both local and national have run across things in the past that they've not been able or willing to publish but who might now speak out if the threat of prosecution is removed.
 
I didn't heard the interview that Dan U mentioned, but I can tell from the detail that it was almost certainly Don Hale.

His story has received press attention on a number of occasions since he first spoke out last summer. I haven't heard him mention recent threats, so I can't comment on that yet, but will try to find out.

Meanwhile here is a story from when he first spoke out:

http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/jul/15/daily-star-sunday-cyril-smith
Ah yes, I heard him on the Today programme a few months ago on that; no mention of very recent threats then though.

Disappointing to see from that link that he took an OBE.
 
How does an mp buggering little boys come under the official secrets act?

The journalist in question was in possession of classified Home Office documents. They had him bang to rights and there was nothing he could do. There's an interview with him out there somewhere...
 
I've just listened elbows - it's about 8 or 9 minutes in - and it was Don Hale. He said that ex police, MPs and ex Special Branch are still, currently, being threatened with the Official Secrets Act, not just one person (was the implication, imo). But he wasn't asked more about that so it wasn't clear (to me) how specific he was being.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b055g8z9
 
How does an mp buggering little boys come under the official secrets act?
Signed it so military secrets stuff that might upset diplomatic relationships covered etc. Covering up crimes is not. Cops should know this stuff.

The public interest in exposing crime might be a defence. It's not grounds for there being no charge.

The security services are involved. What they do is secret. The demise of Section 2 may not, therefore, be much help.

Official Secrets Act 1989

1. Security and intelligence.

1) A person who is or has been—

(a) a member of the security and intelligence services; or

(b) a person notified that he is subject to the provisions of this subsection,​

is guilty of an offence if without lawful authority he discloses any information, document or other article relating to security or intelligence which is or has been in his possession by virtue of his position as a member of any of those services or in the course of his work while the notification is or was in force.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/6/contents
 
The public interest in exposing crime might be a defence. It's not grounds for there being no charge.

The security services are involved. What they do is secret. The demise of Section 2 may not, therefore, be much help.

So how does the 'lawful authority' bit work in the case of child-raping toffs do you think?
 
Well, apparently, but what I mean is, could let's say for example the Home Secretary provide such authority by saying:

'As Home Secretary I'm telling you that it's now OK to provide testimony about anything you know regarding child-raping toffs that you've previously been threatened with the OSA to make you keep quiet about'

.. and make it stick?
 
So how does the 'lawful authority' bit work in the case of child-raping toffs do you think?

"That would be a matter for you, Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury. The Crown argues that it means a written authorisation by a senior person in the Security Services. The defence argues that there is an implicit authority on the grounds of the interests of justice or, alternatively, a human right. I find the defence's argument entirely tendentious and unconvincing, but you must decide."
 
Sure. As regards the 'public interest' argument, but I guess what I'm getting at is that if someone specific has the power to provide such written authority, preferably someone identifiable like Theresa May, rather than a clandestine figure known only as 'Z' or perhaps 'Uncle Touchy', might there not be some sense in applying public pressure on the specific point of giving that lawful authority in an unambiguous enough manner?
 
Last edited:
Well, apparently, but what I mean is, could let's say for example the Home Secretary provide such authority by saying:

'As Home Secretary I'm telling you that it's now OK to provide testimony about anything you know regarding child-raping toffs that you've previously been threatened with the OSA to make you keep quiet about'

.. and make it stick?

"That could be unwise, Home Secretary. By the way, did you know we found some more photos of the goat?"

But probably. Fucking nightmare to draft the authorisation.
 
Interesting and worrying to see that members of the security services, or people purporting to be them, are apparently still threatening and intimidating people into not grassing.

Not so historic a cover up after all it'd seem.
 
Back
Top Bottom