Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

Several performances in the dock that probably had the benefit of reality on their side still managed to be crap or at least unsatisfactory by the sounds of it. The reporting was a bit hit and miss too, e.g. I never quite figured out whether other members of the Cook Report team thought Fellows had ever worked on the program. (Cook claimed he can't have ever worked on the program because Cook doesn't remember him at all).

In any case I suspect that what really gave that verdict legs is that this was a perverting justice case rather than a libel one, and that changes the parameters substantially. Especially when the police had reassured Fellows in various ways that were probably helpful to the defence case.

As far as I know the specific details of Exaro's theory that it was a case of mistaken identity didn't get a good showing in the trial, neither side went with that angle.

Anyway I guess I can throw almost everything to do with this story back in the useless pile now. Not that it ever got far from that pile at any point.
 
ExaroNews ‏@ExaroNews 26m26 minutes ago
Ben Fellows verdict: for those still struggling to get their heads round it, a four-tweet summary of what it does – and does not – mean…

ExaroNews ‏@ExaroNews 19m19 minutes ago
1. Ben Fellows is NOT guilty of attempt to pervert course of justice by making his claim about Ken Clarke to police.

ExaroNews ‏@ExaroNews 16m16 minutes ago
2. That was all the jury had to determine. The verdict does NOT mean that the claim made by Ben Fellows was true.

ExaroNews ‏@ExaroNews 14m14 minutes ago
3. And the verdict does NOT mean that any of the witnesses from The Cook Report was lying.

ExaroNews ‏@ExaroNews 12m12 minutes ago
4. Defence case was: DCI Paul Settle PRESSURED Ben Fellows into making statement, having given him false assurances.
 
....it's a DM news BOGOF !...the paedo scandal and the Labour leadership story in one...


A blind eye to child abuse: Whistleblowers warned Labour leadership favourite Jeremy Corbyn of paedophiles preying on boys on his doorstep - but claim he did NOTHING

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ft-wingers-implicated-paedophile-scandal.html

Social workers warned Corbyn that child abuse was rife in his Islington constituency in 1992

‘We'd been seeing so many 12 to 15-year-olds who were being sexually exploited, we could hardly believe it,’ Liz Davies, one of the five social workers, recalled this week

Corbyn never wrote to Davies, or telephoned, to acknowledge their meeting, or thank her for seeking to blow the whistle


In 1992, social workers told Jeremy Corbyn (pictured that year)
that organised child abuse was rife in his Islington constituency
 
hot air baboon said:
...

A blind eye to child abuse: Whistleblowers warned Labour leadership favourite Jeremy Corbyn of paedophiles preying on boys on his doorstep - but claim he did NOTHING
Click to expand...
I have a feeling the Tories are not likely to be picking up on this line of attack (at least not in public).
 
Not til he's leader anyway.....I was rather more wondering who in the Labour leadership hierarchy was urging them on to run the story ! ( and a nasty brutish farrago the Islington affair is to be sure )
 
CLe_cvvWEAAJ1Zl.jpg


 
Last edited:
Is that a young Ken Clarke (back row 2nd from left)?
He was a whip for Heath '72 to '74.
 
Kaka Tim said:
Surprised that Heaths name hasn't come up before tbh.
Click to expand...
The cynic in me thinks that means investigations have come too close to someone powerful still alive. it was obvious this would rumble on til he was in the frame. The well can be capped now.
Amazing how atrocious these figures from 30 years ago were, and nobody said anything. Not like now......oh hang on, faulty logic in there somewhere.
 
gosub said:
The cynic in me thinks that means investigations have come too close to someone powerful still alive. it was obvious this would rumble on til he was in the frame. The well can be capped now.
Amazing how atrocious these figures from 30 years ago were, and nobody said anything. Not like now......oh hang on, faulty logic in there somewhere.
Click to expand...

Quite. Id be very surprised if there wasn't some orchestration of these revelations from someone somewhere.
 
gosub said:
The cynic in me thinks that means investigations have come too close to someone powerful still alive. it was obvious this would rumble on til he was in the frame. The well can be capped now.
Amazing how atrocious these figures from 30 years ago were, and nobody said anything. Not like now......oh hang on, faulty logic in there somewhere.
Click to expand...

As far as I'm concerned nothing like that can cap the well. The phenomenon is driven both by victims, whistleblowers and by widespread historical rumour. Only once those to are exhausted do matters end, having a 'top level' abuser exposed doesn't make irrelevant all those lower down the chain.

It's completely understandable why there is a focus on threads like these on the highest level abusers. But whats been unleashed post-Savile goes far beyond that, its about people who were abused via uneven power relationships, regardless of quite how much power the abusers had in the grand scheme of things. So many of the prosecutions we see post-Savile don't involve names we care about, but are just as important.
 
elbows said:
As far as I'm concerned nothing like that can cap the well. The phenomenon is driven both by victims, whistleblowers and by widespread historical rumour. Only once those to are exhausted do matters end, having a 'top level' abuser exposed doesn't make irrelevant all those lower down the chain.

It's completely understandable why there is a focus on threads like these on the highest level abusers. But whats been unleashed post-Savile goes far beyond that, its about people who were abused via uneven power relationships, regardless of quite how much power the abusers had in the grand scheme of things. So many of the prosecutions we see post-Savile don't involve names we care about, but are just as important.
Click to expand...

Agree with you, but if they follow up Heath (Establishment rotten to the core! shock! horror!), with a couple of high profile patsies, that are provably innocent, it'll be Witch hunt! let sleeping dogs lie! blah, blah,in no time
 
gosub said:
Agree with you, but if they follow up Heath (Establishment rotten to the core! shock! horror!), with a couple of high profile patsies, that are provably innocent, it'll be Witch hunt! let sleeping dogs lie! blah, blah,in no time
Click to expand...

I don't think that can happen. Not at these stages. Too much has already been set in motion. The Messham stuff didn't kill matters even though that happened at a much earlier and more delicate stage, so I don't think that trick has any legs right now.

Here is some news I missed from July:

In a key protection for those working in the police, security services or public sector the inquiry has received written assurances from the attorney general that whistleblowers who come forward with evidence or documents will not be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act.
Click to expand...

From this article, the detail of which does suggest the Inquiry will have some teeth:

http://www.theguardian.com/society/...th-project-lowell-goddard-independent-inquiry

Cynicism is well-founded but they can't actually draw a line under any of this unless they take some genuine steps to erode this cynicism. I think they realise this and are doing so, because they don't want all this stuff to come back again more years down the line.
 
Barking_Mad said:
Fellows found not guilty. It's all very 1984 doublethink.

http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5...ed-of-attempting-to-pervert-course-of-justice
Click to expand...


Doesn't the verdict just reflect the reality that the allegations could never have been proved or disproved so many years after the event happened. Whether or not he was a victim in the past Fellows seems to me to be a victim of the present, a very vulnerable person encouraged by the police when they thought they could get a high-profile scalp and then prosecuted, when they realised that they couldn't.
 
elbows said:
As far as I'm concerned nothing like that can cap the well. The phenomenon is driven both by victims, whistleblowers and by widespread historical rumour. Only once those to are exhausted do matters end, having a 'top level' abuser exposed doesn't make irrelevant all those lower down the chain.

It's completely understandable why there is a focus on threads like these on the highest level abusers. But whats been unleashed post-Savile goes far beyond that, its about people who were abused via uneven power relationships, regardless of quite how much power the abusers had in the grand scheme of things. So many of the prosecutions we see post-Savile don't involve names we care about, but are just as important.
Click to expand...
And there will be many prosecutions that nobody "sees" - every local paper will carry stories about a child sex abuser that never make the mainstream media, or end up being discussed on boards like this.

The Saviles and Rolf Harrises are the tip of an iceberg - they are the high-profile representatives of a pattern of human behaviours that goes all the way down to the most anonymous and insignificant perpetrator in some far-flung corner of the country. What is less stratified is the nature of those who have been abused: as we have seen, you only had to be "fortunate" enough to be invited backstage at TOTP or a Rolf Harris event to become an abuse victim, or maybe you just had the wrong athletics coach. Or uncle, or dad. Or mum, for that matter.

And they're the tip of a different kind of iceberg, too. As we have seen time and again in the high-profile (and less high-profile) cases, very few of these abusers could have continued for so long had it not been for the enabling of those around them. Sometimes that was active and collusive, sometimes it was just turning a blind eye, and most often of all it was just people not being able to believe that something like that was happening. Or not wanting to.

Which is why I find the apparent approach of those in government so incomprehensible. The cat is out of the bag now. Anyone with an ounce of common sense is going to be saying "Hang on a minute...if all these celebrities, politicians, etc., were able to get away with so much in plain view, how much more of it is going on?" Even the cognitive dissonance which gets in the way of our believing that nice Mr Maths Teacher or helpful neighbour might be abusing our kids will struggle against the growing realisation that famous people whom we similarly thought to be beyond reproach were at it.

There is a risk, but I don't think it's from politicians trying to "cap the well"; rather, it's from good old apathy. People will get tired of the endless stream of stories, and become jaded about the whole thing. The atmosphere of shock at the sheer extremity of what's gone on which I think still pervades us will fade over time, but I don't think we will ever return to quite the depths of almost-wilful ignorance of the activities of abusers, famous or otherwise.
 
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