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

[Buckaroo]

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.

Well said.

 

[elbows]

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.

Indeed. Just in recent days my local paper brought news that a children's home's manager from decades ago is facing numerous charges.

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.

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.

That sort of thing is the toughest nut to crack in my opinion. It seems well possible to crack it, but only temporarily. Perhaps its some kind of issues to do with how brains tend to build trust and impressions of associates, friends etc. Even when aspects of attitudes towards celebrities, people in positions of power has changed over the decades, even when there is far greater awareness and less misplaced trust, issues of how easily our positive feelings towards someone may lead to giving them the benefit of the doubt don't seem to have gone away. Likewise there are multiple reasons why people in organisations close ranks or get dragged along on some sinister journey full of wrong.

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.

I am somewhat relaxed about that risk because I don't think the general public as a whole need to be energised about these issues all of the time in order for the process to keep rumbling on. I only have to look back at how this and other threads have evolved to see that we've probably already passed though a number of distinct phases of public interest. But there are enough people who are and will remain interested parties to the process to keep things going. And enough institutions that have ended up having to set things in motion, e.g. the inquiry is going to last at least 5 years and even if there are periods where there is not a lot of interest, future revelations will still get a lot of eyeballs.

I reckon theres a whole bunch of things we will never return to, including the one you mention at the end. Some of them were pretty much dead long before the post-Savile stuff. Others may have lingered on despite losing the cultural conditions that enabled them in the first place, and I would hope we can eradicate some of these as part of the processes that will unfold for at least the rest of this decade.

 

[Roadkill]

I can't help wondering if the Ted Heath revelations today might be a storm in a teacup. There are some fairly wild rumours about Heath floating around but nothing that looks very credible. Moreover, there are a lot more rumours about Heath's gay dalliances, and it seems reasonably well established now that he was a regular cottager until the police warned him off it when his political career started to take off. Like as not some of those encounters were with young guys - over the modern age of consent, probably, but young enough to be referred to as boys - and in the climate of the 1950s-70s it's not hard to see how those could quickly turn into rumours of a penchant for young boys. Depends on the nature of the allegations put before Wiltshire police, I suppose.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

I can't help wondering if the Ted Heath revelations today might be a storm in a teacup.

I'm wondering if it fits into a broader news management/distraction angle. Fortunately no journalist seems to have bothered persuing the more recent and increasingly substantiated Brittan stuff and the glaring obvious issue of wether any serving cabinet ministers would have been aware of the stench at the time.

 

[elbows]

I can't help wondering if the Ted Heath revelations today might be a storm in a teacup. There are some fairly wild rumours about Heath floating around but nothing that looks very credible. Moreover, there are a lot more rumours about Heath's gay dalliances, and it seems reasonably well established now that he was a regular cottager until the police warned him off it when his political career started to take off. Like as not some of those encounters were with young guys - over the modern age of consent, probably, but young enough to be referred to as boys - and in the climate of the 1950s-70s it's not hard to see how those could quickly turn into rumours of a penchant for young boys. Depends on the nature of the allegations put before Wiltshire police, I suppose.

Well the Heath stuff is certainly not the only case where those sorts of factors may apply. Such things certainly had to be considered when discussing some of the other historical rumours, e.g. some (but by no means all) of the Scallywag stuff. So yeah, there are a spectrum of possibilities and only further investigation and eventual public disclosure may eliminate some. As we've seen before, the police have encouraged any victims to come forwards and the results of that request will be the big factor.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Am I the only person who, everytime I come to this folder to see:


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

just wants to type a post saying "fucking loads"

 

[Roadkill]

Well the Heath stuff is certainly not the only case where those sorts of factors may apply. Such things certainly had to be considered when discussing some of the other historical rumours, e.g. some (but by no means all) of the Scallywag stuff. So yeah, there are a spectrum of possibilities and only further investigation and eventual public disclosure may eliminate some. As we've seen before, the police have encouraged any victims to come forwards and the results of that request will be the big factor.

Indeed. Heath isn't the only instance where at least some of the allegations relate to homosexual encounters that, although they might have been exploitative, were with people over the modern age of consent. The OB have been pretty clear that they're not going to go prosecuting people for things that would be legal now, but it's probably fair to say that such allegations are causing a certain amount of confusion, at least.

 

[elbows]

I'm wondering if it fits into a broader news management/distraction angle. Fortunately no journalist seems to have bothered persuing the more recent and increasingly substantiated Brittan stuff and the glaring obvious issue of wether any serving cabinet ministers would have been aware of the stench at the time.

You'll have to spell out what substantiated Brittan stuff has been happening recently. And if no journalist has touched it, where are you getting it from?

I may well have missed some stuff this year. What I'd seen happening regarding Brittan of late was that certain victim(s) who had given details of abuse previously, were now able to have him named in that context.

And there was the revelation the other week about the cabinet papers which involve names such as Brittan. The problem is we don't actually know what those files said, so it's hard to infer much more than was written in the press at the time, which wasn't much.

But perhaps I've missed something, I certainly missed the news that Operation Fernbridge ended and was replaced with Operation Athabasca - either I'm slacking even worse than I though or some of the journalists that I was relying on previously to bring these details to my attention have gone off the boil.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

"You'll have to spell out what substantiated Brittan stuff has been happening recently. "

Chiefly the naming of him in a mainstream Australian TV doc, much more firm stuff than anything hitertoo.

 

[laptop]

Chiefly the naming of him in a mainstream Australian TV doc, much more firm stuff than anything hitertoo.

I have reason to believe that many of the people who were central to the making of that have "journalist" in their job description.




What you mean, as so often, is that you're annoyed no-one has published the article you want to read when and where you want to read it.

 

[BigMoaner]

Am I the only person who, everytime I come to this folder to see:


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

just wants to type a post saying "fucking loads"

i haven't read the thread but one thing that was far bigger than the lord in the bra was what the lord actually said when one of the women asked him if this sort of thing went on a lot "boys is the common thing" was his answer.

i mean jesus, that should have been the main story - they should be questioning him about what HE knows

 

[J Ed]

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.

I don't think that it's a risk so much as a reality. There are a lot of people in this country are capable of simultaneously thinking 1) we are ruled over by people who cover up paedophilia 2) things like raping children is just a consequences of human nature, it's normal for the powerful to do whatever they want to the powerless, it is the natural order of things and cannot be helped

There is already more than enough evidence that people should be out on the streets over it, like in Belgium, but the response in Britain has been to cover it up and ignore it. When I think about political topics I have discussed with colleagues at work people just don't get exercised about it like they do about subjects like immigration, people on welfare and other people that they have been told to hate.

This mentality scares me almost as much as the fact that a high profile paedophile ring can operate. What else will this country allow?

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

I have reason to believe that many of the people who were central to the making of that have "journalist" in their job description.




What you mean, as so often, is that you're annoyed no-one has published the article you want to read when and where you want to read it.

Sorry, yes. UK journalist. This has the heavy vibe of being sat on. And it is annoying, not because I want to read it.

 

[Roadkill]

From today's Independent, some more detail on what's being alleged against Ted Heath. I might have spoken too quickly last night...

Also see the Mirror.

 

[elbows]

From today's Independent, some more detail on what's being alleged against Ted Heath. I might have spoken too quickly last night...

Also see the Mirror.

In the Independent yesterday we were treated to a Heath biographer who promoted the 'asexual' view of Heath sticking to his guns. Some of the points made are fine, but also some terrible ones which expose an excessive degree of faith in the biographers own ability to get a good reading on someones life.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...ty--im-sure-thats-all-they-were-10436328.html

 

[brogdale]

In the Independent yesterday we were treated to a Heath biographer who promoted the 'asexual' view of Heath sticking to his guns. Some of the points made are fine, but also some terrible ones which expose an excessive degree of faith in the biographers own ability to get a good reading on someones life.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...ty--im-sure-thats-all-they-were-10436328.html

Gotta laugh at all these sychophant/lickspittles (with a VI) who come out of the wood with their 'incredulity' and character references...like Heath would have told a biographer or PS "hey, guess what...back in the early sixties I regularly enjoyed raping kids."

 

[DotCommunist]

and there we have it. A tory prime minister who was a peadophile. A man in charge of the entire country- another peed friend of thatch to- was a nonce. I think that tells us all we need to know about the establishment and its views on human beings.

 

[Roadkill]

and there we have it. A tory prime minister who was a peadophile. A man in charge of the entire country- another peed friend of thatch to- was a nonce. I think that tells us all we need to know about the establishment and its views on human beings.

Not yet we don't - it's all rumour and allegation about Heath so far. Let's not jump to conclusions just yet.

 

[brogdale]

Not yet we don't - it's all rumour and allegation about Heath so far. Let's not jump to conclusions just yet.

Technically correct, of course.
But he is dead, was a senior vermin politician and (apparently) credible accusations of abuse have been made. I don't bet, but if I did......

 

[DotCommunist]

the way I see it its been made clear nobody above the rung of luvvie light entertainer will ever be held up in court with hard evidence because the british state just don't do that, dear boy. So I'm calling heath a peed forevermore

 

[quiquaquo]

http://www.lbc.co.uk/the-journalist-kicked-out-of-uk-for-investigating-ted-heath-113992

The audio file is in more detail.

 

[Barking_Mad]

In the Independent yesterday we were treated to a Heath biographer who promoted the 'asexual' view of Heath sticking to his guns. Some of the points made are fine, but also some terrible ones which expose an excessive degree of faith in the biographers own ability to get a good reading on someones life.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...ty--im-sure-thats-all-they-were-10436328.html

BBC 5 Live had the Heath biographer rambling on this morning saying the same sort of thing.

 

[brogdale]

 

[danny la rouge]

Pity it's a S*n source.

Anyone know what became of the case?

 

[existentialist]

the way I see it its been made clear nobody above the rung of luvvie light entertainer will ever be held up in court with hard evidence because the british state just don't do that, dear boy. So I'm calling heath a peed forevermore

I see your point, but I tend to prefer the idea that we don't call people paedophiles unless there is a reasonably substantial basis for assuming that they are.

Mainly because it troubles me to see the term diluted. People who sexually abuse children are, in my view, about as far beyond the pale as it gets, and we risk trivialising that when we start throwing the word around for anyone who's done far less.

In the case of Heath, all of the allegations so far seem to centre on activities with boys/young men who were below the homosexual age of consent, but who would today be above the prevailing age of consent. That is not, no matter how hard you stretch the definition, "paedophilia", and a very different thing from someone interfering with young children. Unpleasant, unsavoury, quite possibly abusive, but not paedophilia.

 

[hot air baboon]

Ted Heath flashback. Allegations of obscene photographs in court case

...can't see the link - is it this one .....amazed to see this involved Boy George's uncle....

https://theneedleblog.wordpress.com/2014/09/12/edward-heath-the-paedophile-prime-minister/

Many thanks to T for contacting me with this very interesting snippet of information concerning Edward Heath. I’ve had to strip down what he has told me so as not to identify him but this unredacted extract gives the gist of the allegations.

“the producer told me that years before when he was an assistant editor in a cutting room in Wardour Street he used to get his holiday photos developed at a shop in Wardour Street and one day the shop was raided by the police because the owner was dealing in pornography or at least that was the presumed reason. During the raid, a distribution list was discovered which had Ted Heath’s name on it also Patrick Moore’s and it was for “kiddie porn” as it was termed in those days. I do not know how he got this information about the list but apparently “everyone in Wardour Street” knew about it.”

It reminded me of a very strange court case involving Boy George’s uncle (you really couldn’t make some of this stuff up) Kenneth O’Dowd in 1984 who alleged that he had compromising photographs of Edward Heath . The news reports do not describe what the photographs that included Ted Heath depicted however he says that his former mistress “appeared in pornographic photographs together with his two children”
.
According to The Glasgow Herald, O’Dowd produced a photocopied photograph of Edward Heath but it was “dismissed in court as a forgery”.

....another peed friend of thatch to- was a nonce.........

...not that it particularly matters to the issue at hand but Heath & Thatch were very far from being friends in the political or personal sphere....the dynamics of that enmity largely driven by Heath's loathing for "that woman" on account of being toppled by her cabal of supporters ( Airie Neave et al )

 

[danny la rouge]

I see your point, but I tend to prefer the idea that we don't call people paedophiles unless there is a reasonably substantial basis for assuming that they are.

Mainly because it troubles me to see the term diluted. People who sexually abuse children are, in my view, about as far beyond the pale as it gets, and we risk trivialising that when we start throwing the word around for anyone who's done far less.

In the case of Heath, all of the allegations so far seem to centre on activities with boys/young men who were below the homosexual age of consent, but who would today be above the prevailing age of consent. That is not, no matter how hard you stretch the definition, "paedophilia", and a very different thing from someone interfering with young children. Unpleasant, unsavoury, quite possibly abusive, but not paedophilia.

The allegation reported today is with regards to a twelve-year-old. Technically hebephilia.

But I take your general point.

 

[DotCommunist]

all of the allegations so far seem to centre on activities with boys/young men who were below the homosexual age of consent, but who would today be above the prevailing age of consent

the latest allegation is that he raped a 12 year old boy.

 

[DotCommunist]

Airie Neave

its fun to stay with the INLA

 

[existentialist]

the latest allegation is that he raped a 12 year old boy.

OK, well, that does put a different complexion on things. Is it a remotely credible allegation?