How much evidence is there of long term high level UK paedophile ring?
- Thread starter free spirit
- Start date
dylans
overlord of all acorns
There is no conspiracy. No "rings". The truth is more banal. Institutions and the authority and power structures inherent in institutions create conditions in which those with power can abuse their authority with relative impunity. This is true of institutions such as the Catholic Church, prisons and reform schools, and organisations such as the BBC or NHS.
It works on many levels. The most obvious is that victims of abuse are powerless and find themselves trapped in a system where their voices are not only silenced and ignored but worse where the structures of such institutions are organised in such a way that they face sanction and punishment for complaining. Victims are aware of this and this knowledge itself works to further silence their voices. Who is going to believe a Broadmoor patient, a "loony," over a nationally revered celebrity? Who is going to believe a reform school kid, a "criminal" over a charity fundraising saint? Who is going to believe a kid over a priest? Both abuser and abused know this, and this knowledge further works to facilitate abuse.
Organisations and bureaucracies are structured in such ways to mitigate responsibility, so those who see and know are made to feel its not their responsibility. Jobs and promotions and reputations and careers are at stake. So those who suspect are discouraged from following their instincts and also reassured that they bear no responsibility. Their roles within bureaucratic organisations are strictly limited and restricted and the structure of the organisation itself works to isolate their voices. Thus an admin employee witnessing suspicious behaviour by someone of higher authority is simply powerless to expose it. There is simply no structure for them to do so. Not only will they not be believed, they will be actively disbelieved and silenced and most importantly, they know that.
Power and authority are disproportionately dispensed within institutions, so those who exercise it are in a position to set the narrative themselves. Who is believed, who is listened to, who is ignored, who is disbelieved whose voice is respected, all these factors are themselves rigidly institutionally structured by the rules, hierarchies, functional specialisms and roles, impersonality etc of organisations themselves.
Control of such power structures is actively guarded and protected by those who exercise and abuse power. Thus the confidence with which they can abuse. They can literally laugh in the faces of their victims and say "no one will believe you" and both victim and abuser know this is true. Because it is they who ensure their voices are not even heard and if they are that it is the victim or the whistleblower who will pay.
There is no need for a conspiracy to explain these kinds of baffling events. Both Max Weber and Hannah Arendt discussed the dehumanising nature of bureaucracies and the way that responsibility for such acts can be dissipated by institutional structure. Weber called it the "prisonhouse of bureaucracy" and Arendt talked of the banality of evil. The structures of modern bureaucratic institutions themselves facilitate the abuse of power by those who exercise authority within such structures, and this is true whether it is the Catholic Church, the NHS, a girls reform school or the BBC.
I think this is why we are now seeing many people coming forward with complaints of abuse that are entirely unrelated to Savile or to any of the institutions involved in this scandal. We are witnessing a unique moment in which the window has opened a little allowing previously unheard voices to be raised in a new confidence that they may now be believed when previously they weren't. Unfortunately the nature and structure of bureaucracies and institutions means that such a window will not be open for long before it slams shut again
It works on many levels. The most obvious is that victims of abuse are powerless and find themselves trapped in a system where their voices are not only silenced and ignored but worse where the structures of such institutions are organised in such a way that they face sanction and punishment for complaining. Victims are aware of this and this knowledge itself works to further silence their voices. Who is going to believe a Broadmoor patient, a "loony," over a nationally revered celebrity? Who is going to believe a reform school kid, a "criminal" over a charity fundraising saint? Who is going to believe a kid over a priest? Both abuser and abused know this, and this knowledge further works to facilitate abuse.
Organisations and bureaucracies are structured in such ways to mitigate responsibility, so those who see and know are made to feel its not their responsibility. Jobs and promotions and reputations and careers are at stake. So those who suspect are discouraged from following their instincts and also reassured that they bear no responsibility. Their roles within bureaucratic organisations are strictly limited and restricted and the structure of the organisation itself works to isolate their voices. Thus an admin employee witnessing suspicious behaviour by someone of higher authority is simply powerless to expose it. There is simply no structure for them to do so. Not only will they not be believed, they will be actively disbelieved and silenced and most importantly, they know that.
Power and authority are disproportionately dispensed within institutions, so those who exercise it are in a position to set the narrative themselves. Who is believed, who is listened to, who is ignored, who is disbelieved whose voice is respected, all these factors are themselves rigidly institutionally structured by the rules, hierarchies, functional specialisms and roles, impersonality etc of organisations themselves.
Control of such power structures is actively guarded and protected by those who exercise and abuse power. Thus the confidence with which they can abuse. They can literally laugh in the faces of their victims and say "no one will believe you" and both victim and abuser know this is true. Because it is they who ensure their voices are not even heard and if they are that it is the victim or the whistleblower who will pay.
There is no need for a conspiracy to explain these kinds of baffling events. Both Max Weber and Hannah Arendt discussed the dehumanising nature of bureaucracies and the way that responsibility for such acts can be dissipated by institutional structure. Weber called it the "prisonhouse of bureaucracy" and Arendt talked of the banality of evil. The structures of modern bureaucratic institutions themselves facilitate the abuse of power by those who exercise authority within such structures, and this is true whether it is the Catholic Church, the NHS, a girls reform school or the BBC.
I think this is why we are now seeing many people coming forward with complaints of abuse that are entirely unrelated to Savile or to any of the institutions involved in this scandal. We are witnessing a unique moment in which the window has opened a little allowing previously unheard voices to be raised in a new confidence that they may now be believed when previously they weren't. Unfortunately the nature and structure of bureaucracies and institutions means that such a window will not be open for long before it slams shut again
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
TBF, most of the stuff about Mountbatten has been well-known for decades. His aides in India used to despair at the amount of catamites he went through. Not sure about Kincora though, because while there's a circumstantial link - Mountbatten liked young arse and visited Northern Ireland regularly - so far there's nothing tying him directly to visits to Kincora.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I've no doubt at all that some paedophiles are "networked". Back in the '70s there was P.I.E. and nowadays there are all sorts of opportunities to network provided by the internet.
I don't, however, think there's a "high-level UK paedophile ring". I suspect the truth is more prosaic: That there are many small networks of paedophiles that may resemble a "UK paedophile ring" when looked at from a certain perspective. Paedophiles appear to network in cellular fashion, i.e. separate small cells, rather than being members of the same overarching noncing club, but the fact that some paedophiles deliberately seek social and employment roles that place them in positions of relative power might reinforce the latter perception.
abstract1
shitting miracles
Keith Laverack is a perfect example of this: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/social-services-chief-jailed-for-20-years-abuse-1271615.html
Edited to add in another link: http://www.nickdavies.net/1998/04/01/the-sheer-scale-of-child-sexual-abuse-in-britain/
Treacle Toes
Time
Is anyone watching PMQT today?
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
it's got worse since the actors changed last
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Has Watson seen the file? How? The aide is obv Morrison.
Treacle Toes
Time
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I think the name is Peter Righton not Wrigton - he ran the PIE as mentioned above.
sihhi
Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered
Is this the same children and families social work lecturer, who got fined (but no more) in 1992
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...d-over-photographs-of-naked-boys-1551820.html
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
A bit more about it here: http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/30/05/2000/21483/A-question-of-confinement.htm
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I believe that it is.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I wonder if anyone is going through the Waterhouse report for names and links right now?
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
Director of Social Work Education, National Institute for Social Work and Assessor for the Bristish Journal of Social Work in the 1980s. His partner was involved in the New Barns school court case, reported in Community Care
Cheers - Louis MacNecie
happie chappie
Well-Known Member
I’m not too sure how many people constitute a "ring”. On the assumption that most paedophiles work alone, perhaps three or four is a sensible starting point.
If so, I’d be amazed if there wasn’t a high-level ring or indeed rings. They undoubtedly exist in normal society, so they’d also exist in the upper echelons.
Perhaps there are more likely to be “rings” at the highest levels (as opposed to high-profile individuals offending alone) as there are probably more opportunities to gain access to, for example, children’s homes and more chance of covering it up as not only are the individual ring members in positions of authority, they are more likely to know other influential people outside of the ring who may assist with hushing up abuse.
I suspect that there will be a lot of rumours and allegations over the next days and weeks, especially when the papers really start digging around. The Sundays should be quite interesting. Quite a few celebs and other “worthies” must be shitting themselves.
If so, I’d be amazed if there wasn’t a high-level ring or indeed rings. They undoubtedly exist in normal society, so they’d also exist in the upper echelons.
Perhaps there are more likely to be “rings” at the highest levels (as opposed to high-profile individuals offending alone) as there are probably more opportunities to gain access to, for example, children’s homes and more chance of covering it up as not only are the individual ring members in positions of authority, they are more likely to know other influential people outside of the ring who may assist with hushing up abuse.
I suspect that there will be a lot of rumours and allegations over the next days and weeks, especially when the papers really start digging around. The Sundays should be quite interesting. Quite a few celebs and other “worthies” must be shitting themselves.
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
who's Morrison?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
If all that came out, he'd go to pieces.
Vintage Paw
dead stare and computer glare
WRT the stuff about the cabinet minister that some people are blogging about gleefully, I find it grotesquely sick. I get it, the person in question is intensely dislikeable, but attack someone for their record and what you know they've done - don't sit there and hope beyond hope that he did in fact abuse kids because it'd give you more fuel to use against him. Hoping kids were abused? Fuck off.
(Not suggesting anyone here is doing that - it's my reaction to the various things I've seen and heard from others elsewhere since last night.)
(Not suggesting anyone here is doing that - it's my reaction to the various things I've seen and heard from others elsewhere since last night.)
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
And on top of all that, he had dandruff. I distinctly remember it being reported that his Head and Shoulders had been found washed up on shore!
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
I think Jersey is the place to look. The banning of Leah McGrath Goodman from the UK following admitting she was a journlaist reporting on the Jersey Haute de la Garenne abuse was very interesting and strange.
Article here
and another
here
Article here
and another
here
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I understand what you're saying. It's like some people just switch off their ability to empathise or sympathise, because it gets in the way of what they want to happen. They seem to forget that the "outing" of a paedophile has repercussions on the victims too.
Vintage Paw
dead stare and computer glare
Yep. It's one thing to take interest in the news that does come out about this sort of thing, to express anger about what happened, and even to want to know more of the details. But what I was referring to specifically in this instance, was the gleeful rubbing of hands and mirthful smirking and excitement in some corners (one example of which I experienced face-to-face - not just online), of people hoping that that the rumours about this particular cabinet minister were true, because they don't happen to like him. That someone would let their hatred of a politician bring them to the point where they hope he did abuse children - it's fucking grotesque.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
TBF, I think you can find stories based in fact just about everywhere. Haute de la Garenne is simply a more egregious instance. This stuff has always, in my lifetime, been here. Back in the '70s when I had my (thankfully short) run-in with the care system, it was well-known that there were certain childrens' homes that no-one wanted to end up at because the staff were either violent, perverted or violently perverted, as well as particular foster-parents being dodgy, and that was just in the Local Authority I was living in at the time, next door in Lambeth, things were even worse.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Treacle Toes
Time
I hear ya. I have been struggling with the same idea/feeling myself. How do I RT something or like a comment/article/post/share info etc without feeling like I am liking the fact that these things have happened?
I have been 'checking' my interest in these stories because of that.
Similar threads
- Poll
