Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

Diamond said:
Again, this thread being hijacked code...

It simply means that if someone is disturbing our inquiry by, shock horror!, disagreeing with the direction in which it travels, then they are ruining our grand project.

There are two points to bring out here:

First, this is a thread on a public internet bulletin board. There is no grand project. There is nothing to be ruined. You are not building anything. You have not launched an investigation. You are simply whiling away the hours. To pretend otherwise is, quite frankly, absurd in the extreme. There is no architecture, there will be no hulking remains. This is ephemeral entertainment that means nothing.

Second, if you argue that dissenting opinions are "hijacking" your conversations, perhaps you can play that through in to free speech implications. Or perhaps you cannot because you have not thought about them.
Click to expand...
Incidentally, this is wrong: these threads can, and do, have real world outcomes. As a small example: it was on a precursor to this very thread that a discussion ensued that led to my decision to go to the police and disclose abuse from 40 years ago. They took it seriously enough to start an investigation that resulted in ten new victims hitherto unknown to them being found and about 30 charges of offences against children being brought, and a second offender facing further charges.

That simply would not have happened if it hadn't been for that discussion, and the rather sneering suggestion of one poster that it was a waste of money for the police to be investigating these historic cases.
 
existentialist said:
And the sickening thing is that there will no doubt be those who will regard those who sue their abusers as no more than opportunists out for a bit of easy money. No matter that their lives might have been blighted by the aftermath of abuse, or that the lost opportunities and efforts to overcome that aftermath have cost them dearly, their actions will be seen - probably by the same narrow-minded fools who regard this topic as mere self-indulgence and manufactured fear - as capitalising on the publicity that has belatedly begun to arise over these long-suppressed injustices.
Click to expand...


That vile predatory nonce johnathon king is still publicly giving out about " the victim industry " . Publicly sneering at victims coming forward . Beggars belief that not only is he given a platform to do that ,but before all the saville stuff there were numerous liberal types claiming he was persecuted for his sexuality . They'd think twice now most of them .
 
Casually Red said:
but before all the saville stuff there were numerous liberal types claiming he was persecuted for his sexuality . They'd think twice now most of them .
Click to expand...

It wasn't the Savile stuff that really changed that, though it may have been the first opportunity for people to notice the changes on that front. It was a range of things including very important ones such as age of consent equality. Because at stages of the long struggle for equal rights, steps along the path lead to messy periods where non-abusive relationships were still criminalised. Some abusers exploited those situations, latching on to a wider struggle. They can't hide around those margins anymore, and we also have laws that reduce the opportunity for older people in positions of trust to abuse power in relation to their younger charges.
 
existentialist said:
Incidentally, this is wrong: these threads can, and do, have real world outcomes. As a small example: it was on a precursor to this very thread that a discussion ensued that led to my decision to go to the police and disclose abuse from 40 years ago. They took it seriously enough to start an investigation that resulted in ten new victims hitherto unknown to them being found and about 30 charges of offences against children being brought, and a second offender facing further charges.

That simply would not have happened if it hadn't been for that discussion, and the rather sneering suggestion of one poster that it was a waste of money for the police to be investigating these historic cases.
Click to expand...

That's "...the rather sneering suggestion of one poster who is either a troll, or has all the social awareness and self-awareness of a pus-filled arse boil", if you don't mind!
 
elbows said:
It wasn't the Savile stuff that really changed that, though it may have been the first opportunity for people to notice the changes on that front. It was a range of things including very important ones such as age of consent equality. Because at stages of the long struggle for equal rights, steps along the path lead to messy periods where non-abusive relationships were still criminalised. Some abusers exploited those situations, latching on to a wider struggle. They can't hide around those margins anymore, and we also have laws that reduce the opportunity for older people in positions of trust to abuse power in relation to their younger charges.
Click to expand...
I think that the Savile business was the coming to a head of an increasingly obtrusive boil. If it hadn't been Savile, it was inevitable that it would have been something else, but I completely agree with you that the question of historical sexual abuse was becoming increasingly difficult for anyone to continue covering up.

What I think that the Savile revelations did was to put in front of the police (in particular) an issue that was both unignorable, and at the same time comparatively low-risk: they could investigate past crimes without the hitherto awkward business of having to work towards a prosecution of those crimes. That snowballed as the full scope of what Savile had done came to light, but - critically - sent the message to victims of other abusers that the police were able and prepared to investigate historical allegations without the victims being dismissed or disbelieved. And, as prosecutions started to feed through, that they could finally stand a chance of seeing their abusers account for their activities in court.
 
existentialist said:
I think that the Savile business was the coming to a head of an increasingly obtrusive boil. If it hadn't been Savile, it was inevitable that it would have been something else, but I completely agree with you that the question of historical sexual abuse was becoming increasingly difficult for anyone to continue covering up.
Click to expand...

I was only talking about one or two phenomenon caused by historical inequalities in the age of consent, and how this created a somewhat grey area for a time which some could exploit at the expense of the naive and well-intentioned. And how Savile had nothing to do with evolution and revelation on this front.

In terms of the historical abuse coming out for a public airing, I believe Saviles death was a big trigger for that.
 
elbows said:
I was only talking about one or two phenomenon caused by historical inequalities in the age of consent, and how this created a somewhat grey area for a time which some could exploit at the expense of the naive and well-intentioned. And how Savile had nothing to do with evolution and revelation on this front.

In terms of the historical abuse coming out for a public airing, I believe Saviles death was a big trigger for that.
Click to expand...
I absolutely agree that the moralistic proscription of perfectly healthy and natural sexual behaviours facilitated a lot of harmful and abusive ones, yes.
 
1%er said:
Thank fuck Baroness Butler-Sloss is not chairing the CSA. These two stories appear to show a remarkable lack of judgement by someone so eminent in the legal field.

Butler-Sloss Is Character Witness For Alleged Paedophile.

Paedophile Philip Chard Found Guilty (Despite Butler-Sloss Supporting Him.)
Click to expand...
Yeah, I saw that - and thought that. At the very least it was an unfair intervention, seeking to bring the kudos of a senior judge into play in the case (even if it didn't work).
 
Casually Red said:
Not trying to derail but she looks the absolute spit of Saville in that pic they chose .

Basically her character reference amounts to " he didn't look like a nonce. I've seen loads of them in my time but he didn't strike me as one " . He was in her bloody house with his mum for christs sake . What was he supposed to be doing ?

Can't believe they wre putting her in charge .
Click to expand...
How dare you cast aspersions on the good Lady! She numbers a former Home Secretary in her circle of friends.
 
DotCommunist said:
the new person in charge is still establishment, kiwi establishent, but still.
Click to expand...

Indeed, but there is still room for quite a lot of variation in quality and agenda of chairperson even within the confines of the establishment.

Although I share much of the cynicism about inquiries etc, I don't really know how, by their very nature, we could have a public inquiry that wasn't establishment. Sp it then comes down to the usual questions as to whether the time has come that the establishment will open up significantly, or whether fresh injustice will occur in a pronounced way.

In some senses the multiple botches on the inquiry chair front were a bad sign, but I think the fiasco's created an opportunity for more good to come out of things. It's given the establishment several slaps already, plenty for them to think about and this can affect the delicate balance of things in a positive way. Same for The Janner crown prosecution fiasco.
 
ExaroNews ‏@ExaroNews 17m17 minutes ago
Harvey Proctor says that 'Operation Midland' is investigating claim that he sexually abused and murdered a boy. HP denies claim.

ExaroNews ‏@ExaroNews 11m11 minutes ago
Harvey Proctor catalogues allegs again him, including role in murder of two other boys, torture and sexual abuse of boys. He denies it all.

ExaroNews ‏@ExaroNews 3m3 minutes ago
Harvey Proctor says that police are investigating claim that he sexually abused boy at Sir Edward Heath's home. He denies it.
 
I don't like Proctor, but I don't trust Exxaro or the competence of the Met; and I don't find this huge conspiracy thing terribly convincing - it's all becoming a bit too David Icke.

Child abuse was everywhere in British society at this time, at all levels and plenty of blind eyes were turned, but I think that by buiding things like this house of cards we put investigations into more credible but more mundane claims of abuse at risk.
 
tim said:
I don't like Proctor, but I don't trust Exxaro or the competence of the Met; and I don't find this huge conspiracy thing terribly convincing - it's all becoming a bit too David Icke.

Child abuse was everywhere in British society at this time, at all levels and plenty of blind eyes were turned, but I think that by buiding things like this house of cards we put investigations into more credible but more mundane claims of abuse at risk.
Click to expand...
I know what you mean, but I have to say Proctor appeared to do himself no favours today with that extra-ordinary pressa and then doing a very good impression of a psychopath in the C4 News interview. And all the stuff about revealing the precise nature of the allegations against him...odd.
 
brogdale said:
...And all the stuff about revealing the precise nature of the allegations against him...odd.
Click to expand...

oh i don't know, its a good way of forcing the police/CPS to either piss or get off the pot by making them look either incompetant or like conspiraloons.

'ex-tory MP interviewed over sex abuse allegations' could be anything, and carries plausibility. 'ex-tory MP interviewed over allegations he strangled a boy in the company of an ex-PM he loathed - and who loathed him - the Chief of the Defence Staff and the Home Secretary' is like something you'd read on a David Icke website.

that does not preclude it being true, but you'd need some spectacular evidence to prove something that sounds so outlandish - and given that they've not charged him, that evidence doesn't appear to in their pocket just yet. he's looking to get the police/CPS to drop it, and making them look like idiots is a good way of doing that.
 
Here's the interview..



4.00 to 6.30 is pretty damning; if he can't admit to the nature of crimes for which he was convicted it doesn't lend huge weight to his strident defence against the new allegations.
 
Last edited:
Does he comes from a long and distinguished line of proctologists

Oh and from urban dictionary:

"Harvey
To have a visible and quite noticeable semi-erection when in public."

As if he wasn't guilty enough already

Tbf that press conference was bizarre. Still, lucky him to have such a platform available to make his views and opinions public :hmm:
 
It's hard not to speculate whilst watching him as to whether his somewhat shifty demeanour and the occasional slightly odd turn of phrase is simply someone under immense, unfair pressure being asked "when did you stop beating your wife" style questions, with KGM's ever present subtle, sensitive and understated style doing it's best to put the interviewee in a relaxed and un-defensive mood, or something much, much darker.

Talking about yourself in the 3rd person, however, which Proctor has a couple of times in today's media appearances, comes across as immensely weird and intense, though, whatever the circumstances. Let alone these circumstances.
 
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
Buddy Bradley
How long before we get a proper Tory-style sleaze gaffe from Labour?
Replies
0
Views
205
Buddy Bradley
Buddy Bradley
burtabraham
  • Poll
Should there be an elected second chamber, and how should it be elected?
2 3
Replies
63
Views
1K
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
Humberto
Heroin Addiction in the UK
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
181
Views
6K
BristolEcho
BristolEcho
Back
Top Bottom