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

[ViolentPanda]

Just worked out who this is now, thanks to that ^

Gosh.

That whole thing certainly could all be total bollocks, and of course we're all sensible folks here who are aware of this. Conspiracy theories often have one or two threads of verifiable truth running through them, which makes them all the more believable in the minds of the loonspuds*. But still.





*Incidentally, just looked up loonspud - first result: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=loonspud

And that's pretty much how I look at what JF was saying. Yes, he was obviously suffering from mental health issues when he talked to the media, but that doesn't mean he was making it up, just that his health issues made him dismissable. It's certainly the case that JF moved in the more "elite" closeted circles before he came out, because he'd managed to keep his private life secret from everyone - something it's hard to do if you're doing casual pick-ups or hiring rent-boys.
Always feel sad when I think of him. He was a massively-talented player, unlike his workaday bigoted older brother.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

I think there have been 2 investifations announced into North Wales Police failings a few decades back.

While understandably keen to highlight their current investigations in to JS relates crimes, I've seen no mention of current work looking at crimes themselves said toi have been committed to Bryn Estyn etc.

As Ian Bone said, it's inconceivable that security services won't have known details related to allegations, or that they wouldn't have told others.

Have such people been interviewed by police yet? If not, why not?

 

[Vintage Paw]

At this point, it's really impossible to know what's going on behind the scenes. Despite Cameron (I think?) recently saying that it's for the police to investigate, they will be working furiously, as suggested on the thread earlier, at all levels I expect, to work out who, what, where, how, not necessarily in terms of abuse, but in terms of who knew what. They are probably more concerned at this point about any political cover ups becoming publicly known - especially in recent years and by people in the current government or close to them - than they are with the details of the crimes themselves. But as I said, it's impossible to know what they are doing behind the scenes, but it certainly is going to be a hell of a lot more than we are told.

 

[where to]

Schofield backlash on full swing. Jimmy Savile "how could it happen" questions already forgotten then.

 

[elbows]

They are probably more concerned at this point about any political cover ups becoming publicly known - especially in recent years and by people in the current government or close to them - than they are with the details of the crimes themselves.

That horse has already bolted considering how much stick the original inquiry is getting.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ifled-1996-paedophile-report-says-victim.html

A man who claims to have been abused as a boy by a senior Conservative has accused William Hague of "stifling" a 1997 paedophile inquiry by preventing it from examining claims beyond the care system in north Wales.

They will be able to pick at aspects of Messhams stories but even so, much of the damage is done.

 

[Vintage Paw]

That horse has already bolted considering how much stick the original inquiry is getting.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ifled-1996-paedophile-report-says-victim.html


They will be able to pick at aspects of Messhams stories but even so, much of the damage is done.

True enough, but I think there is a difference between something getting reported, and it then having an impact. We've all seen it before, plenty of times - something shocking gets reported, everyone is aghast, and a little while later it all dies down and you forget to ask if anything ever came of it, which is because in fact nothing did and it just went away. At the moment, it feels like we're at a point where some aspects of all of this could still be covered up or just fade away, while others take all the limelight. Some things might have more of a chance of being successfully covered up than others. And out of all the things, I'd say it's government involvement in any previous cover ups that is the prime candidate for what they'd want to quietly die down.

The real tipping point we need to reach is where every single piece of information is dragged up and exposed. But I'm not entirely sure we're near that point yet. I do hope I'm wrong though, and it does feel like we're inching towards it.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Trouble linking from phone, but upthread is a Nick Davies article from just after names were hushed after original NW investigation

"Ronald has argued that his ruling will encourage paedophiles to come forward and to give honest evidence without fear of retribution. Critics say that this is unnecessary since he has the power to compel witnesses to attend and that those who have come forward have done so to deny the allegations against them and not to make a clean breast of their alleged offences."
So, an unconvincing really. Not as unconvincing as the swathe of Dunblane documents under 100yr D notice though.

 

[Vintage Paw]

Trouble linking from phone, but upthread is a Nick Davies article from just after names were hushed after original NW investigation

"Ronald has argued that his ruling will encourage paedophiles to come forward and to give honest evidence without fear of retribution. Critics say that this is unnecessary since he has the power to compel witnesses to attend and that those who have come forward have done so to deny the allegations against them and not to make a clean breast of their alleged offences."
So, an unconvincing really. Not as unconvincing as the swathe of Dunblane documents under 100yr D notice though.

It's ridiculous really. How many paedophiles did he expect would say "hey, you know what, I'm going to tell you all about how I'm a vile paedo cunt"?

 

[elbows]

Not as unconvincing as the swathe of Dunblane documents under 100yr D notice though.

Some people have been allowed access to those and didnt exactly start screaming about smoking guns once they read them. I'm not saying there was nothing there, but certainly wouldnt get carried away with the worst the internet has to offer on this.

 

[elbows]

I went looking to see if anything esle has been said about Peter Morrison lately. Found almost nothing, except this.

http://www.chesterchronicle.co.uk/c...icated-in-child-abuse-inquiry-59067-32187741/

​

Morrison’s immediate successor Gyles Brandreth, who served as the city’s Tory MP from 1992 to 1997, told The Chronicle he didn’t recollect more than was in his political diary Breaking the Code in which he wrote that he and his wife Michele had ‘been told several times on the doorstep – in no uncertain terms – that the MP is ‘a disgusting pervert’.”​

However, in the same book, Mr Brandreth did refer to Sir Peter as ‘tall, fat, with crinkly hair, piggy eyes, a pink-gin drinker’s face’ in his description of his first meeting with the veteran politician.​

​

 

[framed]

Some people have been allowed access to those and didnt exactly start screaming about smoking guns once they read them. I'm not saying there was nothing there, but certainly wouldnt get carried away with the worst the internet has to offer on this.

Who are the 'some people' who were allowed access to the Dunblane documents?

Surely the interpretation of what was contained in those documents is in the eye of the beholder, n'est pas?

Were you one of them?

If not, your point is puzzling... why the 100 year order on them if there's not much there?

 

[elbows]

Were you one of them?

If not, your point is puzzling... why the 100 year order on them if there's not much there?

No I was not one of them.

I'm not suggesting there was not much there, I was suggesting that whats there may not match what the most vocal people on this subject like to insinuate is there. It may very well be that there is stuff there which fits the theme of coverup, institutional failings and abuse of power, so the story is compatible with this thread. But thats not enough for some people on the net, they want to start throwing around names and turning vague possibilities into almost certainties. People can do that if they want to, but its not the way I look at things, and I certainly did not appreciate previous attempts to insinuate that I was trying to silence people. I'll not be branded a sheeple over my stance any more than others would put up with being called sheeple in some of the conspiracy threads on u75 over the years.

I am for example quite interested in whether any of the media bring up Dunblane again considering the growing shitstorm.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

It's ridiculous really. How many paedophiles did he expect would say "hey, you know what, I'm going to tell you all about how I'm a vile paedo cunt"?

Well exactly, but one leading investigator into the Jersey stuff has suggested there be an amnesty for paedos naming other members of rings (amnesty from prosecution, but not going on the register) He says that would blow the whole thing apart very quickly. I don't know if he's right but it's an interesting idea and he seems to know more than I do.

 

[Vintage Paw]

Well exactly, but one leading investigator into the Jersey stuff has suggested there be an amnesty for paedos naming other members of rings (amnesty from prosecution, but not going on the register) He says that would blow the whole thing apart very quickly. I don't know if he's right but it's an interesting idea and he seems to know more than I do.

I suppose if you look at it one way, it's no different than entering into a plea agreement in any criminal investigation. I suppose it depends what the details are. The way it's originally worded makes it sound like by saying "we won't tell anyone" they expect all these paedophiles - whose entire lives have been built around making sure they aren't found out - to wander down the nearest cop shop and say "I like little kids, but don't judge me, because I'm going to tell you who else does too." Really, what's in it for them? If they are pretty certain no one is on their trail anyway, and they haven't been approached in an investigation, who is going to offer it up willingly? But, of course, if they are already being investigated for it, there is more impetus - a la plea bargain.

 

[framed]

No I was not one of them.

I'm not suggesting there was not much there, I was suggesting that whats there may not match what the most vocal people on this subject like to insinuate is there. It may very well be that there is stuff there which fits the theme of coverup, institutional failings and abuse of power, so the story is compatible with this thread. But thats not enough for some people on the net, they want to start throwing around names and turning vague possibilities into almost certainties. People can do that if they want to, but its not the way I look at things, and I certainly did not appreciate previous attempts to insinuate that I was trying to silence people. I'll not be branded a sheeple over my stance any more than others would put up with being called sheeple in some of the conspiracy threads on u75 over the years.

I am for example quite interested in whether any of the media bring up Dunblane again considering the growing shitstorm.

Elbows, I read your informed posts on these matters with interest.

You can get all righteous about it if you like, but I do think that you have a tendency to resort to 'legalese' at times in an effort to 'put manners' on the parameters of the discussion, even when no names are being mentioned.

I have no wish to 'out' alleged paedophiles without evidence and I take that inference in the same vein as you took my previous criticism of your attempts at guiding the discussion along your own preferred lines.

Other than that, carry on, dear chap...

 

[elbows]

The thing is a lot of what Im moaning about isnt really happening on this forum much, its on the wider internet.

And I certainly dont think I have any ability to guide the discussion, at all times I am mostly just voicing whats on my mind.

Some of the legalise you complain about is down to the legal constraints that we are all under on forums such as this one. An unfettered conversation with me would be more colourful than my posts tend to suggest

 

[elbows]

Channel 4 news are 'putting the past on trial' tonight.

Which brings me back to Crick, who has penned this:

http://blogs.channel4.com/michael-c...n-the-media-learn-from-previous-scandals/1887

Despite the fact that I often, as with my last posts, like to go on about balance and not getting carried away in possibly unfair directions, I cant help but wiggle my eyebrows at some of Crick's language. Mind you it fairly obvious from tweets we have commented on this week that this aspect is looming large in his mind for one or two very specific reasons.

 

[nino_savatte]

Another interesting angle on this whole story, which was also investigated by Scallywag magazine was the Stephen Milligan aspect involving a footballer and two cabiinent ministers. In the story Scallywag claims that Mr. MIlligan was approached by security services who initiated him to warn the footballer to keep quiet on a story he was trying to give to the papers back in the 90s, which implicated two cabinet ministers in something which the security services did not want to come out. The story goes Milligan threatened to go to The Sunday Times after he failed to silence the footballer, and the Security Services then told him the footballer would have to be "eliminated." Milligan later died, his death recorded as accidental asphyxiation from a sex act. At the time of reporting the incident, try as they may, there was no indication that pointed to any sort of interest by Milligan in explicit sex acts that had killed him. The full story, which is certainly fascinating can be found online, shouldn't be hard to find.

The footballer in question was Justin Fashanu.

 

[TheHoodedClaw]

Who are the 'some people' who were allowed access to the Dunblane documents?

Surely the interpretation of what was contained in those documents is in the eye of the beholder, n'est pas?

Were you one of them?

If not, your point is puzzling... why the 100 year order on them if there's not much there?

Some of the bereaved parents have seen the whole thing. You know what was put under the 100-year rule? I'm guessing the details of the injuries suffered by the surviving children.

 

[framed]

Some of the bereaved parents have seen the whole thing. You know what was put under the 100-year rule? I'm guessing the details of the injuries suffered by the surviving children.

Exactly. You're "guessing" ...

'Some of the bereaved parents' would also prefer full public disclosure rather than guesswork.

 

[elbows]

Exactly. You're "guessing" ...

'Some of the bereaved parents' would also prefer full public disclosure rather than guesswork.

Thats not what I was moaning about though, it was the other sorts of guesswork and assumption, the sort you've been getting at. Why is that any better than the less sensational guesswork you are complaining about?

 

[framed]

Thats not what I was moaning about though, it was the other sorts of guesswork and assumption, the sort you've been getting at. Why is that any better than the less sensational guesswork you are complaining about?

I don't quite see the conflict here... perhaps you can elaborate?

 

[elbows]

I was under the impression you were moaning at me for moaning about guesswork, and now you've gone on to moan at someone else for guesswork.

 

[where to]

Alan Clark now. see Guido Fawkes website. Max Clifford interview clip from few years ago. Underage girl(s) this time.

Thatcher was surrounded by paedophiles throughout her life.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

We don't have to name names to speak to the general issue, and in an ideal world we would trust the police to look into such specifics.

But for murkiness alone, in view of thread question, we have Savile, jersey, bryn estyn, dunblane wirh degrees varying from whiff to rancid stench of both co-operation in abuse and cover up.

Leanne Wood also said she thought other care homes in England could need looking at. She aint alone.

So the brief answer to the OP would be: if not 100% compelling then far too chuffin' close.

 

[elbows]

Earlier in this thread the case of Sir Peter Hayman, and his naming using parliamentary privilege came up. I've done some research into this, and its consequences.

Have a read of the obituary of the MP who did the naming in parliament:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/obituaries--geoffrey-dickens-1619966.html

He once told me that the proudest moment of his life came in May 1984, when the diplomat Sir Peter Hayman was sent to jail after being convicted of paedophiliac practices. Dickens had first named Hayman in the House of Commons, thereby making use of his parliamentary privilege: Hayman could not sue him for libel. The Foreign Office, naturally, defended their man. The Conservative Party leadership was unwilling to make itself an ally of so improbable a crusader. And most of the Labour opposition, however revolted by the practice and encouragement of paedophilia, did not care to offer themselves on the same side as an MP who wanted to end the ban on playing sport with South Africa, birch young thugs, and return immigrants to their countries of origin in a peremptory way. But, in the end, Dickens won, none the less.

In March 1981 Dickens, a self-professed paragon of family virtues, a tireless critic of any sexual departure from the traditional norm, called a press conference to announce that he had had two extra-marital affairs, and that he was hopelessly in love with one of the women involved. "I have a skeleton in my cupboard," he said, "and I thought it best to be honest." He also announced a rather quaint liking for the the dansant. Floods of ridicule poured over him then; and even more arrived when, a fortnight later, he announced a reconciliation with his wife.

He was also the first MP to show that it was possible to recover from being done in by the tabloid press - over the the dansant affair in 1981 - and become a popular member of parliament, with all parties.

I am of the impression that an important detail is missing from this account. An old front page story I read about this suggested to me that his press conference was actually supposed to be about Hayman, but something happened that day which caused it to turn into a press conference about his mistress instead. Funny that.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Elbows

' I am for example quite interested in whether any of the media bring up Dunblane again considering the growing shitstorm'

Though it could be worse overall, there is a political and party political agenda at the more tawdry end of things. The right have gunned disproportionately at the bbc, and under gunned (so far anyway) at very similar appearing cover-up in the tories.

Dunblane might be expected to attract less digging up for being north of the border, but more should there be a desire to start having a go at Labour.

 

[elbows]

Channel 4 have a councillor who kept extensive files on the whole business.

 

[framed]

I was under the impression you were moaning at me for moaning about guesswork, and now you've gone on to moan at someone else for guesswork.

No, I wasn't. I asked a question with regard to what you said about the Dunblane enquiry and the 100 year rule because I thought you might have further insight on it from an informed point of view. Despite what you may think, I actually do have a high regard for what you write on these matters.

The other fella just intervened with some blarney about how 'some of the parents' didn't want it published, to which I replied that 'some of the parents' actually do want all of the information to be placed in the public domain.

He 'guessed' at what the actual contents might be, you did not.

As I said, I don't think we are in conflict here, Elbows.

 

[elbows]

Sorry if I overreacted, have read too much stuff that starts to bark on the internet recently and it distresses me when the murk is added to.

Anyway channel 4 news is doing a great job tonight, the credibility of the original inquiry was already damaged, now I believe its dead.

Masons now getting a mention.