Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

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

What she had to say was absolutely astonishing. It felt to me like a very important moment.

It's also becoming more and more obvious where the BBC is lacking in all of this. So far 2 important moments have come from ITV (ITV!) and this from C4....
 
It's also becoming more and more obvious where the BBC is lacking in all of this. So far 2 important moments have come from ITV (ITV!) and this from C4....
Philip Schofield was a very stage managed attempt to move the spotlight from the bbc by the bbc i thought
 
he didnt come up with it on his own did he...someone told him to do it

anyway, dont let me derail an excellent thread with my mumblings

ok, so you're saying that the bbc organised the whole schofield-on-itv-shenanigans this morning? or am i reading you absolutely back to front? (sorry, it's been a long day :oops:)
 
It's sad that the argument can be made that by new allegations about one scandal coming out it must somehow be in order to cover up allegations from another scandal, or that it will automatically have that effect even if it was unintended.

Since when were we only allowed to have one scandal at a time? All of this is interrelated anyway. What is emerging as the overarching narrative is the question of what sort of power was involved in the cover ups of all these abuses (be it Savile or the care homes or wherever). Stories shift and change as more information comes out, and it's natural and to be expected that as this gets bigger people won't be spending all their airtime on things like C4 News or their column inches in beating the same drum about just one aspect of it (the BBC bullshit, for example). There's always a concern that the shift of attention from one part of the story to another could benefit those in involved in that first one, and it's wise to be aware of that. But the news working the way the news does - giving most coverage to new aspects as they emerge - isn't new, nor is it surprising, and it doesn't necessarily mean there's some inner conspiracy controlling what new information emerges.
 
The other fella just intervened with some blarney about how 'some of the parents' didn't want it published,

I didn't say that at all. Please try and read for comprehension.

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

I clearly said that I was guessing, as I haven't read the full thing. I don't think it's me making shit up here.
 
Philip Schofield was a very stage managed attempt to move the spotlight from the bbc by the bbc i thought

The BBC would never have dared to pull a stunt like that on the PM. I doubt Scholfield would be willing to put his job on the line for his ex-paymasters, especially after their handling of the Savile scandal.
 
I didn't say that at all. Please try and read for comprehension.

I clearly said that I was guessing, as I haven't read the full thing. I don't think it's me making shit up here.

And I clearly intimated that there is a problem with 'guessing' about these things...

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.
Making shit up? Hmmm, quite... :rolleyes:
 
And I clearly intimated that there is a problem with 'guessing' about these things...


Making shit up? Hmmm, quite... :rolleyes:

I stated in my post that I was guessing. It's hard to see how I could have been more clear. What do you think has been placed under a 100-year rule, framed?

I mean, it's fine if you just want to engage in the *nudge, nudge, wink, wink* rhetoric like some others in this thread. That's cool.
 
I stated in my post that I was guessing. It's hard to see how I could have been more clear. What do you think has been placed under a 100-year rule, framed?

I have no idea, but unlike you I will not be 'guessing' at what it contains.

In line with 'some of the bereaved parents' I'd like to see the information fully disclosed and any necessary legal matters arising from it dealt with.
 
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.

I think posters with some caution or a laissez faire attitude are all useful in the discussion. Without either we might travel off down a path of nonsense, or miss something that we wouldn't otherwise have considered...
 
It's about advocacy. Advocacy is not a decision at a particular point in time, it is a process and it depends on a relationship. Abuse and neglect will only take place within a culture of abuse and neglect. Paedageddon is about power and complicity. It will be challenged, it will be exposed and justice will be done....hopefully!
 
Im half keeping up with this thread, but has this "FOI (Freedom Of Information) request about alleged peadophiles past and present with connections to the Halls of power" been posted? Lots of names:
http://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2010/...-sex-offenders-inside-the-british-government/

Its says its based on an FOI, but I cant see that verified. Seems legit.

It's based on the request, not the response to the request - in other words this bloke has sent a list of government paedos to the home office for reasons known only to himself - and at the bottom of the request there's a link to the TPUC freemen on the land loon site.

This is the request in question: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/the_safety_of_your_children_2#outgoing-42489

Just to re-emphasise - this information has not come from the government or civil service - it's not a response to an FOI request and it's not reliable info. It's about as reliable as the David Icke forums. It's only by luck that I noticed though to be fair - I saw the reference to Denis Nielsen, name linked to the SWP and ANL, who name wouldn't come up in a FOI request as he was never anything to do with government and thought "this looks more like the work of a far right loon than a FOI response". So I spent about 15 minutes looking for the request - the person who writes that blog has obviously linked to that in the belief that people won't check properly and assume it's part of a response to a FOI request.

It was sent by a bloke with an unhealthy obsession with falcons and the RSPB who seems to have fallen out with the RSPB after they confiscated a nest and some eggs that he'd stolen from an endangered bird. Since then he's been sending loads of FOIs asking about where the RSPB's authority for this comes from and asking whether RSPB officials who visit nests where children might be playing are subject to a CRB. He's since been banned from the what do they know site for wasting everyone's time with vexatious requests.
 
It's based on the request, not the response to the request - in other words this bloke has sent a list of government paedos to the home office for reasons known only to himself - and at the bottom of the request there's a link to the TPUC freemen on the land loon site.

This is the request in question: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/the_safety_of_your_children_2#outgoing-42489

Just to re-emphasise - this information has not come from the government or civil service - it's not a response to an FOI request and it's not reliable info. It's about as reliable as the David Icke forums. It's only by luck that I noticed though to be fair - I saw the reference to Denis Nielsen, name linked to the SWP and ANL, who name wouldn't come up in a FOI request as he was never anything to do with government and thought "this looks more like the work of a far right loon than a FOI response". So I spent about 15 minutes looking for the request - the person who writes that blog has obviously linked to that in the belief that people won't check properly and assume it's part of a response to a FOI request.

It was sent by a bloke with an unhealthy obsession with falcons and the RSPB who seems to have fallen out with the RSPB after they confiscated a nest and some eggs that he'd stolen from an endangered bird. Since then he's been sending loads of FOIs asking about where the RSPB's authority for this comes from and asking whether RSPB officials who visit nests where children might be playing are subject to a CRB. He's since been banned from the what do they know site for wasting everyone's time with vexatious requests.
Are you saying the David Icke forums are unreliable? Good grief, is nothing to be trusted these days.. I'm shocked and disappointed. :)
 
I'm going to return to the Sir Peter Hayman case yet again in order to explore attitudes from that era, and what happens when a government cover-up goes wrong due to Private Eye and an MP using parliamentary privilege.

Here are some press articles, mostly Canadian, from the time the story broke:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=nTkyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=vaQFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1133,3738845&hl=en
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=RCNlAAAAIBAJ&sjid=UogNAAAAIBAJ&pg=1722,5595773&hl=en
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=xQdfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=4Y0DAAAAIBAJ&pg=3910,4168097&hl=en
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=PWk1AAAAIBAJ&sjid=SO4FAAAAIBAJ&pg=6624,5129092&hl=en

At every stage the story has a variety of disturbing aspects, even without the detail I mentioned earlier today about what happened to the MP who named him.
 
Hoogstraten is such a rancid shitsack that even Bob Mugabe couldn't stomach him when he was living in Zimbabwe. Oh how the people of the south coast wept as Mugabe expropriated Hoogie's Zimbabwe landholdings!

Think he still lives there, has assets there and his falling out with Bob was only brief... AFAIK he's got a few houses in Harare, all next to each other in the same close, different girlfriend in each house. And,yes, he's a massive cunt.... hope next time he falls out with Bob he gets shot.
 
I watched the Channel 4 piece after recording it, just now. Some excellent work, even if a couple of moments fell into Brass Eye territory. However the studio discussion i felt missed the mark. Snow threw up the issue of 'conspiracy theories' and his guest agreed with him that they were 'not helpful' - yet only 5 minutes before their reporter spoke to Keith Gregory (abused as a child) and an ex police officer, who both agreed that the influence of Masons needed investigation as they had a lot of influence in the police (and probably judiciary - my insertion).

If that were to be proven as being a fact through an investigation, then the issue of a conspiracy is proven. That is a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, to deny the trial of paedophiles, to fail to call witnesses who it was claimed had something to answer and a failure to investigate suspects by the police.
 
533650_10152246967900858_1704798999_n.jpg
 
No 10's statement on the earlier Schofield episode was that it was "a juvenile stunt that demeans the subject".
 
Back
Top Bottom