Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

Vintage Paw said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think tbf that people are thinking "if they have done those things, then they ought to be publically named and shamed for what they are" - rather than "I hope they've abused some kids".
 
Well the cabinet minister being discussed elsewhere is not the same ex-cabinet minister that rumours were rife about before in this regard iyswim.
There's quite strong evidence that the previous rumours were started maliciously.
 
articul8 said:
I think tbf that people are thinking "if they have done those things, then they ought to be publically named and shamed for what they are" - rather than "I hope they've abused some kids".
Click to expand...

It's very definitely the latter I'm talking about. The former, of course that's a reasonable thing to think. The latter, that's what I experienced last night when people started talking about this particular politician. As I said in my posts, it was a gleeful excitement hoping for more muck to be able to sling at a person they dislike. I am not conflating the two different things, but pointing to that specific sick hope.
 
Mrs Magpie said:
Well the cabinet minister being discussed elsewhere is not the same ex-cabinet minister that rumours were rife about before in this regard iyswim.
There's quite strong evidence that the previous rumours were started maliciously.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. There are 2 politicians, one of them now dead, who are being talked about today, and that in itself is generating a big old rumour mill of confused speculation as people aren't quite sure who is being talked about.

But regardless, even if the rumours about the current cabinet minister were started maliciously, that doesn't negate the fact that some people who then heard those rumours were hopping around practically begging for it to be true. It's that disregard for anything other than their own opportunity to have more fuel to add to the fire of their hatred of this person that is so vile.

And to reiterate: I'm not suggesting there is anyone here who is doing this. And I'm also not suggesting that everyone elsewhere is doing this. I'm merely commenting on things I saw and heard last night from a few people that I found particularly distasteful - and I suppose I thought it worthy of mention because I think sometimes we - all of us - could do with stepping back a little bit, because it's very, very easy to get swept up in the tide when there is so much rumour and speculation and it's such a huge, shared experience when it's an 'event' on a scale such as this (the 'event' being the on-going revelations, speculation, and repercussions about the scope of the abuse that appears to have been going on for decades).
 
Link now working. He hasn't seen the file.

I'll post the whole thing as the site may be unviewable again:

I cannot give much more detail until the police have been given more time to investigate whether evidence still exists from the mid-nineties, but here is what I can say.

Last week I was contacted by a former child protection specialist who for some years, had been concerned that a wider investigation regarding the activities of convicted paedophile, John Righton was not fully investigated.

He contacted me because he knew I had spoken out in the Murdoch scandal. Over the years, he had lost faith in the ability of politicians to get to the truth. The last time he contacted an MP was in 1994. The MP promised to follow up the case but nothing came of it.

The central allegation was that a large body of material seized in the raid on Righton’s home had not been fully investigated. Though Righton was the subject of a BBC profile in 1994 [I think this is the date] “The Secret Life of a Paedophile”, little had been done to follow up the leads from the case. A specialist unit in Scotland Yard had the material which supplemented a wider investigation into organised paedophile rings in children’s homes.

Over the last few days I have spoken to two other child protection specialists who share the concern of the gentleman who contacted me.

Within the material seized at Righton’s home were letters from known and convicted paedophiles. The contact, who has seen the letters, claimed that one paedophile in particular was of great concern. He said that the paedophile, who worked with children, boasted of a key aide to a former PM who could help get hold of indecent images of children. I am not naming the person for obvious reasons but for clarity it is not former MP, Peter Morrison. This afternoon my office has been bombarded with calls regarding Morrison, I think because he was named by Edwina Currie at the weekend as having inappropriate sexual relations with teenage boys.

I’ll say more when I can but this may not be for some time.

I should say that like with the hacking scandal, a number of people have contacted me this afternoon offering more information regarding the case. I am happy to talk to anyone who can help me – particularly those who came into contact with Righton and his contacts when they were young. I can understand how powerless they must have felt at the time – Righton’s net was cast wide.

One person also contacted me to suggest that the Met held a vast quantity of material suggesting Jimmy Savile was a predatory paedophile. I do not know whether this is true but I do know the source and she has been 100% accurate in the past.

One final thing I should say – I made the decision to ask a question of the PM late this morning and had not had time to write to the Met before speaking out. I have no doubt the Met will take this seriously and am sorry I didn’t have time to forewarn the commissioner of my intention to raise the matter.

I have written to him this afternoon with more details regarding the case. This will obviously remain confidential.
Click to expand...
 
Within the material seized at Righton’s home were letters from known and convicted paedophiles. The contact, who has seen the letters, claimed that one paedophile in particular was of great concern. He said that the paedophile, who worked with children, boasted of a key aide to a former PM who could help get hold of indecent images of children. I am not naming the person for obvious reasons but for clarity it is not former MP, Peter Morrison.
Click to expand...
 
Rutita1 said:
I had no idea this article had been written:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...l-left-encouraged-sexualisation-children.html

Yuck...wish I still didn't know.
Click to expand...
The article is the expected crap - and a debate on it probably OT for this thread, but it does highlight a mirror image abrogation of responsibility on the part of what is now LIBERTY as the other institutions that turned a blind eye or did more at the time. Provided the facts are correct of course.

Back in 1978, an organisation called the Paedophile Information Exchange affiliated itself to the National Council for Civil Liberties — known today as Liberty.
PIE — whose members were reportedly attracted to boys and girls — set out to make paedophilia respectable.

It campaigned to reduce the age of consent and resist controls on child pornography. Until it excluded PIE in 1983, the NCCL thus backed this disgusting agenda of child abuse.

Indeed, even before PIE was affiliated to it, the NCCL was campaigning to liberalise paedophilia and reduce the age of sexual consent to 14. In 1976, the NCCL argued ‘childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in with an adult, result in no identifiable damage’.
And in 1977 it said: ‘NCCL has no policy on [PIE’s] aims, other than the evidence that children are harmed if, after a mutual relationship with an adult, they are exposed to the attentions of the police, Press and court.’
Click to expand...
 
Detail aside, what will in the first instance be of interest is to see if Tom Watson's question is addressed very much at all.

I have read (though not checked) that his question has already been airbrushed from BBC and Sky coverage.
TW has kudos for his tenacity over hacking. His credibility and credentials are pretty hard to knock.

He has not named names, which is important at this point - I keep saying that principles and themes can be more important than salacious gossip and have been accused of opportunism for taking a broader view than just fixating on Savile and the BBC as (supposedly) relatively isolated cases
After weeks of the BBC being accused of "under the carpet" and years of plenty more stories of the same theme (press hacking, Hillsborough, bank regulation, the Roman Church...) will parliament itself, in front of our noses, try and do exactly the same thing?

 
This is one of those threads where I really wish that I could share what I know, but sadly cannot do so.

eta

I agree with Dylans also. We like to think of "rings" and networks but these things are loose knitted groups of disparate individuals who may or may not share other interests outside of abusing kids. There are all kinds of networks that overlap, some benign and some evil.
 
What's the estimated proportion of paedophiles in the population? It must be about 0.5%? there are 650 MPs in the houses of parliament, so that would make what? three or four?
 
I prefer the term "child abuser" to paedophile. Paedophile means someone who loves children and child abusers are not people who love children. Also the word paedophile (as it is commonly used) describes someone who has a sexual interest in under age boys or girls. It could be used to describe, say someone who has a crush on a 15 year old but who does not act on it out of concern for the 15 year old's welfare and out of understanding what is inappropriate behaviour on the part of an adult. Child abuser describes someone who crosses that line of abusing a child, which is not a loving act at all.

If you include in the category of paedophile or child abuser those people who would seduce teenagers if they thought that they would get away with it I think that the percentage must be higher than 0.5% (I base this not on research, simply on my own subjective experience of being a teenager so it may be way off).
 
butchersapron said:
Airbrushed how? They have made a link to that specific question availible - they don't do that for every question. They chose to highlight this one in fact.
Click to expand...
Odd that Cameron isn't sure which prime minister he is referring to - what does that have to do with the question? There are accusations of abuse by an actual former PM (now deceased) swirling round bits of the internet, reckon that's whats on Cameron's mind.
 
gosub said:
Odd that Cameron isn't sure which prime minister he is referring to - what does that have to do with the question? There are accusations of abuse by an actual former PM (now deceased) swirling round bits of the internet, reckon that's whats on Cameron's mind.
Click to expand...
Well, given that Watson says it's not Morrision - it can surely only be thatcher, heath or wilson (fact based). I don't know which - so Cameron does have some room.
 
but why pick up on the employer? isn't the most important bit of the story. Though is worth remembering the supposed vetting which at the meant you couldn't get very far in say the Foreign Office if you were gay cos of the because of the blackmail risk.

But then again Andy Coulson was "vetted"

- eta that is not to imply anything about Andy Coulson 's sexual proclivaties
 
gosub said:
but why pick up on the employer? isn't the most important bit of the story. Though is worth remembering the supposed vetting which at the meant you couldn't get very far in say the Foreign Office if you were gay cos of the because of the blackmail risk. But then again Andy Coulson was "vetted"
Click to expand...
Because of who the employer is - they are not your normal employers. So, precisely because of who are they employed by (despite not really being the employers).
 
I'm not saying its not important, its just not what you focus on when asked that question, it is less important than dealing the individual in question for eample
 
gosub said:
I'm not saying its not important, its just not what you focus on when asked that question, it is less important than dealing the individual in question for eample
Click to expand...
It's very very important when you realise what their job is, what doors it opens, what access it offers and what power to avoid repercussions it allows.
 
gosub said:
Odd that Cameron isn't sure which prime minister he is referring to - what does that have to do with the question? There are accusations of abuse by an actual former PM (now deceased) swirling round bits of the internet, reckon that's whats on Cameron's mind.
Click to expand...
At least we know he's not part of it, he'd never want to leave out all the over 16s when he was fucking the country.
 
I stand by my point


when for example it came out certain kids tv presenters maybe paedophiles, the first thought wasn't -which tv company did they work for? How much the tv company knew and what did they do about it was about 4th or 5th on the list
 
In the aftermath of Mr Watson’s remarks, media outlets speculated that he was referring to the late former Prime Minister, Sir Edward Heath - who was the subject of unsubstantiated rumours about sex with under-age boys - or to Sir Peter Morrison, a former Downing Street aide who died in 1995.
Click to expand...
However, The Independent understands that Mr Watson’s comments were not aimed at either Sir Edward or Sir Peter, but at a living person associated with Margaret Thatcher’s administration.​
They are thought to involve the activities of the Paedophile Information Exchange, a pro-paedophile group in existence between 1974 and 1984, which believed there should be no age of consent.​
Click to expand...
​
​
 
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
172
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
6K
likesfish
likesfish
Humberto
Heroin Addiction in the UK
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
181
Views
5K
BristolEcho
BristolEcho
Back
Top Bottom