Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

^Just what I was thinking. Then again need they have worried? Nobody I've spoken to this week has talked about any of this even when I started talking about it.

My guess is even if there is/was a high profile organised ring most people couldn't care less, not unless it's their children that suffering at the hands of it that is :rolleyes:
I don't think it's that people don't care, it's more that most people just can't get their heads around it, cognitive dissonance causes them to just stop thinking about it... or not to want to think about it.
 
I didn't see it yesterday, but tonight's felt a bit like they were almost trying to reset a campaign, after acknowledging a setback (rather than straight news reporting). Crick looked a bit sheepish, even if he did try and blame the beeb.

I hate to be doing some kind of 'PR analysis' on how this is playing out, but getting McAlpine wrong looks like it could damage the whole process of getting justice. Meesshams gone through hell and it's hardly his fault - no doubt he correctly identified the right person from their photo. However it did feel like a deflating moment. Can almost imagine lawyers going on about 'faulty memories', length of time etc.
Meesham will never get justice now, any defending silk will crush his credibility. Saying it wasn't McAlpine was an honourable thing to do, defamation laws are only really a worry to the middling crowd, if you're rich, you can afford it, and if you're poor they can't take what you haven't got so the litigant will have to pay Carter Ruck et al out of their own pocket...
Ain't seen the video without the blurring, but I presume Mr Schofield is having a sleepless night, as Lord McAlpine has to make an example out of someone
 
Seen Newsnight?

What clusterfuck is this?

The news isn't Schofield or Watson or Newsnight or people talking on the internet; the news is why children have had their complaints of abuse ignored, and are still having them ignored. The news is if, how, why and by whom investigations into these alleged crimes have been circumscribed. The news is what kind of power circulates in society in order to protect certain people no matter their crime.

This is nothing but distraction.

I felt like what happened yesterday with Schofield and C4 News was something of a tipping point, or at least it represented a very important moment where the power to question was put in the hands of regular people instead of just the powerful. Well it seems it was a very important moment, but for all the wrong reasons. It's been jumped upon by those it suits, so that they can regain control of the terms of debate, and start putting the media and the internet and the free flow of information on trial, instead of the people who will continue to exert their tight control on that information.

"Silly people, down there flapping around gossiping on the internet; we important people know best, your moral judgements are flawed, stop talking about this, let us handle it in our own way, don't listen to the media...trust the power."
Very much what I felt about it. Also, to state the obvious, if it had been properly investigated 20 years ago we wouldn't have the detail of Stephen Messhams allegations crumbling now. Somebody would have already served time for it and he might have had some peace in his life. Wasn't going to happen then and it ain't now.
 
From this article:
Mr Watson was contacted in October by one of the inquiry’s child protection experts, now retired. The coverage of the Savile scandal had awoken painful memories of how his evidence about Peter Righton, then a child care expert and children’s homes consultant, was destroyed. He told Mr Watson: “My unit was closed down almost overnight and a manager took my files and burned them.”


The paedophile ring investigation that Mr Watson described to a hushed Commons centred on Righton. And the inquiry did involve names from the so-called establishment (though the Thatcher aide was linked by circumstances and hearsay). But what this inquiry also uncovered was the shocking attitude to child abuse of some on the liberal left and their involvement in it.

Peter Righton was the former director of education at the National Institute for Social Work, and a consultant for the National Children’s Bureau. Yet he was also a founding member of the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), which wanted the age of consent reduced to four. Righton published essays justifying paedophilia, which he called no more mysterious than “a penchant for redheads”.

PIE did not present themselves as child abusers but “child lovers”, keen to “liberate” children from sexual “repression”. Their literature hijacked the language of liberation and sought to persuade gay men and women, feminists and radicals that they had common interests in challenging “the patriarchy”. Their propaganda was skilful and it still reverberates.

Some of Righton’s colleagues fell for this and later admitted that they were scared to challenge his enthusiasm for sex with children lest they seem “anti gay”. Many youngsters made serious allegations against Righton, yet his career flourished. It wasn’t until Customs and Excise intercepted a package of child pornography posted to him from Holland, in 1992, that police raided his home and found hundreds of letters between him and other paedophiles, revealing that he had abused, prostituted and shared numerous boys.

Righton’s correspondents included an assistant bishop, artists, aristocrats and public school teachers. It then emerged that Righton’s lover ran a school for emotionally disturbed children, and Righton was vice-chairman of governors. New Barns School in Gloucestershire, which was attended by many children from London care homes, including at least one Islington child, was investigated and closed down. But it could have been shut years before, if only a far-Left council in London had acted as it should have.

This week I thought of Liam, a boy in one of the Islington care homes central to the paedophile ring’s production of pornography. Liam attended New Barns School: the home’s deputy superintendent, Nick Rabet (who committed suicide in 2006 after being arrested for abuse), used to drive him there.

Liam suffered such trauma in care that he had a breakdown at 16, and his memories today are fragmented. He began telling people of the abuse in 1989, three years before the school was closed. His social worker was deeply concerned, and promised action. But on Christmas Eve 1989, he disappeared and Liam’s files disappeared with him.

I don’t imagine that he was buried in concrete. Many Islington social workers “just” burned out, or were threatened or victimised and gave up. But the social worker’s disappearance meant Islington council could tell police investigating New Barns it had never sent children there.
And so to renewed allegations about the North Wales care homes. I do not doubt claims that men in smart cars took young boys from these homes in order to abuse them. But exactly who they were is another question, given the unreliable memories and limited knowledge of traumatised and ill-educated victims.

The Daily Telegraph this week rightly expressed weariness with endless inquiries, which achieve little. Old-fashioned detective work is what is needed. The inquiry into Peter Righton’s alleged ring was closed in 1994. Watson’s whistleblower was told by a detective that it was closed “from on high”. Righton was given a £900 fine for his child porn imports, and a caution for a 30-year-old indecent assault. Many similar investigations into paedophile rings have also mysteriously hit the buffers. Cover-ups have taken place; events and individuals demanding investigation were ignored.

Yet let us not lose perspective. Talking of paedophile rings that lead to Number 10, without definitive proof, could jeopardise the momentum for reform as claims and counter-claims are made and libel actions are threatened or actioned.

Following the closure of the Righton investigation, former Det Ch Supt Mike Hames, head of Scotland Yard’s Obscene Publications Squad wrote: “We have only touched the tip of a huge national and international problem.” Like most child protection experts, he wanted national teams to investigate such allegations. We still do not have them.

But trial by media is not the answer. We need cool heads and a non-partisan approach if the hundreds of victims, whose childhoods were corrupted and destroyed, are to receive justice.

 
No it wasnt aimed at you specifically, and I wont be going back to see if I can make any of your posts fit my complaint.

My point includes that which Pickmans Model brought up, I've been using u75 as a shelter from the worst the internet has to offer, and whilst I expect this to slip quite frequently, I am used to numerous people quickly neutralising the wibblier stuff. So once the Guardian published their story last night, I was slightly shocked that this drove many people here at the time further down a path which I dont believe does justice to the wider issues. It really doesnt matter in the grand scheme of things, its just a longwinded version of a facepalm or 20 on my part, and hopefully things will gradually return to a sounder footing.
I've just reread that section twice and I really can't see what you're complaining about other than 1 link by Watchman that lots of people did object to - all I see is several posts from you complaining that people weren't taking note of the guardian piece interspersed with lots of other posts from people taking note of the guardian article.

I'd say that much of the MSM reaction has been shocking, as with a few exceptions they're entirely missed the point that this appears to have been mistaken identity in the form of the wrong McAlpine, not total fabrication, as the Guardian article itself states.
 
Yeah - the mac alpine fuck up and the Phillip Schofield list slip have been siezed on with lighting speed and great enthusiasm by many parts of the political/media establishment railing agasint internet driven witch hunts- after several days of deafening silence.

The peter morrison revelation is being completely ignored and the main thrust of the story is being discreditied - even though there is a significent amount of compellnig evidence.

It's a very trite question to ask, but cui bono?
That's right, the same old scumbags, maggots and politicians.
 
Seen Newsnight?

What clusterfuck is this?

The news isn't Schofield or Watson or Newsnight or people talking on the internet; the news is why children have had their complaints of abuse ignored, and are still having them ignored. The news is if, how, why and by whom investigations into these alleged crimes have been circumscribed. The news is what kind of power circulates in society in order to protect certain people no matter their crime.

This is nothing but distraction.

I felt like what happened yesterday with Schofield and C4 News was something of a tipping point, or at least it represented a very important moment where the power to question was put in the hands of regular people instead of just the powerful. Well it seems it was a very important moment, but for all the wrong reasons. It's been jumped upon by those it suits, so that they can regain control of the terms of debate, and start putting the media and the internet and the free flow of information on trial, instead of the people who will continue to exert their tight control on that information.

"Silly people, down there flapping around gossiping on the internet; we important people know best, your moral judgements are flawed, stop talking about this, let us handle it in our own way, don't listen to the media...trust the power."
Didn't see newsnight beyond the desrved apology, but if was about emphising the shit people could get in for helping predudicing future trails then good. One victim may now have to get his justice vicariously having been oxidised to get this going, but I hope they get the sick cunts in the end, and that takes discipline.

I would also take the time to praise this board for being quite mature about it, in contrast to worried about witch hunt tweets from Paul Staines for example who simultaneously left links and and names in the comments on his site
 
Seen Newsnight?

What clusterfuck is this?

The news isn't Schofield or Watson or Newsnight or people talking on the internet; the news is why children have had their complaints of abuse ignored, and are still having them ignored. The news is if, how, why and by whom investigations into these alleged crimes have been circumscribed. The news is what kind of power circulates in society in order to protect certain people no matter their crime.

This is nothing but distraction.

A distraction that's not helped by the oscillation of expert opinion on child testimony between "children tell you what you want to hear" and "children tell the truth", which informs some peoples' view of the entire set of sagas. Webster's writing being pushed so heavily haven't hurt the distraction any, either, by reducing everything to a question of revenge and greed.

I felt like what happened yesterday with Schofield and C4 News was something of a tipping point, or at least it represented a very important moment where the power to question was put in the hands of regular people instead of just the powerful. Well it seems it was a very important moment, but for all the wrong reasons. It's been jumped upon by those it suits, so that they can regain control of the terms of debate, and start putting the media and the internet and the free flow of information on trial, instead of the people who will continue to exert their tight control on that information.

"Silly people, down there flapping around gossiping on the internet; we important people know best, your moral judgements are flawed, stop talking about this, let us handle it in our own way, don't listen to the media...trust the power."

Yep. I mentioned the other day that modern communications technology holes the longevity of most cover-ups below the waterline, and it's not as if the UK and other "first world" states aren't keen on establishing some kind of "Great Wall" of their own to filter the internet, so we can expect more attempts at legislation aimed at establishing the capacity to do so.
 
I don't think it's that people don't care, it's more that most people just can't get their heads around it, cognitive dissonance causes them to just stop thinking about it... or not to want to think about it.

It's easy to accept that behind a single front door on a street or in a village, one sick fuck might be a child-raper, but getting your head around the idea of groups of men using kids already wounded by society as receptacles for their depravity and sexual violence is another thing altogether, and that's not just people here and now, but people in every decade of my lifetime too.
 
It seems too awful to be true, although it prboably isnt :(

I'm damn sure it isn't too awful to be true, and I'm also damn sure that at a municipal level, there's been pressure brought to bear by municipal insurers (and we're talking the big companies here) on local authorities to basically dead-end investigations, so as to stop a "run" on the insurer by class actions by kids from the same local authority who were abused in homes that local authority sent them to.
Why am I damn sure? Because local authorities have to have municipal insurance, and heavy claims mean increased premiums, and my own local authority pretty much dead-ended investigations into a HIV+ paedophile youth worker in the late '80s-early '90s that would have meant their insurer (a big continental company) would (so they threatened) almost double the premium.
 
I expanded a bit on what I said earlier: rather than copy it all out here, it's here if you're interested.

OtherVP, you're absolutely right about the communications technology aspect. It's something I've been thinking about since I wrote ^. It's moments like this that we're experiencing right now that will ultimately help shape what the future of information sharing and the internet will look like. Back when the original stuff about the care homes was happening, and when Savile was in his prime, we didn't have the kind of mass public investigative power we do now. It's really clear how the internet poses a danger for regimes like China and Iran, and people in power over here are quick to defend it in that capacity; but it's equally as dangerous for our own regimes, not least because acknowledging it's dangerous for their continued unaccountability highlights the basic fact that they aren't the bastions of democracy and truth they would have us believe (especially when contrasting themselves to other countries).

As a society, we're embracing the technology of the internet and the breadth of things it allows us access to, but counter to that there is a struggle by the establishment to attempt to gain control over it. We see it in the various acts that have passed or been blocked, like ACTA and SOPA, among others. It's present in the increasing collusion between ISPs and government and law enforcement agencies around the world. And moments like this are crucial in mapping out how we respond to that. Not just in the tangible things we do about it, but also in the way we talk about it, and the ways in which we let people in power influence and control how we talk about it. Things that we've seen in the news today, scapegoating Schofield, vilifying people who talk about this stuff online, etc., shows how easy it is for us ('us' more broadly than people discussing it on urban, obv.) to have our focus diverted and influenced by the people it suits.

We need to be careful. And we need to learn to know what to look out for.
 
On the subject of prejudicing possible future trials, our laws and the way we approach prosecuting people is going to have to evolve as our technologies and access to information does. It's very difficult to argue what the balance should be between the ability to pursue information collectively and as individuals online or elsewhere, and the suppression of public discussion and dialogue in order to safeguard the possibility of future justice. Both are crucial. The law as it stands at the moment isn't adequate for the way we have evolved in accessing networks of information. And nor, for that matter, is our public moral framework.
 
I expanded a bit on what I said earlier: rather than copy it all out here, it's here if you're interested.

I shall have a butchers' tomorrow, as I'll be signing off in a bit (the painkillers are kicking in, praise the lard!).

OtherVP, you're absolutely right about the communications technology aspect. It's something I've been thinking about since I wrote ^. It's moments like this that we're experiencing right now that will ultimately help shape what the future of information sharing and the internet will look like. Back when the original stuff about the care homes was happening, and when Savile was in his prime, we didn't have the kind of mass public investigative power we do now.

What we also have is the ability to collate and disseminate information much faster, on top of the mass public investigative power. Castells mentioned this as being a consequence of a truly "networked" society, and I reckon thatat least in the UK, we've had events like the student protests and the current paedogeddon that have really given the politicians (who usually have the political attention span of a goldfish) motivation for "doing something" about this lack f control over us. How can you govern a people properly if you're not in control of where their information comes from?

It's really clear how the internet poses a danger for regimes like China and Iran, and people in power over here are quick to defend it in that capacity; but it's equally as dangerous for our own regimes, not least because acknowledging it's dangerous for their continued unaccountability highlights the basic fact that they aren't the bastions of democracy and truth they would have us believe (especially when contrasting themselves to other countries).

They want a Ministry of Truth scenario, and mass availability of ICT over an unsecured set of connections means they can't have it. Let's hope they never get it!

As a society, we're embracing the technology of the internet and the breadth of things it allows us access to, but counter to that there is a struggle by the establishment to attempt to gain control over it. We see it in the various acts that have passed or been blocked, like ACTA and SOPA, among others. It's present in the increasing collusion between ISPs and government and law enforcement agencies around the world. And moments like this are crucial in mapping out how we respond to that. Not just in the tangible things we do about it, but also in the way we talk about it, and the ways in which we let people in power influence and control how we talk about it. Things that we've seen in the news today, scapegoating Schofield, vilifying people who talk about this stuff online, etc., shows how easy it is for us ('us' more broadly than people discussing it on urban, obv.) to have our focus diverted and influenced by the people it suits.

We need to be careful. And we need to learn to know what to look out for.

Absolutely.
 
I've just reread that section twice and I really can't see what you're complaining about other than 1 link by Watchman that lots of people did object to - all I see is several posts from you complaining that people weren't taking note of the guardian piece interspersed with lots of other posts from people taking note of the guardian article.

By feeling the need to respond I am only likely to make my beef seem even greater than I meant it to be at the time. That moment has passed, I'm not going to point out all the posts in that timeframe that made me rant, but they were on the other thread as well as this one. And it was the culmination of a pretty horrible day in multiple ways, from the Cameron comments and the failure to appreciate that there was a valid point buried in there somewhere, to cynicism applied in slightly the wrong places. I doubt I'm making complete sense right now, I've overloaded on these issues and need to take a break, and like I said things have already moved on past that moment. For example the media had barely begun to go into their obscuring mode back then, whereas today they have taken it to a level which makes some of the things I was rolling my eyes at more valid. All the same I have no regrets about getting slightly wound up that some seemed to think that the focus on dead people was some kind of decoy, when it actually seems to form a fair chunk of the truth that is still worth exposing.
 
An additional thing that wound me up about much of the medias response in the last 24 hours or so has been the idea that people on the internet invented all the names and possible detail. Thats only true for a portion of it. The accusations that caused the biggest backfiring shitstorm were around before the internet took off. And I dont just mean the covered up stuff from the various inquiries, but also the accusations taht came from Scallywag - the mainstream 'respectable' world failed to deal with it at the time, leaving it to lurk and fester. Then they picked up on it all these years later, tried to be clever with it, and then blamed the rascal multitude when it blew up in their own face.
 
well said Vintage Paw.

There's not a vast amount of point worrying about prejudicing a future trial by discussing the subject on the internet if that trial is never going to happen if we don't help force it to happen by continuing to discuss it on the internet and force it to stay in the public eye until it ends up in court.

ffs they've already had the testimony from many of these people on the record since the early 90s, yet the powers that be decided they weren't reliable enough witnesses to take their allegations to trial and risk them impuning the good names of respected members of the community.

This isn't a wild allegation either, this is public record from both the independent's libel trial in the early 90s, and the waterhouse inquiry, with 3 witnesses at the first, and 6 at the 2nd against one specific named copper, and who knows how many other allegations made and swept under the carpet or not even allowed to be made due to the terms of the inquiry.

They must not be allowed to do the same again*, and if the odd person get's named wrongly and has to exonerate himself in public then that's surely better than them having 2 decades of open rumors circulating about them and nobody being able to establish the truth one way or the other.





*and I'm not talking a big conspiracy here, but the legal system in this country is very badly rigged against kids like this and in favor of the high and mighty in terms of credibility, public interest, access to lawyers, and the council insurers / financial pressures on the councils etc to ensure allegations don't end up with big compensation payouts to victims. Though I do suspect there have been a few at high levels helping this process along through sly methods like the setting of the terms of the inquiry.
 
By feeling the need to respond I am only likely to make my beef seem even greater than I meant it to be at the time. That moment has passed, I'm not going to point out all the posts in that timeframe that made me rant, but they were on the other thread as well as this one. And it was the culmination of a pretty horrible day in multiple ways, from the Cameron comments and the failure to appreciate that there was a valid point buried in there somewhere, to cynicism applied in slightly the wrong places. I doubt I'm making complete sense right now, I've overloaded on these issues and need to take a break, and like I said things have already moved on past that moment. For example the media had barely begun to go into their obscuring mode back then, whereas today they have taken it to a level which makes some of the things I was rolling my eyes at more valid.
I've now read all 3 threads on this from that time, and still can't see what you're talking about, but I do understand the bit about overloading on this, and think there's probably a degree of that in your posts and the reaction to them.

fwiw, IMO you're better to actually quote an example of the post you're concerned about instead of making loose blanket statements of pissed offness, as with the latter approach everyone then tries to interpret what you're complaining about to see if it fits their posts and it's hard to know what / who you're actually complaining about. Then it just gets the backs up of people you might not have even been talking about for points you may not have been making.

All the same I have no regrets about getting slightly wound up that some seemed to think that the focus on dead people was some kind of decoy, when it actually seems to form a fair chunk of the truth that is still worth exposing.
Moving on, I entirely agree that the focus on the dead can actually be pretty illuminating. It may or may not be a bit of a diversion, in the same way that gary glitter etc almost certainly are, but there's a lot to be learned from the dead that have been named that starts to show the potential scale of the thing and the sort of networks that could be involved.

I mean if the allegations are right, then Jimmy McAlpine isn't exactly small fry, he was chair of one of the UK's biggest building firms, and a full on establishment figure, son of nobility etc. In that area he'd have been probably the top establishment figure.

Personally I can't help thinking that he has the potential to be a significant linkage between the homes in North Wales, the allegations of masonic involvement in the abuse and cover up in the area, and the allegations of boys being shipped out to London for regular sex parties with upper class 50-60 year old figures - just his peer group, and his homes geographic proximity to the homes gives a plausible route for him to gain access to the boys in the first place (particularly if there was masonic involvement, and some of the others involved were also masons (as the libelled copper from the early 90s admitted to being at the inquiry).
 
Whoever imagined that a fight against paedophile rings that reach into the highest echelons would be clean? Manipulation, dirty tricks, concealment, smears, distraction, misdirection - all to be expected really - they didn't get where they are nor stay protected and hidden without many people in positions of power and influence protecting them by foul means and fouler.

Back to Tom Watson's statement which was drowned out by the Newsnight piece. Where are the programmes and articles revisiting and examining the Righton case and the subsequent outing of Morrison?

Now this: North Wales child abuse inquiry pulls in police specialists from across UK | Society | The Guardian Why not just publish the Jillings report and read the statements that the welsh council worker has on her kitchen table!



As many senior cops are freemasons, the Police are not in an impartial position to investigate. As North Wales proves.

Masonry opens doors if you are a cop or a crim or a builder. Or want to make connections if involved in anything from importation to grey areas of taxation. No coincidence Kenny Noye was a Mason. Its a great way to make connections with those who work in HM customs and excise, the Police, law etc. As well as for nonces.




 
Back
Top Bottom