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

[butchersapron]

**

 

[free spirit]

Well what would you do? You have some vans, you have a +B , would you go hire someone else to drive them?

I'm not on about the workers at the homes hiring someone else to drive the minibuses, I'm on about the organisers of the London sex parties paying the workers at the homes for supplying the boys to the sex parties.

 

[butchersapron]

that would seem to indicate that you're thinking of this as being a pretty big nationwide conspiracy / network of paedos prepared to transport kids the length of the country just to satisfy those at the top of the chain.

A national altruistic brotherhood of paedos. It is of course possible, but I'm still struggling to see what those at the bottom of the chain who've got the access to the boys gain from this - if it was supposed to be high level protection, then it doesn't seem to have done them much good given that they were the ones that got sent down.

If I'm understanding your position wrong, please explain what you're actually getting at more clearly.

I'll go with the idea that this is a possibility, but think it's more likely that there would be fixers / pimps getting paid well for making these arrangements and supplying the boys, just as they do for supplying high end prostitutes.

No doubt those involved in the parties themselves would all be protected in some way (potentially via something akin to smokedouts drug dealer / user network method, possibly via some more formal network).

No it wouldn't. It would require people in two areas having shared aims. This making transport between a and b an in-house job for reasons of keeping it quiet.

Sort yourself out before your next post.

 

[butchersapron]

I'm not on about the workers at the homes hiring someone else to drive the minibuses, I'm on about the organisers of the London sex parties paying the workers at the homes for supplying the boys to the sex parties.

Unlucky for you we are talking about those minibus drivers. Of course , if, as you say, it all went by gold then there must be records right?

 

[free spirit]

No it wouldn't. It would require people in two areas having shared aims. This making transport between a and b an in-house job for reasons of keeping it quiet.

in this situation, person A has full access to a home full of young boys he can abuse with impunity with minimal risk of getting caught.

person B on the other hand is in London, doesn't have access to boys to abuse locally, is organising a party of a group of rich paedofiles and so asks person A to transport them to London for the party.

What's in it for person A?

Sort yourself out before your next post.

fuck off.

 

[caesar]

Hi, new here, been reading for last few weeks, hope I can add something to discussion

The evidence from Messham itself about any McAlpines being involved seems to have come from a couple of the police showing him a picture of one of his abusers in an interview and apparently telling him that this was Lord McAlpine.

Messham also says that he knew this person as Tom.

Actually he didn't say that, the Guardian included that rather misleadingly, Meesham was asked the name of his abuser by a Times journalist, and he said it was Tom, which we now know is Thomas Kenyon, but the Times journalist didn't know that at the time, and connected it to the Conservative figure allegation.

eh?

I'm saying that it seems far more likely than not to me that the people who organised those minibuses were doing so for financial gain.

why else would a paedo who's actually got as much access as they want to the boys in the care home where there's far lower risk of discovery take such a risk by driving a minibus full of the boys to london to participate in sex parties with assorted elderly toffs?

These trips were likely disguised as normal days out, the recent guy on Sky News stated that in the daytime they saw all the London landmarks etc., probably late afternoon or early evening they got taken to the big house or flat, got changed and 'ready' for the guests. The guests may have been paying and, or, being filmed for bribery or extortion purposes. Someone asked why these men wouldn't just go to the homes- then they would be seen going there rather to just any of many London parties. I imagine the boys arrived hours before the clients arrived, and the men left in the night, and the boys left the following morning so noone outside would see them together.

 

[butchersapron]

in this situation, person A has full access to a home full of young boys he can abuse with impunity with minimal risk of getting caught.

person B on the other hand is in London, doesn't have access to boys to abuse locally, is organising a party of a group of rich paedofiles and so asks person A to transport them to London for the party.

What's in it for person A?


fuck off.

A load of kids. Simple. Let's hire someone to do that for us.

See?

 

[free spirit]

Unlucky for you we are talking about those minibus drivers. Of course , if, as you say, it all went by gold then there must be records right?

why?

 

[Treacle Toes]

.

 

[butchersapron]

why?

Why must it be? It isn't.

 

[free spirit]

A load of kids. Simple. Let's hire someone to do that for us.

See?

what's in it for person A is a load of kids?

they already have the kids and are supplying them to the party.

so again what's in it for person A?

 

[butchersapron]

what's in it for person A is a load of kids?


so again what's in it for person A?

They have to get them to b. "they already have the kids and are supplying them to the party." so why then hie a bus - let's call it c)?

This is your own logic

they already have the kids and are supplying them to the party.

 

[Treacle Toes]

It's possible that Person A is given an monetary/or other incentive, yes.
It is also possible that it was simply part of their job and/or the incentive was access to other boys as the interviewee did say there were boys from other homes at the parties too.

Does it matter, really? Does it change anything?

 

[butchersapron]

**

 

[free spirit]

They have to get them to b. "they already have the kids and are supplying them to the party." so why then hie a bus - let's call it c)?

This is your own logic

butch, if you put down the wrong end of the stick it'd probably help.

This is my first post on this thread about this, the meaning of which is pretty clear IMO, and isn't specifically related to the transport arrangements or the need to pay a minibus driver.

yep - it seems fairly obvious that someone will have been getting paid for supplying young boys from welsh (and probably other) homes for sex parties for London toffs in London, which is one of the allegation that was made in the last couple of days by one of the boys who alleges he was a regular at these sex parties.

to which you responded

Why must they be paid? Why not just be a paedo who can drive?

you're the one who unilaterally decided this discussion was about whether or not a minibus driver would be getting paid for driving the minibuses, could you just maybe let that largely irrelevant point drop.

It's like you're arguing over whether the driver who drives a few kg of coke from london to newcastle does it for cash or free coke, whereas I'm pointing out that the motivations of those actually running the operation is usually mostly down to making money, even if they might like the side benefits of a never ending supply of coke to snort. Obviously being partial to coke is probably a prerequisite for most involved in the trade, though not all, some are just criminals who'll make money from any lucrative illicit trade.

 

[Prole]

Convicted North Wales care home boss is working in family-friendly hotel - Mirror Online

Allen worked in the hotel industry before moving into the residential care business in North Wales in the mid-1960s. In 1969, he opened a children’s home at Bryn Alyn, near Wrexham.
His company expanded and at one stage Allen ran up to 50 homes in North Wales, Cheshire and Shropshire providing specialist care for troubled children.
It is estimated up to 500 children were put in his care during this time.
It became an extremely lucrative business because, even in the 1980s, councils paid around £15,000-a-year per child.
In the 13 years up to 1990, his empire had a turnover of more than £28million and, in the mid-1980s, the annual turnover was about £2.6million – which would be valued today at £6.8million.
Allen’s salary in 1988 was £204,894, equivalent to £470,000 now, and he had a yacht and properties in the Costwolds and France.
Allen retired in 1990 and his double life began to unravel when police carried out a three-year probe into a series of claims from boys.In 1995, Allen was jailed for six years after being convicted of six offences of indecent assault between 1972 and 1983. He was cleared of four other charges.

More damning and wide- spread claims of sex abuse were made against him during the Waterhouse Inquiry and they were detailed in 2000’s Lost in Care report.
The report said 28 ex- residents had alleged they were sexually abused by Allen and they gave disturbing accounts oftheir ordeals, including serious sexual assaults.
Allen’s pattern of abuse included him giving vulnerable boys expensive gifts after assaulting them, to buy their silence and groom them for more abuse.
A report in 1996 suggested Allen had connections with senior establishment figures and was hiring out children as rent boys.
At the Waterhouse Inquiry, Allen denied being a paedophile and claimed a prominent politician was a child sex abuser.

Appalling how he only got 6 years (wonder how long he actually served?) - a FB post during the riots got 7 - says it all really.

(Not sure if this post/information meets with Butchersapron's approval as I've noticed a couple of obscure references to me).

We also need to take into account that at least 13 young men died before the Waterhouse inquiry, C4 news stated tonight that one of these had also been shown a photo of a man he recognised as his abuser and was told it was LM. Do the police still have the photos they showed to the men? edit: And if so, who were they identifying as LM?

 

[Treacle Toes]

No photos left. They were apparently not good enough for an id to use as evidence either as they had been faxed.

 

[butchersapron]

butch, if you put down the wrong end of the stick it'd probably help.

This is my first post on this thread about this, the meaning of which is pretty clear IMO, and isn't specifically related to the transport arrangements or the need to pay a minibus driver.

to which you responded

you're the one who unilaterally decided this discussion was about whether or not a minibus driver would be getting paid for driving the minibuses, could you just maybe let that largely irrelevant point drop.

It's like you're arguing over whether the driver who drives a few kg of coke from london to newcastle does it for cash or free coke, whereas I'm pointing out that the motivations of those actually running the operation is usually mostly down to making money, even if they might like the side benefits of a never ending supply of coke to snort. Obviously being partial to coke is probably a prerequisite for most involved in the trade, though not all, some are just criminals who'll make money from any lucrative illicit trade.

The point still stands - to put a commercial relationship between people threatens the chain and works to ensures that only buses driven by a) go to b). So what's better for put paedo network?

This is not mad science. This is how they appropriated stuff to themself.

 

[butchersapron]

(Not sure if this post/information meets with Butchersapron's approval as I've noticed a couple of obscure references to me).

No you don't - name them. You're a piggybacking 7/7 weirdo prick. The people who've bought you better check you out sharpish (check the guys track record) You are poison.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

I actually thought she was already banned. Didn't pick up on the name until just now.

 

[free spirit]

It's possible that Person A is given an monetary/or other incentive, yes.
It is also possible that it was simply part of their job and/or the incentive was access to other boys as the interviewee did say there were boys from other homes at the parties too.

Does it matter, really? Does it change anything?

I think it does.

If money is involved, then it's probably organised criminal gangs of some description involved in sorting it out and making the connections.

If it's some sort of paedo swap club then there'd not be anything in it for organised criminal gangs (other than if it was actually them who were partial to the kids, but that doesn't really fit with the description of the toffs involved in the london sex parties).

If it's criminal gangs then it undermines the national network / conspiracy version of how these connections were made, and makes it a more straightforward if wide ranging criminal investigation that's needed. It'd also explain the levels of protection given, the fact that those jailed all seem keen to keep their mouths shut, and the allegations about threats, and intimidation of witnesses and family members, as well as possibly the deaths of witnesses.

Essentially it rationalises the entire situation and brings it out of the full on nationwide masonic paedo network territory and into criminal gangs facilitating paedo activity by rich paedos in exchange for large quantities of cash territory.

 

[nino_savatte]

Mentions shadowy malevolent group, so can appear perceptive and clever.

You didn't add the customary word "sheeple" to go with it.

Oops! My bad.

 

[Treacle Toes]

I think it does.

Sorry, I wasn't that clear. When I asked does it matter it was more because the cryptic argument/exchange about this was going on forever above and none of this stuff can be checked/known for sure.

 

[Badger Kitten]

I actually thought she was already banned. Didn't pick up on the name until just now.

I didn't say anything...

 

[Badger Kitten]

Anyway. Is there a vague timeline for when the inquiries are expected to report back?
This story has gone on for weeks and the usual MO is to open an inquiry or multiple inquiries and thus kick it into the long grass.

 

[butchersapron]

5 - initial April 2013. That's into police. Which stops all others.

 

[caesar]

No photos left. They were apparently not good enough for an id to use as evidence either as they had been faxed.

That issue seems a bit confused as I understand it was the original polaroids that were ordered to be destroyed, the faxing might have been an earlier event by Meesham as he didn't trust the originals with the police, but they eventually seized them from him anyway?

 

[butchersapron]

That issue seems a bit confused as I understand it was the original polaroids that were ordered to be destroyed, the faxing might have been an earlier event by Meesham as he didn't trust the originals with the police, but they eventually seized them from him anyway?

What you basing that on caesar?

 

[Badger Kitten]

5 - initial April 2013. That's into police. Which stops all others.

Thanks.

 

[Treacle Toes]

That issue seems a bit confused as I understand it was the original polaroids that were ordered to be destroyed, the faxing might have been an earlier event by Meesham as he didn't trust the originals with the police, but they eventually seized them from him anyway?

I read that Messham was shown a faxed picture by the police but after he Id'ed the person it was thought that the quality of the faxed pic was not good enough to use that positive ID as evidence.