But he did not name names publicly...He did to the BIJ/Newsnight people and they proceeded on that basis.
If i talk to people making a TV program then i know that i'm publicly naming him whether the program goes ahead and names him or not. You can name people publicly without having a tv program as well.But he did not name names publicly...
The Independent has confirmed it has a copy of the Jillings report. The one insurers insisted be pulped.
The Jillings report: How the truth about North Wales child abuse scandal was suppressed
Council insurers demanded that the first full investigation into the care home scandal was pulped. Roger Dobson – who has one of the few remaining copies – details an astonishing cover-up
please consider the difference between 'a significant component' and 'the entire cause of the problem'
Yes.
[source - north wales freemasons website]
the number of lodges in North wales grew by 50% between 1958-90 vs no new lodges since 1991
you see that Lord Kenyan in the quote above, listed as being the Provincial Grand Master of North Wales?
that's the same Lord Kenyan who's son Thomas Kenyan who died of Aids in 1993 and is alleged to have been the son of a Lord referred to in the Nick Davies article in the first post of this thread. It's also alleged in this article and this book that he was also a member of the North Wales Police Authority, which I think included through the 70s and 80s.
So the Provincial Grand Master's son is implicated in involvement in all this, yet it's apparently not something worth discussing on this thread.
That article also alleges that Sir Walter Stansfield, the former Deputy Chief Constable of Denbigh Police Force (prior to it being amalgamated into north wales police), and then Chief Constable of Derbyshire police was an active mason... along with a fair few other allegations that are hard to substantiate, but they claim to have evidence of.
Maybe. But do we know how internet savvy he is? I know plenty of people that have never google image searched anything. Just because we're all relatively heavy web users, it's easy to forget that not everyone is.Do you think he had never "googled" a pic of the person he thought to be his abuser for
some 15-20 years? He had only seen a pic that day? and then decided "nah, it ain't him, i got
it wrong"? It's all very iffy indeed
He is now, but only since this all blew up.He's on Twitter.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/nov/11/jimmy-savile-inquiry-man-arrestedA man in his 70s from Cambridgeshire has been arrested by officers investigating sexual abuse claims againstJimmy Savileand others.
He is the third man to be detained under Operation Yewtree, the criminal inquiry being conducted by the Met police and the NSPCC.
The Met said the man "falls under the strand of the investigation we have termed 'others'". He was arrested at 7.15am on suspicion of sexual offences and has been taken into police custody locally, Scotland Yard said.
It comes nine days after the arrest and bail of the entertainer Freddie Starr, and two weeks after Gary Glitter was questioned. Glitter, 68, whose real name is Paul Gadd, was arrested at home and questioned at a London police station before being released on bail until mid-December.
They publish a year book, which list members, so they can contact each other.
He must have got hold of a copy.
This investigator also got hold of a copy.
I used to know Simon Reagan, at least a bit. He was a 'local character' in Camden when I used to live there. Or you might say, 'local nutter' generally to be found drunkenly haranguing random strangers about Prince Philip having Princess Di whacked and so on.
I wouldn't personally be inclined to build anything too substantial on him as a source.
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.
Whether someone was paid for supplying boys or not, I do think it's probable that there'll be a money trail of some sort in amongst all this. Greed is ubiquitous.Why does it seem "fairly obvious"?
Sure, you can make an assumption that someone, somewhere along the line was pimping those boys, but given that "the line" was made up of paedophiles, it's not necessarily an accurate assumption.
What does that mean?
It's not exactly difficult to "get hold of a copy". You can find UGLE's yearbook in any decent reference library, or buy a copy from UGLE themselves.
Oh, and by the way, it doesn't list members, it lists office-holders and lodge details for every lodge. There's no central register of members. Each lodge keeps its' own membership files.
Whether someone was paid for supplying boys or not, I do think it's probable that there'll be a money trail of some sort in amongst all this. Greed is ubiquitous.
smokedout said:came across this which is interesting and probably best posted without further comment
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/outed--portillo-is-one-of-the-good-guys-1277645.html
Wow, you seem very up on all that shit. Its creepy.
It means you are an idiot for suggesting that Paul Mason is a dot we should join.
See?Wow, you seem very up on all that shit. Its creepy.
So guilt by association is it. I don't think his fathers golf club is relevant why should I think any other club his fathers was a member of is relevantor is it irrelevant that one of the abusers was the son of the regions top freemason (and member of the police board), as was the local copper with responsibility for the homes against whom multiple allegations were also made (though not proven)?
you're missing the point completely. the network is held together because if one person goes down then everyone is at risk - that makes it very strong, particularly as the risks are so great. therefore the network is self-supporting, it doesnt want or need outsiders unless they join the shared risk and get involved.
sure on an individual level favours may be asked, but thats the same whether people drink in the same pub or use the same lodge. for freemasonry to be more important than where they drank, and therefore not a distraction, there needs to be established some systematic behaviour by non noncing masons to protect the nonces - there hasnt been and isnt likely to be unless you buy into the idea that organisationally freemasons would protect a paedophile ring for freemasonic reasons
I'm just drawing attention at the speed in Wilson came upon to undermine Watsons comments in parliament. There is nothing wrong with questioning it, and Wilson is very much within his right to continue in such a way. But what good does a mp attacking another on the basis of asking for an investigation into a very serious matter which still has stones left unturned do? What was his justification. Likewise against ITV. There were no names shown. Likewise with BBC... there was no name named....
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?
If I can venture an idea without you invoking godwins law again, I was thinking that a likely candidate for a journalist showing multiple victims photos would be simon regan from scallywag. Given that he's on the record saying that he met with 12 of them and had got signed statements off 10 of them, which he says backed up his allegations, one of which related to Lord McAlpine.