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

[nino_savatte]

Frankly though, one only need ask "Who is Rob Wilson MP?" and then look up his Parliamentary history to conclude that he's a mouthpiece for someone else. The most likely puppet-master being the Whip's Office. It's common for the whips to use someone of Wilson's lowly rank (Ministerial bag-carrier) to sow information/propaganda for them.

He's former a SDP member turned Tory... like Finkelstein.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Regan said they existed, and I think it's likely they did and he made it known to the Conservatives, which is why he was not sued, on that issue, at least.

Like most journos, Regan was a good bluffer and blagger. He may have had those statements, or he may have had information that drew him to conclude the possibility of events occurring, which he them disseminated as being part of a sworn statement. The only people who'd know one way or the other are the abuse victims and the notary.

 

[Corax]

Yes, but free spirit was referring specifically to someone paying someone else for the boys, not to there being a money trail per se, which as you say, is likely, although given that banking records weren't fully-electronic until the late '80s, could be a big problem (although not necessarily insurmountable).

Sure, I wasn't disagreeing with you, more exploring the idea.

 

[ViolentPanda]

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

Why would a victim of abuse image-search for an image of one of the people who abused him? Why would he risk re-traumatising himself?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Sure, I wasn't disagreeing with you, more exploring the idea.

I know.

 

[tufty79]

Why would a victim of abuse image-search for an image of one of the people who abused him? Why would he risk re-traumatising himself?

especially if he's got no reason to suspect that he's been lied to about who his abuser was...

i sometimes still keep tabs* on my abusive family member via googling 'em. it's never occured to me to google image 'em. i really don't want to see their face, tbh.

*where they're working, whether it's with kids, whether anything else's come up about them...

that is, of course, just me though. and a very different situation.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Like most journos, Regan was a good bluffer and blagger. He may have had those statements, or he may have had information that drew him to conclude the possibility of events occurring, which he them disseminated as being part of a sworn statement. The only people who'd know one way or the other are the abuse victims and the notary.

Just to follow up on my earlier comments, I asked the wife, who also knew Regan as a Camden character, but who, unlike me, had been an avid Scallywag reader in its heyday, before vengeful Tories fucked the unfortunate Mr Regan over irreparably.

Her take was that he very often was onto something, but on too many occasions tried to use what he had to bluff it and got key details wrong. Like the John Major case, where he was half-right, Major was having an affair, but wrong about who with.

I felt really sorry for him to be honest. His heart was obviously in the right place, but he'd had his life and work trashed by vengeful Tory ratfuckers, presumably as an example to others and as a result was in a bit of a shit state when I encountered him.

 

[Corax]

Whilst looking into the latest Saville arrest, I came across these quotes from Paul Gambaccini in a relevant article.

I’ve been waiting for this to come out for 30 years, but then he did raise millions for charity.

He was not all good, he was not all bad, he was an enigma.

Also producer Wilfred De'ath

Wilfred De’Ath told ITV news last night: “I know for a fact that he spent a night in a rather squalid hotel with a girl who was at the most 12 or probably 10 and I said to him ‘Jimmy you are living dangerously.
"Surely you must realise you’re living dangerously?’.

Fuckinell.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sir-jimmy-savile-rumours-former-1355050

 

[Corax]

Apparently the producer mentioned wrote an autobiography (?) of sorts:

Born in 1937, Wilfred De'Ath's outwardly conventional early life in suburban London was dominated by the overpowering puritanism and fanatical patriotism of his mother, the daughter of a German pastor. In the De'Ath household Hitler was idolised and every German victory heartily celebrated. This is a memoir by England's best-loved reprobate.

Born in 1937, Wilfred De'Ath's outwardly conventional early life in suburban London was dominated by the overpowering puritanism and fanatical patriotism of his mother, the daughter of a German pastor. In the De'Ath household Hitler was idolised and every German victory heartily celebrated. On shopping expeditions with his mother during the Blitz, young Wilfred had to endure the spectacle of his mother giving Nazi salutes and shouting 'Heil Hitler!' to her friend and compatriot, Mrs Maybury. This singular upbringing may account for De'Ath's subsequent ill treatment of his own family and the abandonment of a charmed career in journalism which brought him much acclaim for his interviews with figures as diverse as Mick Jagger, Margaret Thatcher, John Lennon, PG Wodehouse and the Archbishop of Canterbury and as a ground-breaking radio and television producer (one of his discoveries was Kenny Everett). Instead he chose a life of vagrancy and petty crime - totting up ten years behind bars in the process - not to mention his lifelong twin obsessions with sex and religion.

A self-confessed voyeur who was recruited by MI5 to befriend a Russian spy at an orgy, De'Ath was a sexual predator whose victims included Susanna York, Sarah Miles, Julie Christie, Julia Foster and Charlotte Rampling. A godless but enthusiastic churchgoer, he made a career out of exposing the peccadilloes of Anglican clergymen in Private Eye, whose editor, his Oxford contemporary Richard Ingrams, later commissioned a long-running column in the Oldie retailing his experiences at the hands of plodding policemen, mad magistrates, crazy criminals and sadistic screws. In "Uncommon Criminal", an unrepentant sinner looks back at his deplorable but colourful life with a candour bordering on relish which will disgust and delight in equal measure.

Sounds like a well-connected man.

 

[caesar]

Just to follow up on my earlier comments, I asked the wife, who also knew Regan as a Camden character, but who, unlike me, had been an avid Scallywag reader in its heyday, before vengeful Tories fucked the unfortunate Mr Regan over irreparably.

Her take was that he very often was onto something, but on too many occasions tried to use what he had to bluff it and got key details wrong. Like the John Major case, where he was half-right, Major was having an affair, but wrong about who with.

It's come out that story about the cook was deliberately fed to cover the Currie affair.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

It's come out that story about the cook was deliberately fed to cover the Currie affair.

Interesting if true. Do you have a source for that?

 

[caesar]

He did to the BIJ/Newsnight people and they proceeded on that basis.

I really think the truth may simply be as banal as Steve Messham didn't really understand the significance of what Lord meant, i.e. that it is an honorific applied to Peers, rather than just a generic term for any really rich landowner from an old family with a big country house, which is a description that would apply to Lord McAlpine's cousin Alfred James "Jimmie" McAlpine (1908-1991) who lived near Wrexham. We know from another victim, Keith Gregory, that the boys from Bryn Estyn were taken there to do gardening, and others have said Jimmie McAlpine drove to the home in his various cars. You can then see that when these victims talked to Scallywag, they would have mentioned this rich McAlpine, the Scallywag journalists then just assumed that it was Lord McAlpine they were talking about, and the victims were none the wiser.

 

[butchersapron]

No, adding text doesn't change the pic.

 

[caesar]

Interesting if true. Do you have a source for that?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2286916.stm

Ms Latimer, the 10 Downing Street caterer falsely named as his lover, has also joined the fray.

She claims Mr Major used her as a "decoy" to prevent what would have been the more politically damaging exposure of the affair he had with Mrs Currie from 1984 to 1988.

Ms Latimer told the BBC that she believed he had allowed the rumours about his affair with her to circulate unchecked to cover his real affair with Mrs Currie, which could have destroyed his chances of becoming prime minister.

"Now I can actually hold my head up high and say it was nothing to do with me.

"He or they or whatever I'd been planted to hide a story, which is the most extraordinary thing to me when you work in a place like Downing Street, to be put into this position."

 

[Treacle Toes]

Lorna Cooper ‏@Coops_tv
"The Mail On Sunday, over two pages, reveals this man is a weirdo." - Says David Mellor of Steven Messham. Just digest that for a moment...

Can someone check this...I think I might be sick.

 

[Corax]

Can someone check this...I think I might be sick.

Funny how rape and abuse victims can sometimes seem a little less happy and balanced than other folks isn't it. You twat Mellor.

 

[tufty79]

Can someone check this...I think I might be sick.

on sunday politics apparently. not on i-player yet though...
the mail on sunday piece is *searches for words* unpleasant, to say the least.

 

[Corax]

on sunday politics apparently. not on i-player yet though...
the mail on sunday piece is *searches for words* unpleasant, to say the least.

Written by David Rose, a paragon of accuracy http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2012/10/david-rose-rebuttal-of-dodgy-science-round-two
And Bob Woffinden, who's made his name by claiming that various people aren't guilty of stuff. And then sometimes changing his mind.

ETA: Oh, and looky here...

I am now certain that the murderer was indeed Jeremy Bamber — and am convinced that, with my co-investigator Richard Webster...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...mber-says-crime-writer.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

 

[nino_savatte]

Written by David Rose, a paragon of accuracy http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2012/10/david-rose-rebuttal-of-dodgy-science-round-two
And Bob Woffinden, who's made his name by claiming that various people aren't guilty of stuff. And then sometimes changing his mind.

ETA: Oh, and looky here...


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...mber-says-crime-writer.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

I wonder if he has any contacts inside the Conservative Research Department? Silly question really.

 

[Vintage Paw]

So all the good things to come from the Savile stuff re: victims of abuse feeling able to come forward and be taken seriously is wiped out with one fucking shit article and another cunt of a Tory trying to discredit a victim of abuse by completely and utterly assassinating his character.

"Gosh, how did we let the Savile stuff happen?" Like this, you motherfucking cunts.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2286916.stm

Hmm, that just said she "believed" it to be the case without saying why. I mean, you can absolutely see why they'd want to spike Scallywag and the NS with a provably incorrect variation on the truth about such a story.

It's a known PR technique perhaps most famously used against to defend GW Bush's military record by spiking veteran US journo Dan Rather with a set of provably fake documentation (damning late 60's - early 70's documents, quite plausibly real ones, typed up on a demonstrably modern typewriter)

Entirely plausible that the recent BBC abuse report debacle is also such a case, just as it's entirely plausible that Scallywag was spiked with a deniable variant on John Major's affair, but both are extremely hard to prove.

I think it's pretty clear in such an atmosphere why emphasising effectively unprovable conspiratorial aspects of such cases is a bad idea when it seems possible that there is actually some stuff here that's provable, but which could easily get buried in lizards.

 

[free spirit]

So, quite possible to attribute a growth in lodge numbers to more reasons than merely a paedophile conspiracy.

fucks sake, I never said the growth in Lodge numbers was a result of a paedophile conspiracy, you asked if North Wales was particularly rife with Freemasonry, that was the question I answered by pointing out that the number of lodges grew by 50% in the period in question, so yes it was a hot bed of freemasonry activity in that period relative to any other period at least.

No-one has said it isn't worth discussing. Amazing how often you see stuff that isn't there. What people have said is Freemasonry isn't worth fixating on. It's one vector among many.

really?

Freemasonry, is a distraction.

All that stuff about freemasons is a bunch of conspiraloon bullshit.

Right now, this masonry thing is just another distraction.

I've not said it should be fixated on, just that it is worth of discussion and investigation without being immediately shouted down as conspiraloon bullshit.

It seems at least one of the victims agrees, as Keith Gregory has specifically called for an investigation of the Masons activities in North Wales.

Evidence is useless unless it is produced.

to an extent.

If the author of the article states that they've seen the evidence then whether or not this is credible relies on the credibility of the author themselves.

For example, when the Independent say they've got a copy of the Jillings report, but don't actually publish it, I'd generally tend to believe them. If david Icke said the same thing, then I'd be highly suspicious of them.

I'm not really clear where this Rebecca lot fall on that scale, but there research and writing certainly seems to be a step up from Icke and his ilk, and they do actually specify quite a bit what the source of their evidence was for each allegation.

 

[MadCatLady]

Written by David Rose, a paragon of accuracy http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2012/10/david-rose-rebuttal-of-dodgy-science-round-two
And Bob Woffinden, who's made his name by claiming that various people aren't guilty of stuff. And then sometimes changing his mind.

ETA: Oh, and looky here...


https://tompride.wordpress.com/2012...s-just-who-is-daily-mail-reporter-david-rose/

Just like the 'fixer' in Pulp Fiction, only sadly this is for real. Truly shocking that the trashing of Messham started, even though it was always on the cards they would resort to this it saddens me deeply.
I've been reading this blog avidly and think you are all doing an amazing job of asking the questions that are needed and keeping the focus on issues that can be explored.

 

[Treacle Toes]

Author of the DM article being called out as a 'fixer', who has form

Who is he?
Oh what a can of worms that question turns out to be.
David Rose seems to be what is known by some people in the trade as a ‘fixer’.
‘Fixers’ obviously ‘fix’ things – in his case, Rose specialises in ‘fixing’ tricky problems which are inconveniencing parts of the more conservative parts of the establishment – by using spin, disinformation and pure lies.
In fact, he’s been specialising in discrediting victims who have accused establishment figures of child abuse for some years now, as well as trying to discredit child abuse investigations as a whole – see here and here.

But interestingly, Rose is also a major player in the disinformation campaign being waged by powerful oil interests and right-wing politicians keen to deny the human causes of climate change.
See here, here and here.

As well as the disinformation campaign that was waged before the invasion of Iraq – see here.

http://tompride.wordpress.com/2012/...s-just-who-is-daily-mail-reporter-david-rose/

 

[butchersapron]

fucks sake, I never said the growth in Lodge numbers was a result of a paedophile conspiracy, you asked if North Wales was particularly rife with Freemasonry, that was the question I answered by pointing out that the number of lodges grew by 50% in the period in question, so yes it was a hot bed of freemasonry activity in that period relative to any other period at least.


really?



I've not said it should be fixated on, just that it is worth of discussion and investigation without being immediately shouted down as conspiraloon bullshit.

It seems at least one of the victims agrees, as Keith Gregory has specifically called for an investigation of the Masons activities in North Wales.


to an extent.

If the author of the article states that they've seen the evidence then whether or not this is credible relies on the credibility of the author themselves.

For example, when the Independent say they've got a copy of the Jillings report, but don't actually publish it, I'd generally tend to believe them. If david Icke said the same thing, then I'd be highly suspicious of them.

I'm not really clear where this Rebecca lot fall on that scale, but there research and writing certainly seems to be a step up from Icke and his ilk, and they do actually specify quite a bit what the source of their evidence was for each allegation.

They say that the brief they had - the bloke keeping them legally up to date was a mason. They say this because they suggest that he was part of a masonic cover up.

You, and people like you, are going to dace this away.

 

[free spirit]

Simon Regan said a lot. What's been substantiated?

well let's see.

he wrote a whole series of articles based on these interviews.

so either he made the entire thing up himself without ever having spoken with any of the victims, and allowed his pursuit of the abusers who's names he'd made up from his own imagination to then ruin him over the next decade as he refused to back down.

or he actually went to Wales and managed to interview a dozen or so victims of the abuse, and then wrote the articles about the people that the victims had named.

or do you think he was too much of a pisshead to even make it on to a train to wales or something.

I'm in no way saying that everything he ever wrote is to be believed (I've said from the off that it should be taken with a big pinch of salt), but I find his claims to have actually interviewed a group of the boys in the early 90s prior to launching his series of articles to be fairly reasonable claims, and the idea that he never interview any of them to be pretty unlikely.

 

[butchersapron]

well let's see.

he wrote a whole series of articles based on these interviews.

so either he made the entire thing up himself without ever having spoken with any of the victims, and allowed his pursuit of the abusers who's names he'd made up from his own imagination to then ruin him over the next decade as he refused to back down.

or he actually went to Wales and managed to interview a dozen or so victims of the abuse, and then wrote the articles about the people that the victims had named.

or do you think he was too much of a pisshead to even make it on to a train to wales or something.

I'm in no way saying that (I've said from the off that it should be taken with a big pinch of salt), but I find his claims to have actually interviewed a group of the boys in the early 90s prior to launching his series of articles to be fairly reasonable claims, and the idea that he never interview any of them to be pretty unlikely.

You are saying everything he ever wrote is to be believed. Why? What material led you to this. Let us all see the trail.

 

[free spirit]

Yes, but free spirit was referring specifically to someone paying someone else for the boys, not to there being a money trail per se

how do you get a money trail without someone being paid by someone else?

 

[smokedout]

Author of the DM article being called out as a 'fixer', who has form

http://tompride.wordpress.com/2012/...s-just-who-is-daily-mail-reporter-david-rose/

thats tom pride who was recently punting round the ben fellows shite just by the way

 

[free spirit]

You are saying verything he ever wrote is to be believed

how do you work that one out then brainiac?

the only reason I've raised this now is because Elbows was trying to identify who the journalist might have been who was showing photos to the boys in the early 90s.

All I'm saying here is that Regan is a likely candidate for being that journalist given that he specifically claimed to have done so in the right period in time, and he was someone who's likely to have put 2 + 2 together and made 5 by mistakenly making the link to Lord McAlpine.