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

[butchersapron]

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

By not having a money trail. By making sure there isn't one.

 

[butchersapron]

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.

I worked it out through your series of suggestions, the last of which means that you think that it is true. That was the point after all.

Dots. Fading.

 

[audiotech]

Don't mean to derail this thread, but just to note that blacklisted building workers have taken out a claim in the High Court against Robert McAlpine & Sons. I worked on a number of McAlpine sites in the late 60's, including one when a building worker fell to his death due to poor safety standards on-site. Here's some building workers stories and fascinating they are too.

 

[ViolentPanda]

fucks sake, I never said the growth in Lodge numbers was a result of a paedophile conspiracy...

I haven't claimed that you had said that.

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.

So was most of the north-east and south-west of England, by that token.

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.

Which of them said "it isn't worth discussing"? I took each of the quotes you posted as being aimed at "for fuck's sake don't fixate on Freemasonry, that way lies loonspud-dom", rather than "don't talk about Freemasonry at all".

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.

And in his case, he's right to do so if he perceives and can prove that what he claims is actually the case.
However, to build a case for Freemasonry being anything more than one vctor out of many with regard to paedogeddon, you, me and he would all need substantially more evidence than is currently available or has been intimated.

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.

As I said earlier with reference to regan, it's standard journalistic practice to exaggerate the extent of information you hold, because it's an excellent way of "shaking the tree", - convincing people with information that they've more to lose by not coming forward now and giving you information you can use to build your case.

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.

Some of their stuff is very good collation of facts (probably the most important background process in an investigation), although some of it skims the CT world. That';s pretty unavoidable, though, given that most CTs are constructed around the misapprehension of selective facts.[/quote]

 

[MadCatLady]

The masons, the wrong Lord, the Schofield list, the embarrassment of Newsnight - so many strands taking the focus away from the main issue that dozens, maybe hundreds of children have been abused over decades and that high profile people have been involved. It's incredible that the Mail is giving two pages to the trashing of Messham, with numerous other papers giving their column inches to criticising Newsnight, the BBC etc
At the risk of sounding like a frustrated teenaged I want to scream HELLO WORLD has everyone forgotten that jimmy savile is accused of abusing dozens of young people and that he ws the close friend and confidante of govt, royalty and so many senior figures. What kind of alternate universe are we living in when an abuse victim whose life has been scarred from such an early age is being asked to make public apologies and being trashed publicly for the challenging events in his broken life???
You guys on this blog have been making soooooo many excellent connections and focusing not the real facts, please keep up the good work and use your knowledge, experience and connections to make sure this doesn't go away.

 

[ViolentPanda]

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.

You're missing my point, which is that we can all speculate until the sun dies and the planet freezes, but we can't know what Regan had, we can only judge by what he claimed, and the degree of credence an individual gives to Regan's claims will likely vary according to what their position with regard to paedogeddon itself is. Some people will believe without a scrap of evidence, others will say "show me the money". It really is that simple. Myself, I try to confine my speculation to the bounds of possibility and not place too much faith in unknowables. Your mileage may vary.

 

[free spirit]

You're missing my point, which is that we can all speculate until the sun dies and the planet freezes, but we can't know what Regan had, we can only judge by what he claimed, and the degree of credence an individual gives to Regan's claims will likely vary according to what their position with regard to paedogeddon itself is. Some people will believe without a scrap of evidence, others will say "show me the money". It really is that simple. Myself, I try to confine my speculation to the bounds of possibility and not place too much faith in unknowables. Your mileage may vary.

ffs - The ONLY reason I raised Regan again at the point I did was specifically because he fitted the bill as being a likely candidate for being the Journalist showing photos of people he suspected to be abusers to some of the victims in the early 90s.

your further point on the reliabilty of the rest of his claims is irrelevant to the only reason I raised his name again.

Are we really incapable of actually focussing on a specific question without immediately expending that into the whole of everything else ever?

Let's just try to confine ourselves to that specific point for a brief period eh?

SO, do you think it unlikely that Regan actually interviewed some of these boys in the early 90s as he claims, if so why, and if he did, would you agree that he's a fairly likely candidate for being the journalist referred to as having shown some of the kids photos of suspected abusers in that period?

 

[ViolentPanda]

ffs - The ONLY reason I raised Regan again at the point I did was specifically because he fitted the bill as being a likely candidate for being the Journalist showing photos of people he suspected to be abusers to some of the victims in the early 90s.

your further point on the reliabilty of the rest of his claims is irrelevant to the only reason I raised his name again.

Are we really incapable of actually focussing on a specific question without immediately expending that into the whole of everything else ever?

Let's just try to confine ourselves to that specific point for a brief period eh?

Practice what you preach, and I may pay heed.

SO, do you think it unlikely that Regan actually interviewed some of these boys in the early 90s as he claims, if so why, and if he did, would you agree that he's a fairly likely candidate for being the journalist referred to as having shown some of the kids photos of suspected abusers in that period?

I'm sure Regan did interview them, and that he did so in order to establish whether any local, regional or national political figures were involved (given Scallywag's preference for material on politicians as opposed to merely "members of the Establishment"). As for whether Regan touted the photos at the victims, I think it's unlikely, purely because it would be very poor journalistic practice, while Regan was a pro. He'd know that showing pictures of potential abusers to victims would utterly queer any criminal investigation, in terms of giving any defence fair grounds for shrieking "suggestibility", and his raison d'etre was pretty much to nail politicians, if he could.

 

[elbows]

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.

No I wasnt. Not sure if someone else was, all I remember about this from the last 24 hours is you repeatedly assuming it was Regan.

 

[butchersapron]

fs take 6 hours.

 

[free spirit]

I'm sure Regan did interview them, and that he did so in order to establish whether any local, regional or national political figures were involved (given Scallywag's preference for material on politicians as opposed to merely "members of the Establishment"). As for whether Regan touted the photos at the victims, I think it's unlikely, purely because it would be very poor journalistic practice, while Regan was a pro. He'd know that showing pictures of potential abusers to victims would utterly queer any criminal investigation, in terms of giving any defence fair grounds for shrieking "suggestibility", and his raison d'etre was pretty much to nail politicians, if he could.

well maybe, but the accusation as I understand it is that there was a journalist who did this.

So if not regan, then which journalist who was investigating this back then was likely to have been less professional in their approach than him.

I'm getting a bit lost here tbh, on the one hand there's Bernie claiming that Regan was an unreliable drunk when he knew him, and on the other you seem to be suggesting that he's unlikely to be the journalist in question because 'was a pro'.

still, at least we're discussing the point I was making, so thanks for that at least.

I remain of the opinion that he's a likely candidate. Not that it's a particularly important aspect of the whole situation really.

 

[butchersapron]

well maybe, but the accusation as I understand it is that there was a journalist who did this.

That's it?

 

[free spirit]

No I wasnt. Not sure if someone else was, all I remember about this from the last 24 hours is you repeatedly assuming it was Regan.

OK so to be clear, there are four different photo-related aspects to the stories we have heard so far:

1) Photo shown by journalist to victim(s).
2) Faxed photo shown to police by victim(s).
3) Photo shown by police to victim(s).
4) Photos Messham says he stole from an abusers flat and gave to police.

1 & 2 may be the same photos. 3 might be a separate photo, might be one of the number 4 photos. Or might be a mangled memory of 2, with the story inverted.

edited to add that as per a story on channel 4 news earlier this week, a book of photos were destroyed by court order. The suggestion is that these are the photos I labelled as 4 above, although its always possible they were other ones obtained in another manner as part of the inquiry/police investigations.

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.

ok, maybe it wasn't a question you directly posed, but it was a question implied by your post, and your post was the reason I raised the subject.

 

[free spirit]

That's it?

well obviously there are a whole series of other accusations, but that was the point I was relating to when raising Regan as a candidate, as should be clear from my first post on the subject where that's what I specifically said.

 

[cesare]

Always good to keep an eye on Ian Bone's blog, imo.

 

[elbows]

Much as I dont want to defend the Daily Mail and their tone, I should point out that a chunk of whats in their article about Messham was known here a while ago, and the extra details they provide are not very surprising.

Anyway since some are interested in what journalist may have shown him photos (probably faxed ones) I should probably also mention this bit from the mail article:

​

It was put to him in court that just days before he began making claims to reporters, he had approached police to complain he was being harassed by a journalist, who was trying to put words in his mouth.​

​

In a signed statement, he said: ‘At no time did [the officer] ever sexually abuse me,’ adding that a journalist ‘wanted me to say things that were not the truth’.​

​

​

​

 

[ViolentPanda]

well maybe, but the accusation as I understand it is that there was a journalist who did this.

So if not regan, then which journalist who was investigating this back then was likely to have been less professional in their approach than him.

Speculatively and on an informed hunch, if I were going to point a finger anywhere, I'd point at the journalists who worked the story for the Telegraph. Why? Purely on the basis that editors and journalists have served as a conduit for security service disinformation, and partook of the odd "dirty trick" with a regularity that could be described as "monotonous", whereas other journos seem to do so on a more ad hoc basis (usually arm-twisting).

I'm getting a bit lost here tbh, on the one hand there's Bernie claiming that Regan was an unreliable drunk when he knew him, and on the other you seem to be suggesting that he's unlikely to be the journalist in question because 'was a pro'.

I've known plenty of alcoholic journos who were still utterly professional. bThe two things aren't at all mutually-exclusive.

still, at least we're discussing the point I was making, so thanks for that at least.

I remain of the opinion that he's a likely candidate. Not that it's a particularly important aspect of the whole situation really.

All pieces of information are important parts of the overarching puzzle. The trick is to not place too much faith in any piece, but to try and complete the puzzle.

 

[MadCatLady]

Wonder how many more will use this headline/defence before this scandal/expose is over?


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...s-ex-BBC-producer-arrested-for-sex-abuse.html

 

[teqniq]

I think this blog has been linked to either on this thread or one of the others. The post linked to here calls into question the motives of the journalist in the Mail concerning the article on Messham. It suggests, with links that he is a 'fixer'.

No litigious names or anything as far as I have looked.

 

[Treacle Toes]

Wonder how many more will use this headline/defence before this scandal/expose is over?


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...s-ex-BBC-producer-arrested-for-sex-abuse.html

As an aside, I wonder when the family decided to put that ' in the name. It still reads as 'Death'.

 

[Corax]

Always good to keep an eye on Ian Bone's blog, imo.

In 1985 acting on behsalf of the Brixton police Commander Marnoch he [Rose] wrote a ludicrous piece in the Guardian saying the Brixton riot had been jointly organised by Class War and the NationalFront.

Fuckin lol.

 

[Corax]

As an aside, I wonder when the family decided to put that ' in the name. It still reads as 'Death'.

Given his mother's fetishisation of Hitler, I'm surprised she didn't remove the apostrophe and suffix "head".

 

[free spirit]

Speculatively and on an informed hunch, if I were going to point a finger anywhere, I'd point at the journalists who worked the story for the Telegraph. Why? Purely on the basis that editors and journalists have served as a conduit for security service disinformation, and partook of the odd "dirty trick" with a regularity that could be described as "monotonous", whereas other journos seem to do so on a more ad hoc basis (usually arm-twisting).

interesting theory.

what time period were they reporting this in?

I'd think this must have been around the time of the libel trial against the Independant, Scallywag etc at the start of the 90's, which is around when I understand that Scallywag first got involved. Were the Telegraph reporting this as far back as then in sufficient detail to actually have a reporter on the ground showing these photos around?

All pieces of information are important parts of the overarching puzzle. The trick is to not place too much faith in any piece, but to try and complete the puzzle.

I agree, but you can't complete a puzzle by focussing constantly on the big picture, you have to chip away at it by focussing on individual pieces one piece at a time, then the big picture becomes clear and the remaining pieces start to fall into place more easily.

This is what I've been trying to do, but every time I start to focus on one specific part of the situation I get accused of all manner of stuff from posters who prefer to jump to conclusions and assume that every time I post about one aspect I must be making wild claims about it being the entire cause of the situation or something instead of actually reading what I've written where I clearly state that this is not what I'm doing.

 

[elbows]

Oh well at least Mellors disgusting comments caused a backlash.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/nov/11/david-mellor-steve-messham-weirdo

 

[Treacle Toes]

Oh well at least Mellors disgusting comments caused a backlash.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/nov/11/david-mellor-steve-messham-weirdo

#mellor Been trending on Twitter most of the day along with widespread condemnation of the presenter for not challenging him untill aftr the twitter storm about Mellor's comments raged.

 

[elbows]

Shy Keenan ‏@ShyKeenan
David Mellor! Your institutionalised Anti-Victim Prejudice is showing! Will be in touch about your 'weirdo' comment #AVP

Dr Sara Payne MBE ‏@DrSaraPayneMBE
@ShyKeenan Oh dear Mr Mellor you've just crossed the line, I'll be helping @ShyKeenan get in touch re; your #AVP 'weirdo' comment

 

[Treacle Toes]

Re author of DM article:

David Rose's interesting career goes all the way back to 1985. http://www.searchlight.org.uk/o-hara/tricks.html … This is the man who smeared #Messham today

 

[DJ Squelch]

Messham didn't need smearing by the Daily Mail.

 

[ViolentPanda]

interesting theory.

what time period were they reporting this in?

From around the start of the 20th century-onward (hard to believe, I know). It's kind of a running joke with the rest of the print media that most political stories that cite "sources" but don't say "...close to" a key protagonist in the story have usually been laid off on the journo by a friendly spook. Private Eye too, throughout their history, have constantly taken the piss out of the Telegraph for being such a willing, uncritical conduit.

I'd think this must have been around the time of the libel trial against the Independant, Scallywag etc at the start of the 90's, which is around when I understand that Scallywag first got involved. Were the Telegraph reporting this as far back as then in sufficient detail to actually have a reporter on the ground showing these photos around?

They were as "interested" as any other paper, and they reported on separate abuse scandals from the '70s-onward, so it's entirely possible. As I said, I only speculate in that direction due to the Telegraph's well-known status as a filter for spook-created fictions (they were also the favoured dissemination point for propaganda by the likes of Brian Crozier during the Cold War because of their willingness to print stuff passed to them by the security services)

I agree, but you can't complete a puzzle by focussing constantly on the big picture, you have to chip away at it by focussing on individual pieces one piece at a time, then the big picture becomes clear and the remaining pieces start to fall into place more easily.

This is what I've been trying to do, but every time I start to focus on one specific part of the situation I get accused of all manner of stuff from posters who prefer to jump to conclusions and assume that every time I post about one aspect I must be making wild claims about it being the entire cause of the situation or something instead of actually reading what I've written where I clearly state that this is not what I'm doing.

Possibly because you don't appear to be applying much scepticism (in the old-fashioned sense of the word) to those pieces you're looking at.

 

[tweeglitch]

Apologies if this is covered ground as i haven't read all of this thread and also for the length of this post but it does build to what seems to me at least a solid conclusion, well unless or until someone pulls it apart... asuming it's worth the attention.

The British security services knew. Anyone with access to Prime Ministers and royalty would have been vetted. A regular Christmas guest of Thatcher, a personal friend of royalty from Prince Charles to Mountbatten. He would have been vetted. And anyone who was broadcast live on the BBC was vetted. So given his crimes were an open secret to so many in the entertainment industry, anyone with the resources of mi5 whose job it would have been to investigate him would have known what he was.

So perhaps his personal sexual interests weren't considered a security issue and mi5 were only interested in rooting out commies? Well considering the people he mixed with, the blackmail potential from drawing such high powered people in to his activities would have been very marketable to other governments particularly during the cold war. So one way or another he most certainly would have been the business of mi5.

Then why wasn't anything done? Maybe because a large part of the British ruling elite are involved in the very same kind of thing he got up to with Jim in an ideal position to fix it for them - to supply the goods to satisfy their needs with his unusual access to children's homes and hospitals through out the land. And if he fell then he'd take these powerful clients of his down with him, hence the reason things are coming out now he's dead.

Ah but if it was simply the case that he got away with what he did for so long because he held too many powerful people to ransom then, well the likes of mi5 aren't above quietly bumping off anyone who's a problem in that way, anyone with a shred of decency shouldn't have been above bumping that one off! Or at least it would be an easily dealt with threat: one man (attempting to blackmail the state) versus the UK security apparatus. So there must have been a different kind of relationship between Savile and mi5 if he was allowed to get away with what he did for so long right under their own noses, royalty's noses and various prime ministers' noses through the ages.

So am I jumping to conclusions and putting 2 and 2 together here to make 5? If there's a fault in my reasoning please point it out but the only explanation i can think of for him to not have been considered a security threat and so dealt with is that Savile and what he did was part of the security apparatus.

And what might his work on behalf of the realm involve? Well he would have been in an ideal position to farm out kids on an industrial scale from the warehouses (children’s' homes and hospitals) he had the run of. Farmed out to those with power and wealth for their own gratification. Or to be used as blackmail fodder by the state to compromise then control politicians in the UK and diplomats and dignitaries from abroad.

And/Or. And this seems more likely given he's been such an integral part of the BBC for so long and given mi5 were so interested in the backgrounds of so many BBC employees, his job was to compromise BBC staff by honey trapping them with children so the BBC could be kept firmly under the thumb.

He was rich but not fabulously so i wonder what his reward was? The keys to hospitals and kids homes up and down the land with the freedom to fuck what/who/when he wanted for five or so decades perhaps? That might answer the question so many have been asking: 'how did he get away with so much for so long?'

Perhaps the subject of the conversations he would have had with Thatcher every Christmas visit to 10 Downing St 11 years on the trot was what politically useful dirt he had on who. Perhaps this is what Charles was referring to in the note he sent with Savile's birthday present of a pair of golden cuff links: "Nobody will ever know what you have done for this country. This is to go some way in thanking you for that". Maybe it's not too hard to work out what that was. The was name was Savile, James Savile.

So relating this to the thread title can we take it as read that there is a high level long term UK paedophile network and that mi5 are an integral part of it? Or at least the mi5 involvement is an investigative thread worth following? It's certainly something the mainstream media aren't interested in; bang in 'savile' and 'mi5' into google's news search and you don't get much in return. The mainstream media are currently interested in BBC bashing, questioning victims' credibility and whining about witch hunts when quite clearly there are witches who need to be hunted out.