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

[ViolentPanda]

Are you sure about that?

Larry's being libelled!

 

[Treacle Toes]

Another blog- voiceforchildren

 

[teqniq]

Max Keiser interviews Leah McGrath Goodman on Jersey

 

[ViolentPanda]

I meant what period did they start reporting the welsh abuse cases in, as in when would their reporter have potentially been in the area to show the kids these photos.

Must have been around '90-'91ish, as a mate doing background on the abuse story for the Express passed away in September '91 (natural causes - mashed liver), and every daily and sunday had journos on the hunt for exclusive info.

Unfortunately google doesn't go that far back, so I don't really know how to check, though they weren't parties of the original libel trial, which makes me think they're less likely candidates than someone who was.

Only current way to check is the newspaper's own archives, which for most papers is a pay service.

I'm also struggling a bit tbh with trying to work out why the spooks would have wanted to put Lord McAlipe's name in the frame even if they were involved. It seems a bit of an odd thing for them to do at that stage in proceedings.

Perhaps because doing so would almost certainly lead to the story being discredited. If (and it's not a great stretch) the spooks knew that a member of the McAlpine family was fucking children, then labelling paedo McAlpine as Lord McAlpine to impressionable kids plants a seed that can later grow to discredit any and all claims by the victims.

you could be right, but I'd find it hard to see this as the more likely scenario tbh.

I don't think it's any more or less likely that anything yet proposed. All it is, is a possibility given the Telegraph's historic function as a conduit for disinformation.

if you ignore all the bits where I make clear my scepticism about some of these sources, and explain the fact that it's virtually impossible to really verify them one way or another, but that I've tried to verify the bits that can be checked, then I'd entirely agree with your point. Perhaps I need to put the same disclaimer on every post, but from now on please take it as read that if I've made that sort of disclaimer about a source once, then it applies from that point onwards until I say otherwise.

AFAIK I'm the only one who was sceptical enough about that PEBPR website that article is hosted on to bother trawling through internet records to determine that while the articles posted are mostly dated to a decade or more ago, the website itself almost certainly only went live towards the back end of September just days before the Jimmy Savile story broke.

It seems I'm the only one who thinks that's a wee bit suspicious seeing as nobody commented when I mentioned it.

Perhaps some of us didn't think it was worth commenting on, given how many new sites full of CT stuff have sprung up in the wake of Savile?

 

[caesar]

I meant what period did they start reporting the welsh abuse cases in, as in when would their reporter have potentially been in the area to show the kids these photos.

Unfortunately google doesn't go that far back, so I don't really know how to check, though they weren't parties of the original libel trial, which makes me think they're less likely candidates than someone who was.

1991 is when the first reports came in the Guardian. It was alleged in Scallywag that in 1990 Thatcher had already been informed about the allegations against McAlpine and that is why he left the country the same year for Australia.

 

[caesar]

Only current way to check is the newspaper's own archives, which for most papers is a pay service.

If you have a library card many library services offer home access to a lot of online reference services i.e. Newspaper archives going back to the 18th C up to present day, OED, DNB, Who's Who, Groves, Naxos Music Library, Journals.

 

[butchersapron]

Think Angus Stickler is about to go too, which pretty much means the outfit is busted.
Its sad because investigative journalism is needed now more than ever and is under more pressure than ever because ad revenues decline and cost cutting, production costs and bloated management costs and salaries means fewer and fewer resources put into it.

He's going to get hamerred over why has either kept this in his pocket for 8 years or if he didn't, why he brought it up right now.

 

[Flanflinger]

Well the truth is going to be well and truly buried now.

 

[elbows]

He did tweet earlier for the first time in a while.

Nick Davies ‏@Bynickdavies
Mail on Sunday say I’m with Bureau of Investigative Journalism. Untrue. They attack BBC for not checking but don't check themselves.

I've moaned about the other stuff in this Mail article in the other thread, but thought I would point out their correction, it wasnt just Nick Davies that they wrongly associated with the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, it was quite a list!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...astrophic-Lord-McAlpine-Newsnight-report.html

An early version of this article posted on November 11 stated that certain journalists were involved with the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. ​

These were Nick Davies, Heather Brooke, Phillip Knightley, Martin Bright, Misha Glenny, Mark Hollingsworth, Andrew Jennings and David Leigh.​

​

We are happy to clarify that in fact none has ever been involved with, or worked for, the BIJ.​

​

In addition we stated that City University’s former head of journalism Adrian Monck was an adviser to the Bureau. This was not the case.​

​

​

 

[Badger Kitten]

If you show someone a photo of their alleged living abuser and the alleged abuser is then nicked and the abuse case then goes to trial, would you then run the risk of contaminating witness evidence by suggesting to them the Identity of the attacker?

Is this why NN did not do the photo thing? Or have I got this completely wrong?

 

[caesar]

If you show someone a photo of their alleged living abuser and the alleged abuser is then nicked and the abuse case then goes to trial, would you then run the risk of contaminating witness evidence by suggesting to them the Identity of the attacker?

Is this why NN did not do the photo thing? Or have I got this completely wrong?

I did think that, maybe they could have had a virtual line up with a lot of random upper class types, pin the tail on the donkey time.

 

[ViolentPanda]

If you show someone a photo of their alleged living abuser and the alleged abuser is then nicked and the abuse case then goes to trial, would you then run the risk of contaminating witness evidence by suggesting to them the Identity of the attacker?

Yes. As I said earlier, not only do you contaminate the witness's memory (memory is reconstructive in nature, the suggestion may "over-write" details into previous memories about the abuser), but you also make it likely that if the abuser is prosecuted, their defence is able to use the contamination to push the story that their client is not guilty.
This is why current police ID line-up practice in the UK is video-play of a line-up, with clips of people chosen to look like the suspect, with all clips recorded in the same light and shown to the witness for the same timespan. Nothing suggested, just a formula request to ID the suspect from the line-up.

Is this why NN did not do the photo thing? Or have I got this completely wrong?

It may have been, or it may just have been slackness.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I did think that, maybe they could have had a virtual line up with a lot of random upper class types, pin the tail on the donkey time.

One problem that most of the media don't appear to have bothered to take account of (or perhaps they don't want to) is that a fairly common reaction to trauma is peri-traumatic dissociation. This isn't, as some advocates might wish you to believe, the victim entirely blanking out the trauma a la people who "recovered memories" of being victims of Satanic abuse cults. It's the mind blunting the immediate effects of the trauma by effectively removing the victim one step from their abuse. It's also a reason why some assault victims aren't able to fully physically-resist.
What such dissociation can also do, unfortunately, is blunt memory detail, especially visual detail, which would mean that a line-up of generic middle-aged male toffs might trigger no recall, even if the line-up contained the abuser.

 

[Buckaroo]

One problem that most of the media don't appear to have bothered to take account of (or perhaps they don't want to) is that a fairly common reaction to trauma is peri-traumatic dissociation. This isn't, as some advocates might wish you to believe, the victim entirely blanking out the trauma a la people who "recovered memories" of being victims of Satanic abuse cults. It's the mind blunting the immediate effects of the trauma by effectively removing the victim one step from their abuse. It's also a reason why some assault victims aren't able to fully physically-resist.
What such dissociation can also do, unfortunately, is blunt memory detail, especially visual detail, which would mean that a line-up of generic middle-aged male toffs might trigger no recall, even if the line-up contained the abuser.

"Physically-resist"? You're right about dissociation but there is a difference between visual memory and episodic memory. The integrity of investigations are only as valid as the motivations of those doing the investigating. With hundreds of victims and several investigations it would be more surprising not to find inconsistencies which could be used to discredit victims and witnesses but the issue here is if a network of people used their power and connections to commit crimes and subsequently to cover them up. And that could mean anything from using legal shenannigans and media fixers to murder.

 

[Corax]

An early version of this article posted on November 11 stated that certain journalists were involved with the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.
These were Nick Davies, Heather Brooke, Phillip Knightley, Martin Bright, Misha Glenny, Mark Hollingsworth, Andrew Jennings and David Leigh.

We are happy to clarify that in fact none has ever been involved with, or worked for, the BIJ.

In addition we stated that City University’s former head of journalism Adrian Monck was an adviser to the Bureau. This was not the case.

Finally, we are happy to clarify that we are indeed utter, utter cunts, and that our publication is nothing more than satan's fetid stool

FTFT.

 

[William of Walworth]

Not the slightest bit surprised that Nick Davies is keeping his investigative cards very close to his chest, it's only common sense for him for him to do so, given what Twitter, the net, other media would do if any elements of it leaked out in advance.

Agreeing strongly with free spirit's recent thoughts from those earlier ND articles -- incompetence rather than conspiracy. Again, that's only common sense really.

 

[Badger Kitten]

Not the slightest bit surprised that Nick Davies is keeping his investigative cards very close to his chest, it's only common sense for him for him to do so, given what Twitter, the net, other media would do if any elements of it leaked out in advance.

Agreeing strongly with free spirit's recent thoughts from those earlier ND articles -- incompetence rather than conspiracy. Again, that's only common sense really.

Incompetence or pressure not to be too competent?

 

[Corax]

Not the slightest bit surprised that Nick Davies is keeping his investigative cards very close to his chest, it's only common sense for him for him to do so, given what Twitter, the net, other media would do if any elements of it leaked out in advance.

Agreeing strongly with free spirit's recent thoughts from those earlier ND articles -- incompetence rather than conspiracy. Again, that's only common sense really.

I see little difference from what's been posted to be honest. "Conspiracies" very rarely exist at all IMO, but cover-ups do. What was described sounded like cover-up to me. The motivation may be saving resources with a failure to prioritise the investigation adequately, rather than the deliberate protection of abusers. The form may be the neglect of evidence and investigation, rather than actively hiding it. But a cover-up it remains.

 

[Lysdexia]

Long time lurkio.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-20302198

Council find 'missing' Jillings report. This could be a significant find if published

 

[Pickman's model]

Long time lurkio.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-20302198

Council find 'missing' Jillings report. This could be a significant find if published

if they publish... they'll be sued to fuck by their insurers for fraud for suppressing the report i suspect, and thereby being charged lower premiums.

 

[cesare]

if they publish... they'll be sued to fuck by their insurers for fraud for suppressing the report i suspect, and thereby being charged lower premiums.

But once its continued existence is known, it's available to be be disclosed in litigation etc. All of a sudden, it exists again.

 

[Pickman's model]

But once its continued existence is known, it's available to be be disclosed in litigation etc. All of a sudden, it exists again.

it will all end in tears

 

[1%er]

I see little difference from what's been posted to be honest. "Conspiracies" very rarely exist at all IMO, but cover-ups do. What was described sounded like cover-up to me. The motivation for the cover-up may be a failure to prioritise it adequately rather than the protection of abusers. The form may be the neglect of evidence and investigation rather than actively hiding it. But a cover-up it remains.

This is an interesting point. People in power not saying anything to rock the boat is all part of the system.

If you cause trouble by bring this sort of thing into the public domain you are not likely to advance up the greasy pole, be that in politics, the police and many other institutions. Its cultural and will not change.

 

[newbie]

.

 

[Pickman's model]

.

well i never

 

[MadCatLady]

Long time lurkio.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-20302198

Council find 'missing' Jillings report. This could be a significant find if published

Erm, didn't the Independent say they had a copy yesterday?

 

[Corax]

well i never

It's all lies.

 

[elbows]

Long time lurkio.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-20302198

Council find 'missing' Jillings report. This could be a significant find if published

I object to the following wording in that article:

Although not named by the programme, this led to incorrect speculation on the internet that the man in question was former Tory treasurer Lord McAlpine.

There was some incorrect speculation on the internet but not in that instance - it was the accusation that was incorrect, not the internet speculation.

 

[free spirit]

Not the slightest bit surprised that Nick Davies is keeping his investigative cards very close to his chest, it's only common sense for him for him to do so, given what Twitter, the net, other media would do if any elements of it leaked out in advance.

Agreeing strongly with free spirit's recent thoughts from those earlier ND articles -- incompetence rather than conspiracy. Again, that's only common sense really.

The thing is though, when taken over several decades, what starts as incompetence, budget restrictions etc will inevitably turn into conspiracy to at the very least keep that covered up, unless someone exposes it or you've got that rare breed of politician / management involved who cares more about truth and justice than their own careers.

This may just stay at a local level, but local politicians have a habit of ending up in westminster, so you end up with the daft situation of the leader of Islington council from 1982-92 at the time that a massive child abuse scandal was going on and being covered up (or at least not having the resources allocated to deal with it once it was reported) in its childrens homes, then ending up being appointed as the Children's Minister 10 years after she resigns from the council.

I don't think any of this starts with politicians having a meeting and deciding they're going to spend the next 30 years covering up child abuse, but I do think that they'll ignore complaints of child abuse and fail to allocate the resources needed, and get whistle blowers sacked to try to avoid there being a scandal that ruins their careers, then spend the rest of their careers conspiring to cover up for the fact that they allowed this to happen on their watch, and if that means that child abusers get to carry on abusing kids in the process... well that's just the price of a successful political career, and they're only scummer kids anyway, so it's all for the greater good eh what.

That's roughly how I see it working, and if they're involved in the masons or other clubs, then they'll use their connections within them to assist them in their arse covering.

That's just the politicians not doing their jobs properly then covering their arses side of things.

The paedophiles themselves have obviously got a hell of a lot more to hide, and from the sheer number of cases over the years that involve networks of (proven and alleged) dozens of paedophiles being active in an area / around a hub (or apparently in Savile and others cases several areas) for decades, there's got to be a fair old conspiracy of silence going on there. As paedophilia isn't confined to the working class, probability alone dictates that there almost certainly will be a fair number of paedophiles high enough up in society both in local government and judiciary terms, or central government and civil service to make active conspiracies from participants at those levels to be more likely than not IMO.

Essentially this whole idea of paedophiles generally being loners, which is / was the guiding principle on which child protection policy in this country has been based for decades, just doesn't fit with the evidence from the cases I quoted last night and the many others that have come out over the years. If these instances of long term endemic paedophile activity are to be tackled properly much earlier in future, then I reckon the starting point is to recognise this and then consider the changes in the scales of investigative resources and support this entails if it's to be tackled.

It's not enough to be reactive when investigating paedophile activity, they need to go after it as if they're taking down mafia organisations, using one paedophile to lead them through the network and take the entire network down - as they did in the Bristol investigation which resulted in 60 paedophiles being uncovered from the starting point of one building (which had basically been ignored for years before despite several reports being received about it).

eta - this is something that does seem to have been improving over the last 10-15 years, but is the exact opposite of what the government is now proposing to do as they're ripping up the current safeguarding protocol and replacing it with something much less detailed.

The revised version has removed all reference to the investigation of organised or institutional abuse.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/social-care-network/2012/nov/09/child-protection-guidance-under-threat

 

[elbows]

Looks like Cyril Smith is not going to be forgotten: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-the-truth-about-sir-cyril-smith-8306857.html