Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

BTW did any/many Catholic priests/nuns/etc get prosecuted in Ireland and in other countries? I seem to remember not. Have I got that wrong?
 
Brixton Hatter said:
Ben Fellows' allegations about abuse

And also: http://21stcenturywire.com/2012/10/...tertainment-industry-says-former-child-actor/
Click to expand...
Credibility questions have been raised about this guy due to his running a CTers website / internet radio show.

Having said that, I personally tend to think that this shouldn't always mean everything the guy ever says must be complete fabrications. More take it with a bit of a pinch of salt stuff, but on balance I'd expect that he's generally telling the truth in that article.

It certainly would seem to support the statements made in the daily start article, and would also seem to link in with the apparent scallywag angle of cash for questions turning into 'cash for boys' angle that Elbows mentions, as it would explain his involvement as a 15 year old in the investigation by the cook report (that coincidentally? got shelved after the Guardian broke the cash for questions story before them).
 
free spirit said:
Credibility questions have been raised about this guy due to his running a CTers website / internet radio show.

Having said that, I personally tend to think that this shouldn't always mean everything the guy ever says must be complete fabrications. More take it with a bit of a pinch of salt stuff, but on balance I'd expect that he's generally telling the truth in that article.

It certainly would seem to support the statements made in the daily start article, and would also seem to link in with the apparent scallywag angle of cash for questions turning into 'cash for boys' angle that Elbows mentions, as it would explain his involvement as a 15 year old in the investigation by the cook report (that coincidentally? got shelved after the Guardian broke the cash for questions story before them).
Click to expand...

On what basis?
 
free spirit said:
I've just seen this.

You do appreciate that I am the OP, and as such am probably a bit better placed to know what I meant?
Click to expand...

And I'm talking about how you didn't elucidate what you meant too clearly to others, given that you hedged the OP with so many "seems to", "appears to", "could well haves" etc. :)
 
ViolentPanda said:
And I'm talking about how you didn't elucidate what you meant too clearly to others, given that you hedged the OP with so many "seems to", "appears to", "could well haves" etc. :)
Click to expand...
The fact I hedged it with those terms should have given you a bit of a clue of my thoughts on the matter though.

Anyway, I don't want this thread to digress into another one of those tit for tat threads, let's stick to the point.
 
this is relevant

The Sunday Telegraph has established that the civil servant behind Savile's appointment to take charge of Broadmoor, the high-security hospital, was subsequently prevented from working with children.
Click to expand...
Mr McGinnis, now 74, was prevented from working with children by Croydon Council in 2005, when he was stopped from running a children's church group.
Click to expand...
Three years earlier Bromley Council ended his involvement with services for children with learning difficulties.
The interventions followed police investigations into his conduct during volunteer visits to children's homes.
Click to expand...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journali...Saviles-relatives-speak-of-their-turmoil.html

So the guy who actually recommended Savile be put in charge of Broadmoor, who in 1987 was in charge of the mental health devision of the department of health and social services later turns out to have been either been a paedophile, or at least have had such strong suspicions about him that police investigations lead to him being banned from working with children.

That'd seem to be pretty high level to me.
 
butchersapron said:
On what basis?
Click to expand...
on the basis of my judgement after spending several hours researching his back story the other night.

For me enough of his back story checked out, and the bits that didn't were mostly the bits very early in his career from the 1980s which are very hard to verify on the internet. I'm of the opinion though that he wouldn't have got the parts he got in the films that are listed, and certainly wouldn't have received the funding he did for the films he made himself if he didn't have a backstory that was at the very least similar to the one he gives.

If he's got to have a similar backstory to the one he gives to get that sort of funding and land those parts, then why would he make up an alternative backstory, and specifically why would he not mention the bit parts in the Bill that he does seem to be listed for if he was trying to establish his credibility rather than just giving the relevant bits of his history as a child actor?

If he's made the entire thing up, then he's spent a good 15 years living that same lie, so on balance of probabilities I'm inclined to the view that he's likely to be at least mostly telling the truth, though as I say, I'd take it with a pinch of salt not immediately believe every single thing he said.
 
Not sure if any of this has been posted before:

Sun,Sea and Satan
The documentary made by Pie and Mash Films about Haut de la Garenne

If you can get past the main guy's manner...:hmm:

In March 2008, BBC television personality Jimmy Savile started legal proceedings against The Sun newspaper which had, wrongly he claimed, linked him in several articles to the child abuse scandal at Haut. [19] Savile initially denied visiting Haut de la Garenne, but later admitted that he had done so, following the publication of a photograph showing him at the home surrounded by children.[20] The States of Jersey Police said that in 2008 an allegation of an indecent assault by Savile at the home in the 1970s had been investigated, but there had been insufficient evidence to proceed.[21]
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haut_de_la_Garenne

Sister of film maker Dyana who alledged abuse in Jersey and who part funded the documentary was found dead, and is listed as an unexplained death.

Blog with time line.
 
Brixton Hatter said:
Ben Fellows' allegations about abuse

And also: http://21stcenturywire.com/2012/10/...tertainment-industry-says-former-child-actor/
Click to expand...
free spirit said:
Credibility questions have been raised about this guy due to his running a CTers website / internet radio show.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, I haven't seen any of his CT stuff.

The guy is clearly prepared to stick his neck out though - potentially a risky strategy for him. It's not something you'd do lightly.
 
free spirit said:
It certainly would seem to support the statements made in the daily start article, and would also seem to link in with the apparent scallywag angle of cash for questions turning into 'cash for boys' angle that Elbows mentions, as it would explain his involvement as a 15 year old in the investigation by the cook report (that coincidentally? got shelved after the Guardian broke the cash for questions story before them).
Click to expand...

No, I would not leap to make that link at all. There are plenty of other cabinet members from that time who could fit the Star article, and no way I can see for us to narrow the list down substantially unless we are willing to give a lot of weight to old rumours. There is a human link between the old cash for questions related scallywag rumours and what Ben Fellows said, but the politician you are getting at is only present in the latter, no link involving him is established here at all. Although I am taking a Clouseau 'I suspect no-one, and I suspect everyone' approach, and I may use gossip to guide me through the murky depths, I expect to form no decent conclusions unless more new stuff emerges.
 
free spirit said:
on the basis of my judgement after spending several hours researching his back story the other night.

For me enough of his back story checked out, and the bits that didn't were mostly the bits very early in his career from the 1980s which are very hard to verify on the internet. I'm of the opinion though that he wouldn't have got the parts he got in the films that are listed, and certainly wouldn't have received the funding he did for the films he made himself if he didn't have a backstory that was at the very least similar to the one he gives.

If he's got to have a similar backstory to the one he gives to get that sort of funding and land those parts, then why would he make up an alternative backstory, and specifically why would he not mention the bit parts in the Bill that he does seem to be listed for if he was trying to establish his credibility rather than just giving the relevant bits of his history as a child actor?

If he's made the entire thing up, then he's spent a good 15 years living that same lie, so on balance of probabilities I'm inclined to the view that he's likely to be at least mostly telling the truth, though as I say, I'd take it with a pinch of salt not immediately believe every single thing he said.
Click to expand...
I didn't mention his backstory though - i asked on what basis you think he's telling the truth. Your answer seems to be because his backstory sort of checks out in parts. Why does that weigh heavier than his made up frankly insane CT stuff (the latest radio show he has on his site is with notorious anti-semite Gilad Atzmon for example - do have a look at the rest of them). Ignore the backstory for now and look at this stuff - if you think this sort of stuff "about the Illuminazis, The New World Order, the Rothschilds and how we must take back our country and world from the global elite." doesn't damage his credibility then i think you're being a bit naive.
 
< Brass Eye, animals. About 3 minutes in.

I had someone going on at me this weekend telling me this little segment, as the secretive minister for procuring wild animals, was meant to be a reference to the longstanding rumours that there was a secret government conspiracy to procure kids for sexual abuse.

I think it's bollocks myself but I thought I'd put it on here anyway.
 
Basically the Ben Fellows stuff is not much good unless it is joined by evidence from other sources. The fact that old scallywag rumours involved a cash for questions angle is something, but its not the kind of quality link I'm looking for.

I would not attach it to the Star article I posted earlier in any way at this point.
 
free spirit said:
this is relevant





http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journali...Saviles-relatives-speak-of-their-turmoil.html

So the guy who actually recommended Savile be put in charge of Broadmoor, who in 1987 was in charge of the mental health devision of the department of health and social services later turns out to have been either been a paedophile, or at least have had such strong suspicions about him that police investigations lead to him being banned from working with children.

That'd seem to be pretty high level to me.
Click to expand...

In terms of the Civil Service, yes, reasonably high-level. In terms of the British Establishment, not really. His influence would have been limited to his immediate field of speciality, and he'd have needed to have constructed or accessed an existing network in order to have made anything of his influence.
If an attempt is being made to find out whether there was/is a "high level paedophile ring", then you need to be looking at and/or for people whose professional and/or social position would have allowed them to act as "brokers" between cells of paedophiles, as opposed to people whose position allowed them to indulge their own paedophilia, such as Savile.
 
butchersapron said:
if you think this sort of stuff "about the Illuminazis, The New World Order, the Rothschilds and how we must take back our country and world from the global elite." doesn't damage his credibility then i think you're being a bit naive.
Click to expand...
I specifically stated that it does damage his credibility - I was the first to actually raise that on this thread.

free spirit said:
Credibility questions have been raised about this guy due to his running a CTers website / internet radio show.
Click to expand...

as far as I'm aware though, none of the other stories you posted were based on his own personal experience / history. IMO it's one thing to speculate on all manor of conspiracy theories, it's another to actually lie completely about your own personal experiences as a child - something that's likely to be read and questioned by your family, and to potentially cause them serious distress.

You may disagree, which is your choice, and it's likely to be impossible to prove one way or the other, but personally I'm inclined to believe he's not making the entire thing up/
 
ViolentPanda said:
In terms of the Civil Service, yes, reasonably high-level. In terms of the British Establishment, not really. His influence would have been limited to his immediate field of speciality, and he'd have needed to have constructed or accessed an existing network in order to have made anything of his influence.
If an attempt is being made to find out whether there was/is a "high level paedophile ring", then you need to be looking at and/or for people whose professional and/or social position would have allowed them to act as "brokers" between cells of paedophiles, as opposed to people whose position allowed them to indulge their own paedophilia, such as Savile.
Click to expand...
Presumably though he would have been in a position to influence or close down any internal inquiries, arrange for staff members who were asking awkward questions to be re-allocated and particularly to appoint people in management positions both within the institutions themselves, and within any bodies charged with investigating any abuse internally.

Ie he was in a position which would have specifically enabled him to construct and protect such a network if he wanted to do so.
 
butchersapron said:
I wonder, has anyone seen the scallywag issues that apparently covered the north wales scandal and who named a famous construction fusilier and one other as having their names removed from the waterhouse report on the specific grounds that their being named would force others involved to go underground (as opposed to having paedo on their business card). I'm not saying this is true, but given that it's tied to a specific claim in a specific publication at a specific time i thought maybe someone might remember it - it might of course be the usual conspiracy rubbish helped along by the fact that the mag went bust years back.
Click to expand...

Larry O'Hara said on a previous thread on U75 that he has access to copies of Scallywag!
 
free spirit said:
I specifically stated that it does damage his credibility - I was the first to actually raise that on this thread.



as far as I'm aware though, none of the other stories you posted were based on his own personal experience / history. IMO it's one thing to speculate on all manor of conspiracy theories, it's another to actually lie completely about your own personal experiences as a child - something that's likely to be read and questioned by your family, and to potentially cause them serious distress.

You may disagree, which is your choice, and it's likely to be impossible to prove one way or the other, but personally I'm inclined to believe he's not making the entire thing up/
Click to expand...
Not much point in mentioning stuff that damages his credibility if you then go on to say that you feel he's credible - and on that this belief in his credibility is based on parts of his background appearing to check out (which itself ignores all the parts that don't). And i didn't post any stories about him at all so i'm not sure what you're on about. Maybe you were confused me for frogwoman and others pointing out the conspiracy side of his life two weeks ago when you last argued that he was credible on another thread?
 
elbows said:
No, I would not leap to make that link at all. There are plenty of other cabinet members from that time who could fit the Star article, and no way I can see for us to narrow the list down substantially unless we are willing to give a lot of weight to old rumours. There is a human link between the old cash for questions related scallywag rumours and what Ben Fellows said, but the politician you are getting at is only present in the latter, no link involving him is established here at all. Although I am taking a Clouseau 'I suspect no-one, and I suspect everyone' approach, and I may use gossip to guide me through the murky depths, I expect to form no decent conclusions unless more new stuff emerges.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I didn't phrase that very well, I wasn't meaning to refer to the actual cabinet members named in his article.

The point I was making related to a question I've had about his story, which is why the cook report would want to use a 15 year old boy to go undercover on a cash for questions investigation. This would only make any sense if there was another side to the story where they were targeting politicians with a liking for underage boys.

The Star article combined with the scallywag piece you mentioned would both seem to corroborate at least the idea that there were torys who were suspected of having a liking of underage boys at that time, which would then support his claim that he'd been working undercover on this story for the cook report as a 15 year old.

I'd also suspect that the scallywag article will have been sourced from that shelved cook report investigation, but as it's not available online it can only remain a suspicion unless someone can come up with a copy of the article.
 
butchersapron said:
Not much point in mentioning stuff that damages his credibility if you then go on to say that you feel he's credible - and on that this belief in his credibility is based on parts of his background appearing to check out (which itself ignores all the parts that don't).
Click to expand...
I don't say he's credible in general, I'm saying that I think it's likely that this particular story is actually at least based on truth, but I'd still take it with a pinch of salt.

butchersapron said:
And i didn't post any stories about him at all so i'm not sure what you're on about. Maybe you were confused me for frogwoman and others pointing out the conspiracy side of his life two weeks ago when you last argued that he was credible on another thread?
Click to expand...
I was referring to these stories* you referenced in the post I quoted.

butchersapron said:
Why does that weigh heavier than his made up frankly insane CT stuff (the latest radio show he has on his site is with notorious anti-semite Gilad Atzmon for example - do have a look at the rest of them). Ignore the backstory for now and look at this stuff - if you think this sort of stuff "about the Illuminazis, The New World Order, the Rothschilds and how we must take back our country and world from the global elite." doesn't damage his credibility then i think you're being a bit naive.
Click to expand...


*stories as in articles, pieces.
 
I deliberately didn't post up the ben fellows article on this thread specifically because of his CT links, and the fact that they meant that this thread would disappear into a protracted argument about his credibility and the truth or otherwise of his claims, which nobody can actually substantiate one way or the other anyway.

Now it had been mentioned, I thought it worth bringing up the point that the Star and scallywag points seem to provide some corroboration at least for the idea that the cook report might have considered it worthwhile employing a 15 year old for an undercover investigation into MPs as part of an investigation that was billed as being 'cash for questions'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Kid_Eternity
Is a revolution possible in the UK?
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
195
Views
7K
A380
A380
tim
Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby's time is up.
2 3 4
Replies
98
Views
3K
Dom Traynor
Dom Traynor
Buddy Bradley
How long before we get a proper Tory-style sleaze gaffe from Labour?
Replies
0
Views
213
Buddy Bradley
Buddy Bradley
burtabraham
  • Poll
Should there be an elected second chamber, and how should it be elected?
2 3
Replies
63
Views
2K
Puddy_Tat
Puddy_Tat
B
The status of terms 'people of colour' and BIPOC in the UK
2 3 4 5
Replies
144
Views
7K
likesfish
likesfish
Back
Top Bottom