ska invita
back on the other side
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?
If by 'not' you mean none, then yes you have - hundreds were.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?
Why have you posted that nonsense with no comment?
Credibility questions have been raised about this guy due to his running a CTers website / internet radio show.
that sort of crap is best left to the CT sites, could we focus this thread on more serious stuff please?http://aangirfan.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/james-bond-ian-fleming.html?m=1
Getting a touch bonkers now...
I've just seen this.I'm not talking about the spectrum of possibilities, I'm talking about what the OP most likely meant in their opening post.
I did comment, in delay...you missed it.Why have you posted that nonsense with no comment?
I didn't miss it as it didn't exist when i replied.I did comment, in delay...you missed it.
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).
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?
The fact I hedged it with those terms should have given you a bit of a clue of my thoughts on the matter though.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.
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.
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.
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.
on the basis of my judgement after spending several hours researching his back story the other night.On what basis?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haut_de_la_GarenneIn 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]
Fair enough, I haven't seen any of his CT stuff.Credibility questions have been raised about this guy due to his running a CTers website / internet radio show.
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).
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.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.
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.
I specifically stated that it does damage his credibility - I was the first to actually raise that on this thread.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.
Credibility questions have been raised about this guy due to his running a CTers website / internet radio show.
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.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.
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.
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?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/
Sorry, I didn't phrase that very well, I wasn't meaning to refer to the actual cabinet members named in his article.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.
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.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).
I was referring to these stories* you referenced in the post I quoted.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?
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.